On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 7:53:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> 4:31 PM (3 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 1:56 PM (2 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> Hi, a lot of questions here, John, and will answer all of them, but not all at once. Each question deserves some lengthy time response. So will answer them all, but over time.
>
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:34:04 PM UTC-5, John Sylvester wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 7:04:52 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 8:36:38 AM UTC-5, John Sylvester wrote:
> > > > To Archimedes Plutonium,
> > > >
> > > > I would like to have a conversation with you, if you don't mind, and ask you questions about your scientific theories. If you would be willing to, please contact me in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > J. S.
> > > Hi, John, thanks for the question. I am here in sci.physics every day of the year, a free and open channel is sci.physics. So fire away on any question. And if stalkers and hate mongers invade the thread, well, just ignore them.
> > >
> > > Impossible to turn sci.physics, sci.math back to its pristine days of August 1993, but still, these two newsgroups are top communication of science, far better than any science book, science magazine, science research report. For the very best of all in science is now communicated over a Free & Open channel.
> > >
> > > Fire away....
> > >
> > > AP
> > Thanks for your response, AP.
> >
> > I would like to ask you the following questions about sci.math and sci.physics, or Usenet in general. There are quite a few, please only answer those which you are comfortable with, in as much or little detail as you wish.. Whatever insights you can give me are much appreciated.
> >
> I am comfortable with all questions, provided they are serious and sincere.
> > -You seem to have been here for a very long time, you mention August 1993 - you're perhaps the longest continuous user of these forums. You talk about the pristine days and I've seen you speak about how nowadays they have devolved into a lot of spam. Do you know the reason why sci.math/sci.physics etc. devolved into spam, and/or can you pinpoint a rough date around which this occured?
> >
> Yes, I wrote a book on this question of yours. For when I came to Usenet in 1993, there was a sea change about 1996, where it seemed as though dot edu addresses by posters with real true names and the colleges and universities they were posting from seemed to abruptly stop. Few edu addresses, after 1996 and by early 2000, only a handful of posters with dot edu addresses, and most posters with fake names.
>
> I lived through Usenet from August 1993 to present, almost every day.
>
> And what I attribute the decline of dot edu address and real true names is the incursion of police, FBI, CIA drag net spam. Not the stalkers and stupid spammers on topic. But from drag net spam by government and police. My book gives details of this spam. And now today, anyone can look at the bombed out husk of a shell of sci.chem newsgroup. Not long before you reach posters like FBInCIAnNSA...... posters to tell you that there is no chemistry in sci.chem.
>
> My 129th published book
> Short History of Usenet, sci.physics, sci.math from 1993-2020, and its 90% decline// Sociology series, book 9
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Last revision was 6Jan2022. This is AP's 129th published book on science.
>
> Preface: This book started out as a book on "stalking" but when Google revised its Google Newsgroup platform, with altogether different formatting, this book morphed into becoming a "90% demise of Usenet and sci.physics and sci.math in particular". In one of my posts on this book I said the title was going to change often until I actually write the book. And that is what happened. For in late December 2021, It was revealed to me that a persistent stalker under the name Michael Moroney (who stated in one of his stalking posts to be kibo, as in Kibo Parry) was posting from a CIA line in 1997. So that completes this history of Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics, as the demise is nearly all due to the fact that the constant and persistent police drag net spam chased most everyone else away, and most importantly the dot-edu address posters out of sci.math and sci.physics. Educated people just do not want to bother discussing physics or math while everywhere around is criss-crossed with vulgar police drag net spam.
>
> Cover Picture: Is the newsgroup Plutonium-Atom-Universe that is fully controlled by the King of Science AP, Archimedes Plutonium. Every post in that newsgroup is about pure science, no ad hominem. And that is what the sci.physics and sci.math should be. Discussions on pure science, nothing else, and especially no ad hominem, no stalking, no spam, no off-topic junk, no solution manual selling, no drug selling, no police drag-net spam.
>
> Product details
> • Publication Date : August 31, 2020
> • ASIN : B08H5B71M4
> • File Size : 1045 KB
> • Word Wise : Not Enabled
> • Print Length : 78 pages
> • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> • Language: : English
> • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Lending : Enabled
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 2:37 PM (2 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
>
> JS> > -If you had to sum up the essentials of what the Plutonium Atom Totality is to someone, how would you do it? It seems to be a theory of yours that you are incredibly passionate about?
