DC Proof challenge: Zorn's Lemma, how formalize it?

[Mostowski Collapse]

So whats the plan for proving Zorn's Lemma
in DC Proof? Translate FOL to DC Proof?

How do you think a FOL ZFC theorem is
to be realized in DC Proof?

[Spencer Wisemore]

So whats the plan for proving Zorn's Lemma in DC Proof? Translate FOL to
DC Proof?

probably not, but what ever happened to “terrorists”? It’s like they
suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth...it’s an Illuminati
miracle. They aren’t really lying about climate change, they have been
drastically altering the atmosphere for over 20 years with super heavy
stratospheric, aerosol, geo-engineering.. This pandemic is a last ditch
effort to save there Ponzi scheme .

Rewind to late 2008 and Iceland's pots and pans revolution about
austerity measures and raising of pensions. To try and stop Iceland
Revolution and hide Iceland's example from the rest of the World the
Federal Reserve Mobster Racketeering Bankers got WHO to trigger a level 6
pandemic. Ironically Iceland had the highest "reported" cases of Swine
Flu . Coincidence ?

Fast forward to 2019 yellow vest civil unrest right across Europe about
austerity measures and raising of pensions . What stopped the yellow
vest,s ? ,a invisible virus and a WHO level 6 pandemic trigger again as
in 2009 with zero deaths . Ironically this time around Iceland having its
own Banking system and Citizens Government had just 10 cases of C19 .

Sweden already Cashless got a free pass which has backfired on the IMF
who offered 940 million dollars bribe to President of Belarus who refused
it and refused to house arrest it's Citizens and crash Belarus economy .

Coincidence ?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Hi Dan-O-Matik. Can you use DC Proof to prove this:

If α and β are two von Neumann Ordinals, and
that if as a set they have α ≠ β , that the later implies
that they are not order isomorphic?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Now we might see Zorns Lemma, 100 years from
now. Dan-O-Matik busy inserting U(_) in the proof
of Zorns Lemma, because it doesn't work otherwise.

LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
If α and β are two von Neumann Ordinals, and
that if as a set they have α ≠ β , that the later implies
that they are not order isomorphic?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Now we might see Zorns Lemma, 100 years from
now. Dan-O-Matik busy inserting U(_) in the proof
of Zorns Lemma, because it doesn't work otherwise.

LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Now we might see Zorns Lemma, 100 years from
now. Dan-O-Matik busy inserting U(_) in the proof
of Zorns Lemma, because it doesn't work otherwise.
LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
If α and β are two von Neumann Ordinals, and
that if as a set they have α ≠ β , that the later implies
that they are not order isomorphic?

[Mostowski Collapse]

This possibly doesn't work either:

∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga

Its from here:

All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

over 550 solved problems
https://epdf.pub/schaums-outline-of-theory-and-problems-of-logic-.html

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Now we might see Zorns Lemma, 100 years from
now. Dan-O-Matik busy inserting U(_) in the proof
of Zorns Lemma, because it doesn't work otherwise.
LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Now we might see Zorns Lemma, 100 years from
now. Dan-O-Matik busy inserting U(_) in the proof
of Zorns Lemma, because it doesn't work otherwise.
LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
If α and β are two von Neumann Ordinals, and
that if as a set they have α ≠ β , that the later implies
that they are not order isomorphic?

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)

Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm

No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)

Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)

Deal with it, Jan.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

There is obviously a counter model to what you proved.
Take this model, where bert≠alf:

U={bert}
F={bert}
G={bert}

How on earth can you prove ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] &
ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf). Thats just nonsense.

Maybe draw a Venn diagram. The part:
ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] Says U n F subset G,
and the part: ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] Says U subset F.

How on earth can you conclude alfe e G ?

LoL

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)
Deal with it, Jan.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

Dang you are a moron, you proved something else:

EXIST(alf):[U(alf)
& [ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)]]
http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm

So you have arbitrary rules, not only Ax (P(x)) ----> ALL(x):[U(x) => P(x)]
and Ex (P(x)) ----> EXIST(x):[U(x) & P(x)]. Thats interesting. What
are your students saying? Do they like it?

Maybe try the simpler axiom ALL(a):U(a). LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There is obviously a counter model to what you proved.
U={bert}
F={bert}
G={bert}
How on earth can you prove ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] &
ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf). Thats just nonsense.
ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] Says U n F subset G,
and the part: ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] Says U subset F.
How on earth can you conclude alfe e G ?
LoL

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)
Deal with it, Jan.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

But it seems on line 11 you indeed prove:

11 ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)
4 Conclusion, 3

So I guess DC Proof has bug, we found a bug.

Because the above is not a theorem. Even not with
the assumption EXIST(a):U(a). I saved the proof here on gist:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/51cd3886c7ceef5035ea7e2860b096a2#gistcomment-3539726

There something wrong with your E Spec rule.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
EXIST(alf):[U(alf)
& [ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)]]
http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
So you have arbitrary rules, not only Ax (P(x)) ----> ALL(x):[U(x) => P(x)]
and Ex (P(x)) ----> EXIST(x):[U(x) & P(x)]. Thats interesting. What
are your students saying? Do they like it?
Maybe try the simpler axiom ALL(a):U(a). LoL

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There is obviously a counter model to what you proved.
U={bert}
F={bert}
G={bert}
How on earth can you prove ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] &
ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf). Thats just nonsense.
ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] Says U n F subset G,
and the part: ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] Says U subset F.
How on earth can you conclude alfe e G ?
LoL

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)
Deal with it, Jan.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Me]

11 ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)
4 Conclusion, 3

Actually, if we stop the derivation (!) at this point, it does not count as a proof (of 11).

That's a consequence of Dan's adoption of a rather silly system of derivation rules, especially, "E Spec" (usually called "∃-Instantiation", I guess).

Hint: it's not a VALID rule of deriation.

"[...] we have kept the Existential-Elimination (∃-Elimination) rule used by Lemmon [and ND by Genzten --me]. [Note that] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. [...] In a system using ∃-instantiation, however, this feature is absent: there are correct proofs some of whose lines do not follow from previous lines, since the rule of ∃-instantiation is not a valid rule. For instance, the following is the beginning of a proof using ∃-instantiation.

1 (1) ∃xFx assumption
1 (2) Fa 1 ∃-instantiation

Line 2 does not follow from line 1. This difference between ∃-elimination and ∃-instantiation can be put as follows: in an ∃-elimination proof, you can stop at any time and still have a correct proof of some argument or other, but in an ∃-instantiation proof, you cannot stop whenever you like. It seems to us that these implications of ∃-instantiation's invalidity outweigh the additional complexity of ∃-elimination. In an ∃-elimination system, not only is the system sound as a whole, but every rule is individually valid; this is not true for an ∃-instantiation system."

Though there may still be something wrong here ... after all "alf" should be a /constant/ (or an arbtrary name). But in step 13 of Dan's "proof" we see:

EXIST(alf):[U(alf) & [ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)]]
E Gen, 12

So /alf/ is a variable, after all! *sigh*

[Dan Christensen]

See my reply to your identical posting just now at sci.logic


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Dan Christensen]

See my reply to your identical posting at sci.logic

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There is obviously a counter model to what you proved.
U={bert}
F={bert}
G={bert}
How on earth can you prove ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] &
ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf). Thats just nonsense.
ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] Says U n F subset G,
and the part: ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] Says U subset F.
How on earth can you conclude alfe e G ?
LoL

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)
Deal with it, Jan.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

Even if Alf is a variable and not a constant, this here
is not generally valid:

∃xUx, ∀x(Ux→(Fx→Gx)), ∀x(Ux→Fx) does not entail Ga.

You can check here:

https://www.umsu.de/trees/#%E2%88%83xUx,%20%E2%88%80x%28Ux%20%E2%86%92%20%28Fx%20%E2%86%92%20Gx%29%29,%20%E2%88%80x%28Ux%20%E2%86%92%20Fx%29%20|=%20Ga

There is a countermodel over a domain of size 2 consisting
of the elements {0,1}, where the variable gets assigned the value 0.

Countermodel:
a: 0
G: { 1 }
U: { 1 }
F: { 1 }

But to be a variable, there must be never a countermodel.

Post by Dan Christensen
See my reply to your identical posting at sci.logic

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There is obviously a counter model to what you proved.
U={bert}
F={bert}
G={bert}
How on earth can you prove ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] &
ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf). Thats just nonsense.
ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] Says U n F subset G,
and the part: ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] Says U subset F.
How on earth can you conclude alfe e G ?
LoL

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
∀x(Fx => Gx), ∀xFx |- Ga
All frogs are green
Everything is a frog
:. Alf is green

Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm
No need for additional axiom: ALL(a): U(a)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)
Deal with it, Jan.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Me]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

Exactly. For example:

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1

But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

See: https://www.umsu.de/trees/#%E2%88%83xUx%20|=%20Ua

That's just what Allen and Hand mentioned in the foreword of "Logic Primer".

