Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles worst math idiots of 21st century with slant cut in single cone as ellipse. Worst morons of math than James Kibo Parry with his 938 is 12% short of 945, or his mindless sketch claiming it is a proof. Why on Earth does the moron Tao and Wiles not admit a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry-- ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, yet mindless math idiots like Tao and Wiles are honored with math awards when they should be cutting the grass at Berkeley or Oxford, not polluting the minds of youngsters.

On Wednesday, September 28, 1994 at 5:14:31 AM UTC-5, James Kibo Parry wrote:
> What fun! Let's all play!
> Mr. Potato Head: Eyes and Nose are Interchangeable
> Daffy Duck: Silence is Foo!
> Lyndon LaRouche: Equivalence of KGB and NBC and CIA and EEC
> The Incredible Hulk: Equivalence of Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno
> Ronald McDonald: Equivalence of Happy Meal and nutrition
> (disproved)
> -- K.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
 > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

> Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed
>

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.

Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#11-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

On 5/10/2022 10:19 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles worst math idiots of 21st century with slant cut in single cone as ellipse. Worst morons of math than James Kibo Parry with his 938 is 12% short of 945, or his mindless sketch claiming it is a proof. Why on Earth does the moron Tao and Wiles not admit a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry-- ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, yet mindless math idiots like Tao and Wiles are honored with math awards when they should be cutting the grass at Berkeley or Oxford, not polluting the minds of youngsters.
[...]

https://www.hhblife.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CNX_Calc_Figure_11_05_002.jpg