> > >
>
> Do you know the history of Paul Dirac, the exquisite physicist of 1900s? Paul was only a few of physicists who had logical intelligence along with physics intelligence. It is so so difficult to ever find a physicist who is good in logic along with good in physics.
>
> Anyway, the story goes, if you know it, and all physicists should know Dirac's story. Is that Dirac sometime around 1930 had a sensation that the Magnetic Monopole must exist, for his logical mind said that if it did not exist, the symmetry of Physics and all of science is wacko-- out of line. The Maxwell Equations of Dirac's 1930s is anti-symmetrical and all of physics is anti-symmetrical. So, logic was driving Dirac. And you can read this in his Directions in Physics, 1975.
>
> Few physicists, few scientists have logical intelligence to compliment their understanding of science. Anyway, Dirac looked and looked and looked and never found his Magnetic Monopole. But, it was all around him. It is the 0.5MeV particle, for J.J. Thomson in 1897 and then Rutherford and Bohr and all who came after made a huge mistake. They all thought, including Dirac, that the Thomson 0.5MeV particle was the electron of Atoms. No. They made a mistake. What Thomson discovered in 1897 was the Dirac magnetic monopole.
>
> The true electron of atoms was discovered in the 1930s and it was named the Muon. But unknown to the physics community, that the muon was the true electron of Atoms.
>
> So the story about Dirac, is he knew that the Magnetic Monopole must exist, because otherwise all of science has No-Symmetry, is ill-logical. It was the Logic driving Dirac.
>
> Same thing goes for the greatest science theory of all time-- The Atomic theory by Ancient Greeks. One of them even espoused the Cosmic Atom, but of course, well, there was no Periodic Table of Chemical Elements back in Ancient Greek times.
>
> So now, let me weave in Dirac and his magnetic monopole and AP with a Cosmic Atom, a single atom that is the entire Universe itself.
>
> Is the logic of the world such that All is Atom, except for the Universe itself?? Or should the Logic be All is Atom and include the cosmos?
>
> If the Universe is not a single atom, then we have to alter the Atomic Theory to make that exception. But, if the Universe itself is a single atom, one of the 118 elements of Chemistry. Then the Atomic Theory is 100% LOGICAL, with no exceptions.
>
> I wrote many books on Atom Totality, and recently wrote my 231st book of science on this very subject of weaving Logic with Physics. No-one is a master at physics, if they lack a logical mind in doing physics. Dirac was a master in physics, as well as Feynmann. You do not have to go far in Feynman's Lectures on Physics to find that Feynman revered the Atomic Theory as the greatest single piece of science-- in fact page 1-2, volume 1, you find Feynman's reverance of the Atomic theory.
>
> Summary:: The Atom Totality theory is logical, whereas anything else-- Big Bang, etc is illogical.
>
> My 231st published book
>
> All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was May 2023. And this is AP's 231st published book of science.
>
> Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter".. For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.
>
> When you combine All Existence.... or Everything that Exists.... combine that with All Matter is only one single atom of 1 of 118 possible chemical elements, then you end up with the Universe itself is one single atom of 1 of 118 single possible chemical elements. Plutonium atom fits all the special numbers of physics and math.
>
> This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.
>
> A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.
>
> Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
> by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BY778BJK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 944 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 44 pages
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 3:21 PM (1 hour ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
>
> JS> > -What is your motivation for posting for so long? You seem very passionate about science, having posted thousands of times to Usenet. I'm curious as to what it is you wish to accomplish.
> >>
>
> AP writes: Well, if you read into the Atom Totality theory, it is not long before you come upon a concept crucial to that theory. Called Superdeterminism. John Bell the Irish engineer played a key role in quantum mechanics with his Bell Inequality, and the solution that John came up with is -- Superdeterminism. A world where no free-will exists and all is fated. We now a days recognize this as quantum entanglement, and NOVA recently did a show on this concept.
>
> It is not by chance or circumstance or luck that the Internet Usenet came about in early 1990s, but was fated and slated to be up and running and that the Atom Totality theory would use Usenet as a command platform to spread new true science. It is not by happenstance that I continue to use sci.math and sci.physics but my destined fate to use them as a communications platform. I seek not to accomplish anything, but that to fulfill my role destined by fate-- King of Science.
>
> Feynman, the last king used colleges and book writing. Maxwell used his editorship at Encyc Britannica. AP uses Usenet sci.physics and sci.math.