At least DC Proof would have to warm te user that certain lines do NOT logically follow from the premiss(es) and/or axiom(s). Say, by printing these lines red, etc.

Not quite sure, but I've noticed that in the proof mentioned here, certain line numbers are printed bold - these lines seem to follow from the premiss(es) and/or axiom(s). Dan?

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

It's called "E Elimination" in most introductory notes on natural deduction. Look it up.

[snip]

Not quite sure, but I've noticed that in the proof mentioned here, certain line numbers are printed bold - these lines seem to follow from the premiss(es) and/or axiom(s). Dan?

The bolding of line numbers in DC Proof have no formal significance. It is used only to highlight certain statements. Certain views of a proof (F5, F6, F12) will suppress unhighlighted statements. I find this feature essential for working on longer proofs to provide quick summaries.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Me]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

It's called "E Elimination" in most introductory notes on natural deduction. Look it up.

You silly dumbfuck, the NAME doesn't matter (here). (Actually, EE is a rather bad choice, but that's another story.)

THE MASSAGE IS:

U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x) ,

idiot.

Hence

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1

does not prove

ExU(x) |= U(a) .

[Mostowski Collapse]

Maybe FOL is to edgy for Dan-O-Matik. He is asking
very strange question about U(_) must be {0,1}
in a FOL model with such a domain.

As if a theorem prover would make an exception
if he sees the letter "U" and especially for lazy
Dan-O-Matik would add this axiom:

∀xUx

To the best of my knowledge theorem provers
are WYSIWYG (What You Say Is What You Get).

Post by Me

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

It's called "E Elimination" in most introductory notes on natural deduction. Look it up.

You silly dumbfuck, the NAME doesn't matter (here). (Actually, EE is a rather bad choice, but that's another story.)
U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x) ,
idiot.
Hence
1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
does not prove
ExU(x) |= U(a) .

[Me]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Maybe FOL is to edgy for Dan-O-Matik. He is asking
very strange question about U(_) must be {0,1}
in a FOL model with such a domain.
As if a theorem prover would make an exception
if he sees the letter "U" and especially for lazy
∀xUx

Right. IIRC Peter (in sci.logic) already told him that the would have to adopt this axiom to "make" U the universe.

So for modeling FOPL with his system he would have to adopt at least the two axioms (if he prefers to stick to the predicate letter "U"):

∀xUx ... U "is" (represents) the universe
ExUx ... The universe is not empty ,

I guess.

Does this really "simplify" things and/or "help the math student"? I seriously doubt it.

Though from a /philosophical point of view/ inclusive logics seem to be quite interesting. (Especially in connection with Free Logic: "A free logic is a logic with fewer existential presuppositions than classical logic. Free logics may allow for terms that do not denote any object. Free logics may also allow models that have an empty domain. A free logic with the latter property is an inclusive logic." (Wikipedia))

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Me

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

It's called "E Elimination" in most introductory notes on natural deduction. Look it up.

You silly dumbfuck, the NAME doesn't matter (here). (Actually, EE is a rather bad choice, but that's another story.)
U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x) ,
idiot.
Hence
1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
does not prove
ExU(x) |= U(a) .

In DC Proof, when you discharge the premise here, you would obtain simply EXIST(x):U(x) => EXIST(x):U(x) as your conclusion.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

FOL is too edgy, because it is built around the KISS principle.

Keep It Simple Stupid. On the other hand DC Proof cannot
prove Zorns Lemma 100 years from now,

because Dan-O-Matik is still busy inserting U(_). And marveling
why ∀xU(x) is not provable.

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Me

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs.

1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
But U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x).

It's called "E Elimination" in most introductory notes on natural deduction. Look it up.

You silly dumbfuck, the NAME doesn't matter (here). (Actually, EE is a rather bad choice, but that's another story.)
U(a) does not logically follow from EXIST(x):U(x) ,
idiot.
Hence
1 EXIST(x):U(x) // Premiss?
2 U(a) E Spec, 1
does not prove
ExU(x) |= U(a) .

In DC Proof, when you discharge the premise here, you would obtain simply EXIST(x):U(x) => EXIST(x):U(x) as your conclusion.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
FOL is too edgy, because it is built around the KISS principle.
Keep It Simple Stupid.

More like keep it COMPLICATED stupid.

It should come as no surprise that standard FOL is not a required subject in pure math programs. DC Proof is based on the logic that mathematicians actually use in proofs. They have no time for mysterious, unspecified "domains of discourse," and the like. They are way more trouble than they are worth.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I doubt anyone in the physics dept of Univ Western Ontario ever flew a drone, let alone experiment what is the maximum height a lithium powered drone can fly. AP reckons that in the future, drones will carry us to the Space Station and make rockets obsolete-- good riddance to those massive air polluters.

4_Dan Christensen shits in the face Robert Sica, Carol Jones, Jeffrey L Hutter, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, with their proton at 938MeV, electron at 0.5MeV when in truth the proton is 840MeV torus with real electron= muon thrusting through the proton doing the Faraday law and 0.5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Is University Western Ontario as dumb as Dan Christensen and cannot even test how high up a drone can fly just on lithium batteries? Can it surpass the height of Mt. Everest. Of course if you are a feeble idiot of science like Dan with his 10 OR 1 = 11 with AND as subtract, then forget about even doing science with brains like that.

Post by Dan Christensen

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Dan Christensen's stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Dan could never think properly or logically in any science for Dan harbors a Logic where his truth tables say that 1 OR 2 = 3, yet any teenager Canadian would usually say, "eh, you have that wrong, 1 AND 2 = 3.
And so bozotic is Dan, and his doppelganger Dan Christensen that both bozos of logic, of reasoning have no room in their idiotic logic system for a connector of truth table TTTT.

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication
New Logic
T = T = T
T = not F = T
F = not T = T
F = F = T

Huh? Always true? How useless is that?

No wonder Canada is behind the times in science, in even thinking straight and clear with two knuckleheads (or whether they are one and the same?) up there in Canada. 10 OR 10 = 20 is that what Canada is all about in Logic. But worse yet is no Canadian in mathematics could ever do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no wonder Canada is thought of as a backwater in mathematics, for leave it to Dan Christensen to keep Canada a backwater of mathematics.
SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist
by Archimedes Plutonium
Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.
But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.
If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.
The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.
B
/|
/ |
A /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.
In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus, your students deserve better. And you professors of physics at UWO, want to remain stupid and ignorant that the Real Electron = 105 MeV and the Real Proton = 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
Dan Christensen
1:46 PM (1 hour ago)
Re: #1-5 Logic of AND, OR// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:09:16 +0000
#1-5 Logic of AND, OR// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

*** LOGIC LESSON FOR ARCHIE PU ***
DEFINITIONS
A .AND. B is true means both A and B are true.
A .OR. B is true means at least one of A and B is true.
1. If A is true and B is false, then A .AND. B is ___________ (true or false).
2. If A is true and B is true, then A .OR. B is ___________ (true or false).
Dan

[Dan Christensen]

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

It's been nearly 3 years now, Archie Poo. Do you need a bit more time?


WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:


AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually, sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019


AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017


And if that wasn't weird enough...


AP's sinister Atom God Cult

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Dan Christensen testing Dr. Thorp in his chemistry failure to reason that since CO and N2 have the highest dissociation energy, means Lewis Structure is 6 arms, not 8 arms.

Post by Dan Christensen

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

It's been nearly 3 years now,

Dan failing Logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction is academically insane and has no business being in academia, but is misplaced from his waiter- painter job.

H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.

Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.

Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.

But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.

And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.

Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?

Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.

8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).

Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.

I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.

I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".

Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.



22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages

Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)

Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.


From: ***@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76


A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.

There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.

Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.

I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.

My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.

The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.

My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.

Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.

Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.

Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.

The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.

We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.

And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.

AP

From: ***@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27

Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.

Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.

But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.

I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.

AP

20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.

Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.



Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine

Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.

Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.

MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".

Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.

So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...

88th published book

Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.

And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.

At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.

I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.

It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.

However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.

Length: 147 pages

Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020

Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY

Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)

AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.

15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.

I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.

I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.

AP
King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

2Dan Christensen testing Dr. Hau of Harvard

Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would


Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science?

Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenom not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.

So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.

So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.

I have other evidence that I will win this.

1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.

2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.

3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.

Dr. Thorp in his chemistry failure to reason that since CO and N2 have the highest dissociation energy, means Lewis Structure is 6 arms, not 8 arms.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Dan Christensen

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

It's been nearly 3 years now,

Dan failing Logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction is academically insane and has no business being in academia, but is misplaced from his waiter- painter job.
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.
Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
AP
King of Science

[Mostowski Collapse]

Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Its Saturday, and Harvard's Dr. Hau still too dumb or lazy to switch off the light in BEC medium and see if it instantly disappears-- proving all light waves are closed loops.

