Jan Burse,ETH,Michael Struwe,Mete Soner,Benjamin Sudakov,Alain Sznitman,Josef Teichmann,Wendelin Werner are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.
>
>Jan Burse,ETH,Mete Soner,Norbert Hungerbuhler,Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer,Michael Struwe are they forever going to be mindless idiots of math--slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse geometry.

Jan Burse of Zurich Switzerland with his hate-speech of Google Search-- --- ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED --- "Young student reporters from the Dartmouth chronicles.. on his wheelchair.."
tsk,tsk,tsk-- why do the Swiss look for the most hate mongering shithead in all of Switzerland to run their ISP???

Earle Jones's profile photo
Earle Jones
, …
Michael Moroney
67
unread,
"Psychoceramics"
"necrophile"
19Jan2023, 1:42 AM


Trolidan7's profile photo
Trolidan7
, …
Michael Moroney
4 unread,
Re: Nobel physics prize to Roger Penrose is like giving V.Putin the Nobel prize in Peace and Penrose imp is on cover of New Scientist-- why he cannot tell a oval from a ellipse, and the idiot yaks about origin of Universe. Roger, you belong in the circus
1:34 AM


>
> And here you can plainly see the side EC is smaller than CF, while a ellipse requires them to be equal
> ......./\E
> ...../ c.\
> F / .......\
>
> entrance E of planar cut, and "c" the center axis, and F the exit of planar cut, cF is far larger than Ec.
>
> Are they trying to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar rather than legitimate math with endless day after day spam?
>
> Jan Burse (Mostow Coll) 158 "Who recognizes.. dark numbers"
> Sergi_o 68, "Questions on...."
> Wolfgang Mueckenheim 324 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> of the fine Bacarisse cheese
> Ben Bacarisse 323 "Three proofs of dark numbers..."
> FromTheRafters (more like gutters) 221 "Two similar..."
> Sergi_o 161 "Two similar..."
> Ben Bacarisse 133, "Two similar properties..."
>
>
> WM turning Gottingen Germany into geometry failures.
> Kibo chasing corpses in WM gay pick up bar, for Kibo sure does not know the difference between Oval and ellipse as seen in his latest stupidity-- a revolving axis as Kibo the moron and BWR describes it--
>
> Let's try again with your little diagram, fixed.
> > > >>> .......A
> > > >>> ....../.\E
> > > >>> ...../.C.\
> > > >>> ..../B....\
> > > >>> .../.......\
> > > >>> .F/....G....\
> > >
> > > You chose point C to be the intersection of line segment EF and the axis
> > > of the cone AG. As you say segment EC is smaller than CF. Not in
> > > dispute. But that doesn't show that the intersecting curve isn't
> > > symmetric around EF. C is not the center of EF. To see if the
> > > intersection figure is symmetric around EF, you obviously have to start
> > > at the center, the halfway point of EF. Here I called it B, and the
> > > length BE = length BF. Now you need to show that the curve is or is not
> > > symmetric around B. That the width at B+d is or is not = the width at
> > > B-d, as bwr stated. Not quite as simple.
> >
>
>
> 26
> RE: 2-Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games. Instead of doing Physics, both Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Else want to play games of ad hominem. Whenever physics proves AP is correct, neither
> Jan 13, 2023, 4:39 PM
> 
> WM's profile photo
> WM
> , …
> Jan Burse aka
> Mostowski Collapse
> 151
> Who recognizes these true pioneers of dark numbers?
> Interestingly if you define rearrangement as any sequence with infinitely many O and infinitely many
> 4:29 PM
> 
>
> 15
> Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
> 
>
>
>
> Head up his arse Jan Burse. Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, is every ETH professor head up his arse like Burse???
>
>
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 5:16:14 PM UTC-6, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > > Q: Is an oval a conic section?
> > >
> > > A: An oval is not a conic section. A conic section
> > > is the intersection of a plane with a cone. The four
> > > types of conic sections are the circle, ellipse, parabola,
> > > and hyperbola. An oval is a shape that is similar to an
> > > ellipse but is not mathematically defined as a conic section.
> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > Urs Lang
> > Rahul Pandharipande
> > Richard Pink
> > Tristan Riviere
> > Dietmar Salamon
> > Martin Schweizer
> > Mete Soner
> > Michael Struwe
> > Benjamin Sudakov
> > Alain Sznitman
> > Josef Teichmann
> > Wendelin Werner
> > Thomas Willwacher
> >
> > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> >
> >
> > University Bern
> > Christian Leumann
> > Walter Benjamin
> > Emil Theodor Kocher
> > Kurt Wuthrich
> > Daniel Vassella
> > Rene Fasel
> > Mani Matter
> > My 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 14May2022. 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 the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 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 ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > #12-2, 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)