>
> My top priorities in using Usenet and King of Science-- avert Atomic War. Get a human permanent colony on Europa for our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase and all of life on Earth is doomed to extinction and oblivion if we do not colonize Europa in time. Both of these require a communications platform like Usenet to get the message out.
>
> I am working on Reincarnation science, and hope to make great advances and strides into that science.
>
> If I am lucky, I shall have written 500 books on science before I die. At the moment I am up to 241st book, almost halfway there.
>

I certainly cannot be making contradictions. Superdeterminism erases all luck, all chance. So let me correctly phrase that statement.

If I am fated to what I wish, I shall have written 500 books on science before I die.

> I wrote a book on the "Kings of Science", all of them fated by the Atom Totality, and all of them having a platform to get the news and messages out..
>
> My 184th published book
>
> History of the Kings of Science of Earth// sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
>
> Last revision was 1May2022. And this is AP's 184th published book of science.
>
> Preface: In early April of 2022, a PBS TV program documentary of Benjamin Franklin aired on TV, a 4 hour movie in two segments. I knew the history of Ben Franklin, but never in such detail. As the program entertained me immensely, and we must admit that in life, TV has become a great social entertainment (sociology linking up all humans) that is vital to our social psyche, but that this show inspired me to write a book on the Kings of Science, not realizing that Ben Franklin should be considered a King of Science. And especially writing a book in the midst of a Russian invasion of Ukraine that may escalate into a nuclear war because Russia has an insane leader Putin, and why Science Councils with Kings of Science are so important for all of humanity going forward into the future.
>
> Cover Picture: Is of course the German statue Siegessaule that comes closest in my mind of a King of Science figurehead. This is my iphone photograph of Siegessaule.
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09Y8LWJ61
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ April 18, 2022
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 354 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 32 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> John Sylvester's profile photo
> John Sylvester
> 3:48 PM (1 hour ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> 
> Thank you for your messages so far, AP. I confirm that I am asking these questions sincerely and respectfully. Your answers so far have shed a lot of light on the subject and I really appreciate it. I look forward to more answers from you to the later questions.
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> 7:39 PM (now)
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 3:48:03 PM UTC-5, John Sylvester wrote:
> > Thank you for your messages so far, AP. I confirm that I am asking these questions sincerely and respectfully. Your answers so far have shed a lot of light on the subject and I really appreciate it. I look forward to more answers from you to the later questions.
> On Thursday, May 25, 2023 at 1:34:04 PM UTC-5, John Sylvester wrote:
> > -I am aware of the fact that you have a conversation with Terence Tao. He's often heralded as one of the best mathematicians alive by the mainstream, although I am certain you would disagree with this. Could I ask you as to what your reflections on the conversation/debate you had with Terence Tao is, several years later? What are your main points of disagreement?
> >
> AP writes: When I first came to the Usenet, sci.math, sci.physics, I was posting about my proof of Fermat's Last Theorem FLT, and had no idea that at Princeton Univ. Dr. Wiles and Dr. Tao were there, and that Wiles was also working on a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. So this FLT, intertwined AP to Dr.Wiles and Dr. Tao (a graduate student at Princeton at the time). I have several direct replies from Terry Tao on my math posts in early 1990s. And my FLT proof was short, a 1 page proof, while Wiles turns out to be 100 pages. (See my proof below as written in my 6th published book of science.)
>
> Yes, Dr. Tao, Terry then, and I engaged in conversation in early 1990s in sci.math. And the story goes that I was working hard on my other physics and math from 1993- 2016, not caring about Dr. Tao or Dr. Wiles math which I had conversations in sci.math with, especially Dr. Wiles Fermat's Last Theorem FLT. For I had proven FLT, much earlier than Dr. Wiles and mine was a valid proof, while his was a con-art-sham, in my opinion and was not going to bother with it. For I knew that with time, mine will be seen as the valid proof and Wiles as the sham. And as for Terry Tao, I ignored his work in mathematics up until the 2010's time period, ignored his so called Green-Tao theorem which won him fame, but in my opinion Terry was math ignorant to know that Primes as numbers were fictional because Primes are ill-defined over the division operation and that the Tao-Green theorem is based on Reductio Ad Absurdum which in AP's correction in Logic is not a math method of proof at all.
>
> So little conversation after 1990s up until about the mid 2010s and especially 2016. For in 2016, I discovered Old Math had made a huge geometry mistake, not only in Conic Sections but in the very heart of Calculus with a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was not to be found. And I needed to get the message out to Old Math of their gross errors.