No use in asking the worthless ignorants of science like Dan, Jan and Kibo with their mind numbing 938 is 12% short of 945, or their suckling like a baby on mamma tits of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction. And these mindless kooks asking about some idiot Zorn Loser lemma.

The Jan Burse Lemma: every ordered set of Jan Burse ends up in a cesspool.

AP
King of Science and Logical Reasoning

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Jan Burse ala Collapse shits in face of Harvard's Slow Light experiment Dr. Hau, wanting
her to never turn off the lights by maintaining mindless Boole logic of 10 OR 1 = 11, with AND as subtraction.

According to Burse, Dr. Hau Either has Slow Light OR switch light off, but never has Slow Light AND then switch light off.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?

2-Dr Hau, too dumb to finish a Harvard experiment//Kibo Parry Moroney struggling relevance

Why is it so important for Dr. Hau to finish up here BEC slow light experiment by turning the light off and seeing that all the light vanishes simultaneously, even the slow light in BEC? Why is that important? Because it proves that light waves are not straight arrow rays but are closed loops having the source always in that closed loop circuit. This is what makes Quantum Entanglement. And this explains so much of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

So, why is Dr. Hau being so arrogant and dullard in completing her work of physics?


Post by Mostowski Collapse
Dr. Thorp steals AP's "Dog: first domesticated animal" theory of 2004//Kibo Parry Moroney says a struggle for relevance syndrome.

"struggling for relevance"
"I ate my brain"
Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics

Harvard's Dr. Hau, simply turn the light off at the source and see if the "slow light" instantly vanishes along with all the other light. Simple as that.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Download the mindless idiot's 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction
struggling for relevance

3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
AP
King of Science
Michael Moroney's profile photo
Michael Moroney
Nov 22, 2020, 11:27:11 AM


Subject: H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on > "Dog,
struggling for relevance

AP writes: Kibo, can you get your buddy at Wired magazine Nick Thompson to double confirm the stealing going on at SCIENCE of AP's "Dog first domesticated animal".

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?
Is it a too a Bad Boy for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

it is Christmas my dudes

Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Sergio]

2,000,000 views my xmas dudes

Post by Mostowski Collapse
it is Christmas my dudes
http://youtu.be/1CH-7qjz4D4
Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Mostowski Collapse]

0 views Zorn's Lemma, because there is none yet.

Post by Sergio
2,000,000 views my xmas dudes

Post by Mostowski Collapse
it is Christmas my dudes
http://youtu.be/1CH-7qjz4D4
Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its 2021 my dudes. Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
0 views Zorn's Lemma, because there is none yet.

Post by Sergio
2,000,000 views my xmas dudes

Post by Mostowski Collapse
it is Christmas my dudes
http://youtu.be/1CH-7qjz4D4
Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its 2021 my dudes. Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
0 views Zorn's Lemma, because there is none yet.

Post by Sergio
2,000,000 views my xmas dudes

Post by Mostowski Collapse
it is Christmas my dudes
http://youtu.be/1CH-7qjz4D4
Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its wednesday my dudes. Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its 2021 my dudes. Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
0 views Zorn's Lemma, because there is none yet.

Post by Sergio
2,000,000 views my xmas dudes

Post by Mostowski Collapse
it is Christmas my dudes
http://youtu.be/1CH-7qjz4D4
Where is Zorns Lemma?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its weekend. Where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

It's Friday then Saturday Sunday What..!!!

Well not yet. But where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend. Where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Lets take a deep breath and concentrate on Zorns Lemma:

STAR TREK: ACID PARTY

Doesn't Zorns Lemma imply Gödels Completness theorem?
Or is there a more constructive way to Gödels Completness?

Constructiveness of Proof of Gödel's Completeness Theorem
https://math.stackexchange.com/q/661365/4414

Post by Mostowski Collapse
It's Friday then Saturday Sunday What..!!!
http://youtu.be/4z95SAFud7w
Well not yet. But where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its weekend. Where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs

to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum

https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Whats up Dudes! Its almost wednesday.
Any Progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

So Graham Cooper will by accident proof Zorns
Lemma before DC Proof? Simply by his random ASCII?

How likely is that?
Room-temperature IQ knobheads strong!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Whats up Dudes! Its almost wednesday.
Any Progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

New Week, new Hope! Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So Graham Cooper will by accident proof Zorns
Lemma before DC Proof? Simply by his random ASCII?
How likely is that?
Room-temperature IQ knobheads strong!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Whats up Dudes! Its almost wednesday.
Any Progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Lets do some logic, before more imbecil hordes
continue posting their boring astral Don Juan stories.
What can be more astral than Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
New Week, new Hope! Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So Graham Cooper will by accident proof Zorns
Lemma before DC Proof? Simply by his random ASCII?
How likely is that?
Room-temperature IQ knobheads strong!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Whats up Dudes! Its almost wednesday.
Any Progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Did somebody see Zorns Lemma? Is it
hidden in some empty universe of DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Lets do some logic, before more imbecil hordes
continue posting their boring astral Don Juan stories.
What can be more astral than Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
New Week, new Hope! Where is Zorns Lemma?
Too difficult for DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So Graham Cooper will by accident proof Zorns
Lemma before DC Proof? Simply by his random ASCII?
How likely is that?
Room-temperature IQ knobheads strong!

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Whats up Dudes! Its almost wednesday.
Any Progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend almost over. Where is Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Its wednesday my dudes?
Any progress with Zorns Lemma?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is over! Any progress with Zorns
Lemma? Did we miss something?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is nearly over. Where is a proof of
Zorns Lemma in DC Proof? I guess one needs
to put DC Proof in the Museum. Its defunct.
The Theorem Prover Museum - Museum
https://theoremprover-museum.github.io/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Some FOM wakos are already discussing computer
assisted proofs. Hurry DC proof, where is Zorns Lemma?

Even the Double bubble conjecture was proved!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-assisted_proof

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Did somebody see Zorns Lemma? Is it
hidden in some empty universe of DC Proof?

[Mostowski Collapse]

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .

Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder

DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its actually easy to prove in DC Proof:

1 T(x)
Premise

2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1

3 T(x)
Split, 2

4 T(x)
Split, 2

5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1

6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5


But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?

For a screenshot see here:

Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824

Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Joel Mesot, why cannot the idiot Jan Burse understand Boole logic is all wrong with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, is Jan Burse a insane failure of math and logic???
5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). 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.
Length: 63 pages

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 63 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 



ETH's_Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, is Jan Burse violent-stalker the reason you not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Was that you,
brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
Spamming dumb fuck, will your wheelchair
have hexadecimal or decimal wheels?
|__
|__|
* *
|__
|__|
o o

Jan Burse is a different type of bully stalker for he tore down AP's Wikipedia page in 2017 and then participated in condoning the forgery of AP to Math Stack Exchange in 2017 along with Dan Christensen, and then has continued to post graphic pictures of bodily violence on AP and then Burse has posted the real-estate near AP in order to incite violence upon AP. Burse is a new type of bully stalker with overt violence in his posts and I recommend that he be permanently banned from sci.math and sci.physics before someone gets hurt from all his over-testosterone bullying and violence association.

       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: Jan Burse, --- brain in the sewer, never any math or science, just a sewer kook

Joel Mesot,Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger,Sarah M. Springman

Joel Mesot, President
Sarah M. Springman, Rector

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














BURSE streamlined

12:00 AM) ?
　　∧_∧
　(　·ω·)
＿|　⊃／(＿＿
／　└-(＿＿＿／
￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
(12:01 AM) zzz
＜⌒／ヽ-、_＿_
／＜_/＿＿＿＿／
AP brain farto = not viagra, rather valium

3- Burse says on valium, ETH, Michael Struwe,Benjamin Sudakov,Alain Sznitman,Josef Teichmann,Wendelin Werner,Thomas Willwacher never able to confirm ellipse is not a conic//true proton is 840MeV not 938

Walter Thurnherr, ETH,Michele Graf,Jonathan Home,Ursula Keller,Klaus Kirch,Simon Lilly,Joel Mesot---- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on ads??



AP writes: as long as Jan Burse is allowed to post to Google newsgroups is as long as that petty criminal defiles and wrecks whatever is in sight. Now he resorts to graffiti ads just to push others off the front page. When the world does not need another ad, but rather CONFIRM real proton is 840MeV.


