2-Dr Tao needs to publish in UCLA student newspaper that he now sees the light of day that a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse and stop his propaganda bullshit math that Dr. Tao pollutes the minds of young students with. Why, any High School student can drop a Kerr lid (circle) into a scrolled up paper cone and eye witness the crescent moon shape added onto the circle to form a OVAL, never the ellipse, yet the bozo the clown of math Terry Tao still polluting the minds of students.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>of Math "little stinker"
>"psychoceramic"
>flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> fails at math and science:
> Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this.
> Perhaps he is envious of their potential success, which he never had
> because he is a failure at math and science.

AP asks: why, Kibo Parry Moron, is Dartmouth's Hanlon and UCLA's Terence Tao, and Univ San Francisco John Stillwell and Oxford's Andrew Wiles, more dumb than a High School student in mathematics, for the High School student with a paper cone and Kerr lid can demonstrate the slant cut is a Oval, never the ellipse. Why does Hanlon, Tao, Stillwell, Pipher, Ribet, Gerald Edgar, Wiles, Hales, why do they relish in phony con art math??????

Why, Kibo Parry Moron, do they let Gilbert Strang of MIT even write a calculus textbook, for that scatterbrain loser of mathematics, has defined Complex number on page 360, but the idiot fool of math, never thought that he should define what the hell are the numbers he is using all along????? Gilbert is not a mathematician but a backstreet con-artist of math. Why Gilbert is too dumb to even know that Calculus is geometry and needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And MIT places such a math cripple in their classrooms to cripple generations of students down the line. We need an apology by Strang in the MIT student newspaper for teaching worthless b..s. that he teaches.

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)

>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
> On Friday, August 14, 2020 at 11:07:05 AM UTC-5, Professor Wordsmith wrote:
> > "Ammo: Uncured Shit pile"
>
> Kibo Parry Moron chimes in with--
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 12:55:10 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics
> > fails at math and science:
> >"psychoceramic" flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
>
> Kibo, you stalker, is that as bad as Dr. Tao not apologizing for his conic section a ellipse when in truth it is a Oval?
>
> Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > >
> > > Must you post garbage?
> >
> > Jan, for Dr. Tao the question really is must he teach garbage like 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction and his mindless slant cut in single cone as ellipse when even a High School student can show it is a Oval.
> > Even the moron Kibo Parry Moron with his 938 is 12% short of 945 recognizes the mindless failure of math that is Dr. Terence Tao.
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 7:25:44 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >of Math and of Physics "spamtard"
> > >"psychoceramic"
> > >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> >
> >
> > On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 1:13:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Here you are!
> > > Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> > > sections are ellipses.
> > >
> > > Some preliminaries:
> > >
> > > Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> > > in the proof:
> > >
> > > ^ x
> > > |
> > > -+- < xh
> > > .' | `.
> > > . | .
> > > | | |
> > > ' | '
> > > `. | .'
> > > y <----------+ < x0
> > > 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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Andrew Wiles University Oxford needs to apologize in the Oxford student newspaper for aiding and abetting fake math taught at Oxford -- his ellipse from conic sections, his Harmonic series diverges, his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction in the error filled Boole logic, but worst of all Wiles seems to be ignorant of the fact that Calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Andrew Wiles, publish today so no more students are brainwashed with your error filled mathematics.
> > 
> > 5th published book
> >
> > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science..
> > Preface:
> > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> >
> > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> >
> > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> >
> > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> >
> > Product details
> > File Size: 773 KB
> > Print Length: 72 pages
> > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > Language: English
> > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> > X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

> > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > Lending: Enabled
> > Screen Reader: Supported 
> > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> > 
> > 

> >
> >
> > y
> > | /
> > | /
> > |/______ x
> >
> > More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
> >
> > In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
> >
> > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
> >
> > There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
> >
> > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > Archimedes Plutonium