>
> And coincidentally by 2016 I had become fed up with hate spewing stalkers-- every day demonizing AP. So putting two and two together to make four (actually that is the AP proof of FLT at its heart). Putting two and two together, I decided to utilize these hate spewing stalkers to grab the attention of Dr. Tao and Dr. Wiles. Why let hate, go to waste? So whenever a hate monger attacked AP, AP would thread that hatred into getting Dr. Wiles and Dr. Tao to at least take a look if their geometry was error filled with slant cut of cone their ellipse when AP says it is a Oval, with proofs thereof. And to get them to check why they never have or had a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> So from 2015 through 2017, nothing but Run and Hide, hide and run by Dr. Tao, by Dr. Wiles. Still preaching slant cut of cone is ellipse when AP proved it was a Oval. Never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> So I had to overcome this Run and Hide, by so called famous mathematicians which to me looked like a con-artist act. That neither Wiles nor Tao were addressing the problems raised by AP and my proofs. So here is where I kept using stalker hatred to gain access into Tao and Wiles -- their run and hide.
>
> And for years after 2015, I kept begging Google engineers to engineer-out stalking behavior. A surprise to me, Google engineers responded whole heartedly. For they engineered a delete key to original authors. Upon seeing this improvement of making the newsgroups a level playing field and to slow down the hate spewing stalker. AP decided to use the new Google tools. And AP would make some of the most outrageous headers ever to pass through the halls of Usenet. Knowing that a hate-foaming-spewing stalker would be follow up immediately and AP using the new tool would make the hate spewer own that thread. This was great for many years until the stalkers learned to change the headers. But it did eliminate one stalker from Sweden after owning a thread that made fun of Swedish math. Konyberg learned from thence on that stalking is insane behavior.
>
> But the new tool did not stop the worst stalkers, for they quickly learned how to charge over the gates, by changing the headers.
>
> And then AP had to slowly and slowly ratchet up his ultimate weapon of conquering hate foaming stalkers-- the shame game. AP had to mention colleges and universities near the hate spewing stalker and their faculty of physics and math. To search for a grown-up that would hand walk or carry the insane stalker to a nearby psychiatric clinic for help with their stalking.
>
> And seeing that Dr. Tao and Dr. Wiles were still Running and Hiding from their duties in math to respond to errors in the body of mathematics, shirking their responsibilities. That AP decided to link the daily deluge of hate spewing stalkers with getting Dr. Tao and Dr. Wiles to stop their childish run and hide and face up to the errors of Old Math.
>
> And it was in 2016, that I became intolerant of the trolls and stalkers who defiled and demonized me in every thread I posted. So I was about to utilize these insane trolls and stalkers. Utilize them to get the message out to Dr.Wiles and Dr.Tao that their attention needs to focus on fixing the Slant cut of right circular single cone is not a ellipse but rather is a Oval and the attention to the fact that Old Math calculus needs to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> By that time, 2016, both Dr. Tao and Dr. Wiles received fame and fortune in mathematics. But then, these two "Run and Hide" when the topic of AP's slant cut of cone was Oval, not ellipse, and run and hide when AP's discovery of 2015 that the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires a geometry proof. The Run and Hide by Tao and Wiles can only indicate to me that they are frauds of mathematics, and cowards to run and hide, for even a High School student can drop a coin into a paper cone and see it is a Oval with just one axis of symmetry, not the 2 required by a ellipse.
>
> Considering all the fame and fortune heaped on Dr. Wiles and Dr. Tao, it is strange that they chose to Run and Hide from math, especially big gross errors of geometry that AP was advocating. It is this Run and Hide attitude by Tao and Wiles that irked AP and so I hitched a ride off the Trolls and Stalkers to make the messages get through to Wiles and Tao and the entire Math Community, especially AMS run now by Ruth Charney. That they have a obligation and duty to inspect and assess and comment in public on the error of slant cut of cone and no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> It just so happened that AP using the new tools provided by Google engineers to engineer out stalking behavior, it just so happened that many of those thread headers were words to the effect "Dr. Wiles flunked mathematics...." or Dr. Tao flunked math...."
>
> It is the obligate duty of a mathematician to look into Errors, especially of this magnitude.
>
> 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, My 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)
>
> My 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
>
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
>
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> • Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)