Stop the petty criminal Jan Burse before he gets someone hurt Re: one of my most important proofs-- Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
AP writes: stop this petty criminal Burse before he hurts someone. He tore down AP's Wikipedia page one year and forged AP to Math Stack Exchange. If let to his own devices, someone is probably going to be hurt for now he is posting arbitrary homes. It is a sin to post other peoples telephones, here Burse is committing a sin of posting homes.

for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Burse posts a picture of ETH Zurich's math department Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test


Burse posts a picture of ETH Zurich's math department Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

It is highly likely
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail

AP writes: Looks like it is not going to stop for petty criminal Burse until he ends up in prison. He forges innocent people, and he even tore down AP's Wikipedia page. Now he is posting arbitrary houses for sale. To get at AP. So, really, Burse is a Swiss minded criminal, and someone should stop him before he hurts someone.

7:59:44 petty criminal J4n Bur53 wrote: > Not a single line of math,,,// parasite moneygrub logicians??//Leo Harrington,William Alvin Howard,Ronald Jensen,Dick de Jongh, their 3 OR 2= 5 their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

idiot he is
Not a single line of math, already for 30 years.

AP writes: I do not know what the definition of petty criminal is-- but I see it as anyone who cuts into the time of another person, having to chase their deeds down and fix the situation, such as ripping out my Wikipedia site, or forgery to Math Stack Exchange.

Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page

        •        (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017‎ DMacks (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287)‎ . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
        •        (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017‎ Janburse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287)‎ . . (→‎Eccentric believers) (undo)

At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange, MSE, in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::

Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---

Archimedes Plutonium
438 ●10
Profile
Activity
This user has not filled their about me section yet.
4
answers
20
questions
~1k
people reached
Communities (2)
Mathematics
438 ●10
MathOverflow
101 ●3
Top Tags (12)
complex-analysis
10
score
14
posts
58
posts %
proof-verification
6
score
15
posts
62
posts %
proof-writing
4
score
9
posts
38
posts %
real-analysis
3
score
3
posts
12
posts %
uniform-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
absolute-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
View all tags →
Top Posts (24)
Sort  
8
Prove that ∑∞n=0anzn
n
0
∞
a
n
z
n
 converges absolutely and uniformly in D
D
.
Sep 5 '17
4
Munkres Topology, page 102, question 19:a
Sep 5 '17
4
What is the closure of (0,1)
0
1
 in Rk
R
k
?
Aug 28 '17
4
If the complex series ∑∞

Still there-- the forged entry Mr. Atwood & Spolsky, still there

User Archimedes Plutonium - Mathematics Stack ...
Stack Exchange › math › users › archime...
archimedes plutonium from math.stackexchange.com
Archimedes Plutonium top 56% overall. Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. 4 answers. 20 questions. ~1k people reached. Member for 6 months; 113 profile views; Last seen Nov 9 '17 at ...

Jan Burse, insane petty criminal stalker Swiss

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     ' Hi, I am the petty thug Swiss criminal who tears down web sites and loves to see forgeries of innocent victims to Math Stack Exchange. I failed math and logic and so spends the time attacking people. If you catch me, please do not put me into a Swiss prison for I have my buddies Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, qbwr, Jan Bielawski, Franz, Michael Moroney, Erik Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg to teach how to be a petty criminal
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'






Burse says ///////// physicists////////////// too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

Burse says ETH physicists,Charalampos Anastasiou,
Niklas Beisert too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

why Moroney & Burse just ask Drs. Jerome Faist,
Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder why they still believe proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding


AP writes: why does not Burse & Moroney simply ask Mr Thurnherr, and professors of physics at ETH why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole



Jan Burse 6 year insane stalker Swiss
Moroney, insane stalker for 26 years

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Jan Burse, a Swiss that hates and attacks everyone in sci.math, because I failed math. So stupid is Burse he still believes a ellipse is a conic and believes in Boole logic which says 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2 =1. Jan is a Swiss imp of math with never a single line of math for 30 years
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'




Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

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, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?
And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there Jan Burse, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give? Burse?




XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Stop the petty criminal Jan Burse before he gets someone hurt Re: one of my most important proofs-- Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
AP writes: stop this petty criminal Burse before he hurts someone. He tore down AP's Wikipedia page one year and forged AP to Math Stack Exchange. If let to his own devices, someone is probably going to be hurt for now he is posting arbitrary homes. It is a sin to post other peoples telephones, here Burse is committing a sin of posting homes.

for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Burse posts a picture of ETH Zurich's math department Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test


Burse posts a picture of ETH Zurich's math department Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

It is highly likely
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail

AP writes: Looks like it is not going to stop for petty criminal Burse until he ends up in prison. He forges innocent people, and he even tore down AP's Wikipedia page. Now he is posting arbitrary houses for sale. To get at AP. So, really, Burse is a Swiss minded criminal, and someone should stop him before he hurts someone.

7:59:44 petty criminal J4n Bur53 wrote: > Not a single line of math,,,// parasite moneygrub logicians??//Leo Harrington,William Alvin Howard,Ronald Jensen,Dick de Jongh, their 3 OR 2= 5 their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

idiot he is
Not a single line of math, already for 30 years.

AP writes: I do not know what the definition of petty criminal is-- but I see it as anyone who cuts into the time of another person, having to chase their deeds down and fix the situation, such as ripping out my Wikipedia site, or forgery to Math Stack Exchange.

Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page

        •        (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017‎ DMacks (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287)‎ . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
        •        (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017‎ Janburse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287)‎ . . (→‎Eccentric believers) (undo)

At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange, MSE, in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::

Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---

Archimedes Plutonium
438 ●10
Profile
Activity
This user has not filled their about me section yet.
4
answers
20
questions
~1k
people reached
Communities (2)
Mathematics
438 ●10
MathOverflow
101 ●3
Top Tags (12)
complex-analysis
10
score
14
posts
58
posts %
proof-verification
6
score
15
posts
62
posts %
proof-writing
4
score
9
posts
38
posts %
real-analysis
3
score
3
posts
12
posts %
uniform-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
absolute-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
View all tags →
Top Posts (24)
Sort  
8
Prove that ∑∞n=0anzn
n
0
∞
a
n
z
n
 converges absolutely and uniformly in D
D
.
Sep 5 '17
4
Munkres Topology, page 102, question 19:a
Sep 5 '17
4
What is the closure of (0,1)
0
1
 in Rk
R
k
?
Aug 28 '17
4
If the complex series ∑∞

Still there-- the forged entry Mr. Atwood & Spolsky, still there

User Archimedes Plutonium - Mathematics Stack ...
Stack Exchange › math › users › archime...
archimedes plutonium from math.stackexchange.com
Archimedes Plutonium top 56% overall. Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. 4 answers. 20 questions. ~1k people reached. Member for 6 months; 113 profile views; Last seen Nov 9 '17 at ...

Jan Burse, insane petty criminal stalker Swiss

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     ' Hi, I am the petty thug Swiss criminal who tears down web sites and loves to see forgeries of innocent victims to Math Stack Exchange. I failed math and logic and so spends the time attacking people. If you catch me, please do not put me into a Swiss prison for I have my buddies Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, qbwr, Jan Bielawski, Franz, Michael Moroney, Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg to teach how to be a petty criminal
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'






Burse says ///////// physicists////////////// too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

Burse says ETH physicists,Charalampos Anastasiou,
Niklas Beisert too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

why Moroney & Burse just ask Drs. Jerome Faist,
Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder why they still believe proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding


AP writes: why does not Burse & Moroney simply ask Mr Thurnherr, and professors of physics at ETH why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole



Jan Burse 6 year insane stalker Swiss
Moroney, insane stalker for 26 years

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Jan Burse, a Swiss that hates and attacks everyone in sci.math, because I failed math. So stupid is Burse he still believes a ellipse is a conic and believes in Boole logic which says 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2 =1. Jan is a Swiss imp of math with never a single line of math for 30 years
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'




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, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?
And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there Jan Burse, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give? Burse?

AP

[Mostowski Collapse]

Ok one can press directly the Conc button:

1 T(x)
Premise

2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1

3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2

But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
In FOL you would be at least able to prove:

|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Insane idiot Jan Burse on why no-one in Swiss ETH can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- they are still with their mindless Boole logic of 1 OR 2 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
Jan Burse and Andrew Beal & ETH's_Urs Lang,Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
j4n bur53



Jun 13


Re: tool to help find primes Re: primes in vicinity of 10^603 "thousand snapshot" #285 Correcting Math 3rd ed
Jun 13


j4n bur53 Thats a funny prime number: 11^255426+255426^11 Attributed to

Jun 13


j4n bur53 Now you should say what the Miller test says for: 1000...001 = 10^n + 1 = 5^n*2^n + 1

Jun 13


j4n bur53 BTW: This is a nice quick incomplete intro to AKS test: Fool-Proof Test for Primes - Numberphile

Was playing around with it today, if you put x=-1 in: (x-1)^p - (x^p-1) = 0 (mod p) You get

Jun 13
j4n bur53 If you have modpow you don't need bignums for thesem examples. I didn't find modpow in the Prolog system, so I used bignums nevertheless for the little Fermat test. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/biginteger-modpow-method-in-java/

Jun 14

j4n bur53 brain farto, do we have some primes: 10^(2^n) + 1 is prime ? for n > 1 Using Fermats little theorem, I can refute n=2..13, they are all not prime: ?- between(2,13,K), X is 10^(2^K)+1, write(10^(2^K)+1), (test2(X) ->

Jun 14
j4n bur53 Now thats a funny observation, for Mersenne Primes, Mp, calculating modulo, is a simple operation, it is said to calculate for y with 2p bits, taking y mod Mp, is like adding the higher order half bits to the lower order half bits. Here is a

Jun 14
j4n bur53 Now thats funny, modulo the brain farto number, is not addition, but rather subtraction: ?- X is 12345678 mod 9999. X = 6912. ?- X is 1234+5678. X = 6912. ?- X is 12345678 mod 10001. X = 4444. ?- X is 5678-1234.


j4n bur53
7:37 PM (3 hours ago)


Re: brain farto doesn't know anything about primes


AP writes: no I think it is quite legal for Jan Burse to fart in class at ETH and in Andrew Beal's bank. But that is typical insane Jan Burse who has a fixation on farting, never doing any math or science.

AP brain farto, still posting name lists.
Only promulgating the imbecil he is.
BTW: AP Brain...

Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page

        •        (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017‎ DMacks (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287)‎ . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
        •        (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017‎ Janburse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287)‎ . . (→‎Eccentric believers) (undo)

At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Stack Exchange in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::

Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---

Archimedes Plutonium
438 ●10
Profile
Activity
This user has not filled their about me section yet.
4
answers
20
questions
~1k
people reached
Communities (2)
Mathematics
438 ●10
MathOverflow
101 ●3
Top Tags (12)
complex-analysis
10
score
14
posts
58
posts %
proof-verification
6
score
15
posts
62
posts %
proof-writing
4
score
9
posts
38
posts %
real-analysis
3
score
3
posts
12
posts %
uniform-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
absolute-convergence
1
score
2
posts
8
posts %
View all tags →
Top Posts (24)
Sort  
8
Prove that ∑∞n=0anzn
n
0
∞
a
n
z
n
 converges absolutely and uniformly in D
D
.
Sep 5 '17
4
Munkres Topology, page 102, question 19:a
Sep 5 '17
4
What is the closure of (0,1)
0
1
 in Rk
R
k
?
Aug 28 '17
4
If the complex series ∑∞

Still there-- the forged entry Mr. Atwood & Spolsky, still there

User Archimedes Plutonium - Mathematics Stack ...
Stack Exchange › math › users › archime...
archimedes plutonium from math.stackexchange.com
Archimedes Plutonium top 56% overall. Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. 4 answers. 20 questions. ~1k people reached. Member for 6 months; 113 profile views; Last seen Nov 9 '17 at ...

Jan Burse 6 year violent insane stalker Swiss. Violent in tearing down people's website.

Swiss: you are known for shepherding, why not shepherd home this insane poster of Jan Burse, before he hurts someone or lands in jail.

Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

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
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages

Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: 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)




AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section 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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC


Jan Burse, insane petty criminal stalker Swiss

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     ' Hi, I am the petty thug Swiss criminal who tears down web sites and loves to see forgeries of innocent victims to Math Stack Exchange. I failed math and logic and so spends the time attacking people. If you catch me, please do not put me into a Swiss prison for I have my buddies Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, qbwr, Jan Bielawski, Franz, Michael Moroney, Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg to teach how to be a petty criminal
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'






Burse says ///////// physicists////////////// too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

[Loid Amos Rizzotto]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Insane idiot Jan Burse on why no-one in Swiss ETH can do a geometry
proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- they are still with their
mindless Boole logic of 1 OR 2 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Pick Your Poison - Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneka, Johnson & Johnson.

[Loid Amos Rizzotto]

Post by Loid Amos Rizzotto

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Insane idiot Jan Burse on why no-one in Swiss ETH can do a geometry
proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- they are still with their
mindless Boole logic of 1 OR 2 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Pick Your Poison - Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneka, Johnson & Johnson.

*_Pick Your Poison_* -

Pfizer, Moderna, BioNanoTech, Astra Zeneka, Johnson & Johnson.

Imagine there’s a knock at the door, you open it and a capitalist
nomenclature parasite stood there saying “there’s a virus with a 98%
survival rate, the survival rate is based on false death rate figures so
the survival rate is actually higher” he continues, “children are in no
danger from the virus and the average age that people who do die from the
virus is 80 years and over” He then produces a syringe and says “in this
syringe there is a vaccine, it’s not a vaccine in the conventional sense,
it changes your DNA” he also explains that the vaccine has been rushed
and you and your children are the test subjects. Do you role up your
sleeve or slam the door?

[Mostowski Collapse]

DC Proof might like this booklet. On page 206 I find:

4.10 Extensions of Quantificational Logic
The semantics of the referential interpretation may
be extended by allowing a model to have an empty domain.
Formal Semantics and Logic
Bas C. van Fraassen
https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf

So finally DC Proof can name its pedigree? The booklet
seems to have tidy bibliography.

1 T(x)
Premise
2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2
But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

[Peter]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
4.10 Extensions of Quantificational Logic
The semantics of the referential interpretation may
be extended by allowing a model to have an empty domain.
Formal Semantics and Logic
Bas C. van Fraassen
https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf

"These courses were intended specifically for philosophy students with
one previous course in formal logic".

When Dan sees that word "philosophy" his head will explode.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So finally DC Proof can name its pedigree? The booklet
seems to have tidy bibliography.

1 T(x)
Premise
2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2
But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Or implode? If its hollow. No we must thank him for his DC Proof,
and his very long Percivalian quest, which has only begun.

"In Book IX, we learn that Parzival fights for the good but
suffers from his alienation from God. After nearly five years of
wandering and fighting, from combat he gains a new horse,
owned by a Grail knight, and this horse leads him one Good
Friday to Trevrizent to whom he introduces himself as a penitent
sinner. He stays with this holy man for fourteen days and learns
about the hidden meaning of life and the true meaning of the
Grail, and also is informed that his mother is the sister of the
Grail King. He makes a step towards a life of spiritual understanding.
Through his loneliness and through his yearning for the grail
and for Condwiramurs he puts himself outside the world of Arthur.
He is called to another world, that of the Grail."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parzival#The_Grail_quest

So we can observe and wait, maybe the true meaning
of classical propositional logic will one day also reach him?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
4.10 Extensions of Quantificational Logic
The semantics of the referential interpretation may
be extended by allowing a model to have an empty domain.
Formal Semantics and Logic
Bas C. van Fraassen
https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf

"These courses were intended specific ally for philosophy students with
one previous course in formal logic".
When Dan sees that word "philosophy" his head will explode.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So finally DC Proof can name its pedigree? The booklet
seems to have tidy bibliography.

1 T(x)
Premise
2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2
But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Jan Burse pink slip Bas C. van Fraassen, Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

None can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, so are failures of math. And what the hell is Jan Burse doing here in sci.math with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Bas C. van Fraassen

Insane idiot Jan Burse on why no-one in Swiss ETH can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- they are still with their mindless Boole logic of 1 OR 2 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
Jan Burse and Andrew Beal & ETH's_Urs Lang,Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
j4n bur53

Jun 13
Re: tool to help find primes Re: primes in vicinity of 10^603 "thousand snapshot" #285 Correcting Math 3rd ed
Jun 13


j4n bur53 Thats a funny prime number: 11^255426+255426^11 Attributed to

Jun 13

j4n bur53 Now you should say what the Miller test says for: 1000...001 = 10^n + 1 = 5^n*2^n + 1

Jun 13

j4n bur53 BTW: This is a nice quick incomplete intro to AKS test: Fool-Proof Test for Primes - Numberphile http://youtu.be/HvMSRWTE2mI Was playing around with it today, if you put x=-1 in: (x-1)^p - (x^p-1) = 0 (mod p) You get

Jun 13
j4n bur53 If you have modpow you don't need bignums for thesem examples. I didn't find modpow in the Prolog system, so I used bignums nevertheless for the little Fermat test. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/biginteger-modpow-method-in-java/

Jun 14

j4n bur53 brain farto, do we have some primes: 10^(2^n) + 1 is prime ? for n > 1 Using Fermats little theorem, I can refute n=2..13, they are all not prime: ?- between(2,13,K), X is 10^(2^K)+1, write(10^(2^K)+1), (test2(X) ->

Jun 14
j4n bur53 Now thats a funny observation, for Mersenne Primes, Mp, calculating modulo, is a simple operation, it is said to calculate for y with 2p bits, taking y mod Mp, is like adding the higher order half bits to the lower order half bits. Here is a

Jun 14
j4n bur53 Now thats funny, modulo the brain farto number, is not addition, but rather subtraction: ?- X is 12345678 mod 9999. X = 6912. ?- X is 1234+5678. X = 6912. ?- X is 12345678 mod 10001. X = 4444. ?- X is 5678-1234.


j4n bur53
7:37 PM (3 hours ago)


Re: brain farto doesn't know anything about primes


AP writes: no I think it is quite legal for Jan Burse to fart in class at ETH and in Andrew Beal's bank. But that is typical insane Jan Burse who has a fixation on farting, never doing any math or science.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
AP brain farto, still posting name lists.
Only promulgating the imbecil he is.
BTW: AP Brain...

Here is where petty criminal Jan Burse tore down Archimedes Plutonium wikipedia page

• (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017‎ DMacks (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287)‎ . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017‎ Janburse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287)‎ . . (→‎Eccentric believers) (undo)

At about the same time as Burse tearing down AP's Wikipedia page a forgery in the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Stack Exchange in that same year, and since both Burse and Christensen posted to sci.math saying they approved of the forgery makes one suspicious that Burse and Christensen are connected to the forgery::

Jan Burse 6 year violent insane stalker Swiss. Violent in tearing down people's website.

Swiss: you are known for shepherding, why not shepherd home this insane poster of Jan Burse, before he hurts someone or lands in jail.

Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

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
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages

Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: 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)




AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section 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.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC













Pink slip Gene D. Block, Murray Schacher, Roberto Schonmann, Masamichi Takesaki, Terence Tao, Veeravalli Varadarajan, James White, Donald Ylvisaker

Post by Mostowski Collapse
he can't tell the difference between his imagination and
reality...

Pink slip Donald Babbitt, Kirby Baker, Andrea Bertozzi, Mario Bonk, Lennart Carleson, Tony F-C Chan, Shiu-Yuen Cheng, Robert Edwards, Gregory Eskin, Hector Fattorini, Thomas Ferguson, Theodore Gamelin, John Garnett, David Gillman, Mark Green, Nathaniel Grossman, Alfred Hales, Robert Jennrich, Paul Johnson, Alan Laub, Thomas Liggett, Donald Martin, Sidney Port, James Ralston, Paul Roberts, Bruce Rothschild, Murray Schacher, Roberto Schonmann, Masamichi Takesaki, Terence Tao, Veeravalli Varadarajan, James White, Donald Ylvisaker

No-one in UCLA math or physics can acknowledge oval is slant cut in cone, not ellipse; no-one can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- totally no use to any math education-- give them a pink slip

Time to remove math professors from their teaching posts in math if they cannot teach the truth about oval is the slant cut in single cone and provide a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Time to remove physics professors who cannot understand the most simple logic-- CO and N2 have highest bond dissociation energy, therefore, yes, therefore Lewis Structure must be based on 6, not 8. Plus, no-one in physics at UCLA understands Angular Momentum for if they did, would know real proton is 840MeV with real electron is muon trapped inside proton doing the Faraday law, the 0.5MeV particle was never the electron but rather instead was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole of physics.

Pink slip them all in physics and math at UCLA as a gaggle of ignorants in science.
1,589, 621 views

I suppose this is the job of the president of a College or University, the removal of a math professor who cannot teach the truth of math, specifically.

1) Provide a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

2) Acknowledge in writing that the slant cut of single cone, not a parabola, and not a hyperbola is in fact a oval, never an ellipse.

I suppose it is the duty of a President of College or University to remove a math professor who cannot tell true math from wrong and fake math.

11th published book

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

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 38 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1235 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 38 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)

68th published book

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)

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 cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures.

Length: 41 pages

Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 41 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: November 21, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B081TWQ1G6
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Pink slips to Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

None can even do the simple experiment -- lid inside a paper cone at slant is a oval, never ellipse, and so poor in calculus, none ever thought you need a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for they only have their bozo limit analysis.

From this post of Dan Christensen, Canadian college classrooms spend a lot of time bending over than learning any math

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
No we must thank him

[Mostowski Collapse]

So when will we see a proof of Zorns Lemma in DC Proof?
All that is needed is some classical logic and some set theory.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Or implode? If its hollow. No we must thank him for his DC Proof,
and his very long Percivalian quest, which has only begun.
"In Book IX, we learn that Parzival fights for the good but
suffers from his alienation from God. After nearly five years of
wandering and fighting, from combat he gains a new horse,
owned by a Grail knight, and this horse leads him one Good
Friday to Trevrizent to whom he introduces himself as a penitent
sinner. He stays with this holy man for fourteen days and learns
about the hidden meaning of life and the true meaning of the
Grail, and also is informed that his mother is the sister of the
Grail King. He makes a step towards a life of spiritual understanding.
Through his loneliness and through his yearning for the grail
and for Condwiramurs he puts himself outside the world of Arthur.
He is called to another world, that of the Grail."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parzival#The_Grail_quest
So we can observe and wait, maybe the true meaning
of classical propositional logic will one day also reach him?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
4.10 Extensions of Quantificational Logic
The semantics of the referential interpretation may
be extended by allowing a model to have an empty domain.
Formal Semantics and Logic
Bas C. van Fraassen
https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf

"These courses were intended specific ally for philosophy students with
one previous course in formal logic".
When Dan sees that word "philosophy" his head will explode.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So finally DC Proof can name its pedigree? The booklet
seems to have tidy bibliography.

1 T(x)
Premise
2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2
But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays

[Mostowski Collapse]

The quest is complicated in that Dan Christensen is from
Canada, and they have only a dozen computers in Canada.
So he even doesn't know that SQL uses 3-valued logic.

This will be a very difficult quest, from wilderness of
Canada, where the fox and the hare say goodnight to
one another, to a real city with banks, insurances, etc...

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Or implode? If its hollow. No we must thank him for his DC Proof,
and his very long Percivalian quest, which has only begun.
"In Book IX, we learn that Parzival fights for the good but
suffers from his alienation from God. After nearly five years of
wandering and fighting, from combat he gains a new horse,
owned by a Grail knight, and this horse leads him one Good
Friday to Trevrizent to whom he introduces himself as a penitent
sinner. He stays with this holy man for fourteen days and learns
about the hidden meaning of life and the true meaning of the
Grail, and also is informed that his mother is the sister of the
Grail King. He makes a step towards a life of spiritual understanding.
Through his loneliness and through his yearning for the grail
and for Condwiramurs he puts himself outside the world of Arthur.
He is called to another world, that of the Grail."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parzival#The_Grail_quest
So we can observe and wait, maybe the true meaning
of classical propositional logic will one day also reach him?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
4.10 Extensions of Quantificational Logic
The semantics of the referential interpretation may
be extended by allowing a model to have an empty domain.
Formal Semantics and Logic
Bas C. van Fraassen
https://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/Formal%20Semantics%20and%20Logic.pdf

"These courses were intended specific ally for philosophy students with
one previous course in formal logic".
When Dan sees that word "philosophy" his head will explode.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So finally DC Proof can name its pedigree? The booklet
seems to have tidy bibliography.

1 T(x)
Premise
2 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
3 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 2
But you will not be able to prove EXISTS(x):T(x) ?
|- EXISTS(x):T(x) v EXISTS(x):~T(x)

1 T(x)
Premise
2 T(x) & T(x)
Join, 1, 1
3 T(x)
Split, 2
4 T(x)
Split, 2
5 ALL(x):[T(x) => T(x)]
Conclusion, 1
6 ALL(x):[~T(x) | T(x)]
Imply-Or, 5
But why does DC Proof force me to use join/split?
Where the heck is the (Id) rule in DC Proof?
https://gist.github.com/jburse/dbd654073621f21333e3e4dbd330a30d#gistcomment-3673824
Maybe you would have already finished Zorns Lemma,
if DC Proof had better rules.

Woa! You couldn't even prove |- forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) LoL
You proved some nonsense ALL(x):[P(x) => T(x) | ~T(x)] .
Come On, forall x (True(x) v ~True(x)) is also true in an
empty domain, its not only true in FOL. Dang, no wonder
DC Proof is not able to prove Zorns Lemma.

--
When, once, reference was made to a statesman almost universally
recognized as one of the villains of this century, in order to
induce him to a negative judgment, he replied: "My situation is
so different from his, that it is not for me to pass judgment".
Ernst Specker on Paul Bernays

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So he even doesn't know that SQL uses 3-valued logic.

Poor little Jan Burse thinks a variable restricted to 3 values is somehow proof that digital computers are no longer binary machines.

Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal logic, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about it. Just true-or-false common sense.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

Its not a variable, its a logic. He writes:

"SQL uses a three-valued logic: besides true and false,
the result of **logical expressions** can also be unknown."
https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic

The truth table is here:

Example of three valued logic in SQL Server
https://stackoverflow.com/q/30539243/502187

Whats wrong with you, can't you read.

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So he even doesn't know that SQL uses 3-valued logic.

Poor little Jan Burse thinks a variable restricted to 3 values is somehow proof that digital computers are no longer binary machines.
Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal logic, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about it. Just true-or-false common sense.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

Ha Ha, Dan-O-Matik is so naive, next he will

explain us how babies are braught by the stork.

No wonder this Canadian hill billy cannot prove Zorns Lemma.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
"SQL uses a three-valued logic: besides true and false,
the result of **logical expressions** can also be unknown."
https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic
Example of three valued logic in SQL Server
https://stackoverflow.com/q/30539243/502187
Whats wrong with you, can't you read.

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So he even doesn't know that SQL uses 3-valued logic.

Poor little Jan Burse thinks a variable restricted to 3 values is somehow proof that digital computers are no longer binary machines.
Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal logic, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about it. Just true-or-false common sense.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Peter]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So he even doesn't know that SQL uses 3-valued logic.

Poor little Jan Burse thinks a variable restricted to 3 values is
somehow proof that digital computers are no longer binary machines.
Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal
logic

You should take a course in logic. Unfortunately you think you already
know it. Or, more precisely, you think that what you don't know can't
possibly be of interest.

Post by Dan Christensen
, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about it.
Just true-or-false common sense.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my
Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

...although Dan _universally regarded_ as booger-boy Christensen having failed even Venn diagrams wants to hip hop poofster his way through life as noted by Usenet historian Todd B Smith, gutter sewer demonizer incorporated.

Dan booger boy Christensen a failure of science and logic with his mindless 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.
wiki, wiki Revision history of " Booger boy Dan Christensen"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)

Dan
Download my DC Poofster 2.0 freeware at http://www. I failed even Venn diagrams

Todd, at what ripe age did Booger Boy Dan Christensen eat boogers in classrooms, grossing out other kids? Was it when he failed Logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, so he learned to eat boogers instead?

Todd B Smith do you have pictures for Youtube or Facebook of Booger Boy Dan Christensen and his 10 year long stalking of sci.math?

Todd B Smith have you completed your research in the DNA found in a Dan Christensen booger?


Dan Christensen - Example Problems from www.exampleproblems dot com
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dan Christensen is primarily noted for his varied and eccentric stalking to Usenet. And his consumption of boogers in his threads meant to be about mathematics but always ending up as the joys of eating a booger in front of a live audience. Canada is dark and lonely at the University of Western Ontario where Dan packs his booger lunch.
Given Kibo's birth may explain his stalking in sci.math and sci.physics for he was not born in the normal manner but shitted out of the arse of his mother, while she was undergoing a lobotomy in Boston. And to this very day, Kibo is never seen giving a kind word to anybody or anything, especially his mother. Having been shitted out of the arse of your mother will do that to you. Kibo Parry Moroney repeatedly claimed to be the greatest living Comic, and referred to himself at least once as "The AnalButtFuckManure of late night comedy"[1], although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog. Much to the disdain and chagrin, and annoyance of every lady walking or sitting on park benches with a leg exposed. One of Kibo's seminal and most memorable posts in July, 2020 [2] replies to the South Korean Prime Minister over the torture of his country's-- moon bears. Bears that are lifelong caged and tortured for their bile extraction. In one of Kibo's posts, he suggests sending in a platoon of Marines to free the moon bears. (Needs confirmation by Todd B. Smith dot com)


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney is sending South Korean president Moon Jae-in a map to free the MOON BEARS from torture
By Buck Futter July 22, 2020 at 8:05:47 PM

Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
By Roger Davis
Jul 26, 2020, 8:18:58 AM


Contents
1 Background
2 Kibo's claims
2.1 Kibo's assessment of his poofster stalking in sci.math, sci.physics
3 Biographical notes
4 Quotes
5 External links


Another report of Kibo Parry Moroney is in answer to Dr. Tao of UCLA on why he cannot admit to his mistakes that a ellipse is not a conic cut of a single cone for that is a oval. And why Dr. Tao fails to ever give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, like what the King of Science Archimedes Plutonium, did in 2015, and published the world's first geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21

Another memorable report and post by Kibo Parry Moroney is where he refers to Stanford Univ president Dr. Tessier-Lavigne and Caltech's president Dr. Rosenbaum as "cults of education" for never considering that the real proton is 840MeV as a proton torus with the muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law that AP wrote a book on.


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!" Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne, CalTech's Thomas Rosenbaum with their 10 OR 6 = 16; their ellipse a conic when it never was; their proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to..
Eddie "Fish Basket" Reynolds Jr. Aug 10, 2020, 3:34:45 PM

Here is where the 28 year long stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his gang of bullies such as Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, et al beat up on Harvard's Dr. Hau for failing to turn the light switch off in "Slow Light Experiments" and demonstrate AP is correct in saying light waves are not straightline arrows but are closed loops with the source always in contact in the closed loop.

Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2021, 2:06:24 PM


Give pink slips to all math professors who cannot certify that a slant cut in single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, nor are these math professors able to give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.


**new**

Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
by Dan Christensen Nov 9, 2017, 3:00:47 PM
1,508,722 views from Mt. Washington

Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen Mar 13, 2018, 4:52:16 PM

Re: Drs. Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 15, 2018, 12:07:24 AM


Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 23, 2018, 10:24:48 AM


Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen May 19, 2018, 1:55:22 PM


Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
By Ebenezer Splooge Jan 17, 2021, 9:43:54 AM


Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
By Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM

Re: Earle Jones says Stanford physics dept is too stupid to see a ellipse is not a conic but a cylinder cut, thus therefore too stupid to see a hydrogen atom has no angular momentum if electron is 0.5 MeV when the real electron is the muon and proton
By Emmit Schaibe Mar 8, 2020, 10:44:18 AM

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..
1219 views
By Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM


Since strong user authentication was rarely used on Usenet during its early stages, since it meant sniffing Kibo Parry Moroney's underwear along with Uncle Al and Earle Jones, Gilbert Strang, Jan Burse, and Dan Christensen, Fine Structure Constant of shit streaks [3], some had suggested that Kibo Parry Moroney and Nicholas Thompson of Wired magazine [4] might have been a series of fusion underwear-mind-melds experiments sponsored by US dept education and NSF [5] looking to see if black hole gravity waves emanate from men's shorts. And Jan Burse was separately funded in ETH on Uncertainty principle of shit streaks versus farts and their duality nature, [6] NSF was willing to fund spectroscopic analysis of Kibo's shit streaked underwear.


Background and Training
_____________________


The Jan Burse school near ETH of hard-knocks criminals, farting their way through life.

ETH's_Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, is Jan Burse violent-stalker the reason you not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
Autistic

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938


Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 32 posts 430 views updated 2:15 AM

Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 29 posts 307 views updated 2:13 AM


Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of  trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9



Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9

Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:35:36 ...
Feb 16 by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views



|| Eccentric believers || Govt. paid for and sponsored stalkers || Poofsters UWO University earning B.A. Masters, and Ph.D in Stalking, president Kibo Parry Moroney 28 year veteran, chancellor Dan Christensen, floor and toilet bowl cleaner Jan Burse expert on farting in the halls of ETH.

|| Criminal and eccentric personalities || Unusual Personalities || Twilight Zone Sickfucks ||

Todd B. Smith working round the clock in demonizing AP had this to say---

...although Kibo _universally regarded_ as having more physics intelligence in the shit streaks of his underwear than in the entire brain of Todd B Smith - Philip J. Hanlon's Dartmouth College math and physics dept combined

And it is a Metaphysical Argument [4] to this day undertaken by Dan Christensen in Canada and Jan Burse at Swiss ETH questioning whether Kibo Parry Moroney's brain is a vacuum and the only physics intelligence in Kibo at all, is confined to the shit streaks in his shorts, using the logical construct that 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction in Boole logic (Boole shit-eaten logic)[5][6][7] and the Kibo Parry Moroney arithmetic of 938 is 12% short of 945 in his seminal book "Bore hole my arse for Geothermal Energy" [8]. Jan Burse questioning of whether the shit streaks and farts of Kibo can be harnessed to drive windmills and solar panels or simply as a identification passport in covid lockdown, unless the bathroom runs begin to be problematic.

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.

 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass

 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.


Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom.

Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal


(1)

There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling
but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells
from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat
from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the
water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground.

(2)
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:  

Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What
you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water
cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer,
and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building
in the winter.

In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged
out over many, many years.

(3)

Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
better.
Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

(4)

Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and
winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending
on how deep they go.
Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it
is much better than simply using that energy to make heat.

(5)

It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't
handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal
energy.  All he can do is attack.

(6)

geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where,
Mass. I think)
Now tell us where Permafrost comes from.
p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting
geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource!

(7)

And my geothermal house works on sunshine collected in the day,

Not quite. Sunshine (more specifically ambient heat) collected over
hundreds or thousands of years. Constant 50 degrees F/10 C down the hole.
No significant geological activity here since the Jurassic and not deep
enough to get to the actual heat of the earth.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics. And Barry Shein, my bedwarmer loves to whisper in my ear how 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'
Wikki copyrights protected from the likes of MitchR, Dr. Chandler Davis who stole AP's correction Euclid Primes proof, Dr. Young who stole AP's Stonethrowing theory and Dr. Thorp who allowed the stealing of AP's Dog: first domesticated animal, stealers who have not acclimated to the Internet way of reporting science and see sci.math, sci.physics as "stealing fields".

[Python]

Dan Christensen wrote:
...

Post by Dan Christensen
Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal logic, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about it. Just true-or-false common sense.

Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows, that cannot even be ported on other systems and is not open
source in the first place... Sigh.

Your program is a joke to ANY software engineer Dan, especially for the
kind of people that has been actually working on theorem proving
software.

It's not a big deal though, "DC Proof" is developed by a single person
and used only by a single person... and is not doing anything better
than any other free, well written, portable software in that field.

Moreover your outrageously ignorance of development in formal logic
and theorem proving for the last DECADES completely disqualifies you.

Dan, your words are crap when it comes to formal logic, and crap when
it comes to software development.

[Peter]

Post by Python
...

Post by Dan Christensen
Take a programming course, Jan. It may help you understand formal
logic, and that there really is nothing bizarre or other-worldly about
it. Just true-or-false common sense.

Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows, that cannot even be ported on other systems and is not open
source in the first place... Sigh.
Your program is a joke to ANY software engineer Dan, especially for the
kind of people that has been actually working on theorem proving
software.
It's not a big deal though, "DC Proof" is developed by a single person
and used only by a single person... and is not doing anything better
than any other free, well written, portable software in that field.
Moreover your outrageously ignorance of development in formal logic
and theorem proving for the last DECADES completely disqualifies you.
Dan, your words are crap when it comes to formal logic, and crap when
it comes to software development.

I wonder if Dan knows that the logics used in theorem proving are often
not classical. I was about to claim that "negation as failure" in
prolog might interest him. But of course it wouldn't, it would be just
another target for his tedious sneering.

[Python]

Peter wrote:
...

Post by Peter
I wonder if Dan knows that the logics used in theorem proving are often
not classical.  I was about to claim that "negation as failure" in
prolog might interest him.  But of course it wouldn't, it would be just
another target for his tedious sneering.

He should know as numerous people told him. He just doesn't care.

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof. The user enters each line of formal proof by first selecting a rule of inference from the menu bar and then following the instructions presented. Each line is verified as it is entered.

I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of Russell's Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.

Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

although Dan universally regarded as booger-boy Christensen having failed even Venn diagrams wants to hip hop poofster his way through life as noted by Usenet historian Todd B Smith, demonizer specialist incorporated.

Dan booger boy Christensen a failure of science and logic with his mindless 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.
wiki, wiki Revision history of " Booger boy Dan Christensen"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Dan

Download his DC Poofster 2.0 freeware at http://www. I failed even Venn diagrams

Watch and listen Dan booger-boy trying to apply his teaching methods--

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan

            MW
           MNW
          MMXWW
         ///..)
        <||  >\
         $$ --/
          |\_/
  Dan, is there some connection with your stalking on Usenet for 10 years and eating boogers?

Todd, at what ripe age did Booger Boy Dan Christensen eat boogers in classrooms, grossing out other kids? Was it when he failed Logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, so he learned to eat boogers instead?

Todd B Smith do you have pictures for Youtube or Facebook of Booger Boy Dan Christensen and his 10 year long stalking of sci.math?

Todd B Smith have you completed your research in the DNA found in a Dan Christensen booger?


Dan Christensen - Example Problems from www.exampleproblems dot com
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dan Christensen is primarily noted for his varied and eccentric stalking to Usenet. And his consumption of boogers in his threads meant to be about mathematics but always ending up as the joys of eating a booger in front of a live audience. Canada is dark and lonely at the University of Western Ontario where Dan packs his booger lunch.
Given Kibo's birth may explain his stalking in sci.math and sci.physics for he was not born in the normal manner but shitted out of the arse of his mother, while she was undergoing a lobotomy in Boston. And to this very day, Kibo is never seen giving a kind word to anybody or anything, especially his mother. Having been shitted out of the arse of your mother will do that to you. Kibo Parry Moroney repeatedly claimed to be the greatest living Comic, and referred to himself at least once as "The AnalButtFuckManure of late night comedy"[1], although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog. Much to the disdain and chagrin, and annoyance of every lady walking or sitting on park benches with a leg exposed. One of Kibo's seminal and most memorable posts in July, 2020 [2] replies to the South Korean Prime Minister over the torture of his country's-- moon bears. Bears that are lifelong caged and tortured for their bile extraction. In one of Kibo's posts, he suggests sending in a platoon of Marines to free the moon bears. (Needs confirmation by Todd B. Smith dot com)


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney is sending South Korean president Moon Jae-in a map to free the MOON BEARS from torture
By Buck Futter July 22, 2020 at 8:05:47 PM

Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
By Roger Davis
Jul 26, 2020, 8:18:58 AM


Contents
1 Background
2 Kibo's claims
2.1 Kibo's assessment of his poofster stalking in sci.math, sci.physics
3 Biographical notes
4 Quotes
5 External links


Another report of Kibo Parry Moroney is in answer to Dr. Tao of UCLA on why he cannot admit to his mistakes that a ellipse is not a conic cut of a single cone for that is a oval. And why Dr. Tao fails to ever give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, like what the King of Science Archimedes Plutonium, did in 2015, and published the world's first geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21

Another memorable report and post by Kibo Parry Moroney is where he refers to Stanford Univ president Dr. Tessier-Lavigne and Caltech's president Dr. Rosenbaum as "cults of education" for never considering that the real proton is 840MeV as a proton torus with the muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law that AP wrote a book on.


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!" Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne, CalTech's Thomas Rosenbaum with their 10 OR 6 = 16; their ellipse a conic when it never was; their proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to..
Eddie "Fish Basket" Reynolds Jr. Aug 10, 2020, 3:34:45 PM

Here is where the 28 year long stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his gang of bullies such as Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, et al beat up on Harvard's Dr. Hau for failing to turn the light switch off in "Slow Light Experiments" and demonstrate AP is correct in saying light waves are not straightline arrows but are closed loops with the source always in contact in the closed loop.

Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2021, 2:06:24 PM


Give pink slips to all math professors who cannot certify that a slant cut in single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, nor are these math professors able to give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.


**new**

Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
by Dan Christensen Nov 9, 2017, 3:00:47 PM
1,508,722 views from Mt. Washington

Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen Mar 13, 2018, 4:52:16 PM

Re: Drs. Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 15, 2018, 12:07:24 AM


Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 23, 2018, 10:24:48 AM


Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen May 19, 2018, 1:55:22 PM


Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
By Ebenezer Splooge Jan 17, 2021, 9:43:54 AM


Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
By Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM

Re: Earle Jones says Stanford physics dept is too stupid to see a ellipse is not a conic but a cylinder cut, thus therefore too stupid to see a hydrogen atom has no angular momentum if electron is 0.5 MeV when the real electron is the muon and proton
By Emmit Schaibe Mar 8, 2020, 10:44:18 AM

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..
1219 views
By Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM


Since strong user authentication was rarely used on Usenet during its early stages, since it meant sniffing Kibo Parry Moroney's underwear along with Uncle Al and Earle Jones, Gilbert Strang, Jan Burse, and Dan Christensen, Fine Structure Constant of shit streaks [3], some had suggested that Kibo Parry Moroney and Nicholas Thompson of Wired magazine [4] might have been a series of fusion underwear-mind-melds experiments sponsored by US dept education and NSF [5] looking to see if black hole gravity waves emanate from men's shorts. And Jan Burse was separately funded in ETH on Uncertainty principle of shit streaks versus farts and their duality nature, [6] NSF was willing to fund spectroscopic analysis of Kibo's shit streaked underwear.


Background and Training
_____________________


The Jan Burse school near ETH of hard-knocks criminals, farting their way through life.

ETH's_Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, is Jan Burse violent-stalker the reason you not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Post by Mostowski Collapse
brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
Autistic

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938


Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 32 posts 430 views updated 2:15 AM

Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 29 posts 307 views updated 2:13 AM


Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of  trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9



Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9

Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:35:36 ...
Feb 16 by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views



|| Eccentric believers || Govt. paid for and sponsored stalkers || Poofsters UWO University earning B.A. Masters, and Ph.D in Stalking, president Kibo Parry Moroney 28 year veteran, chancellor Dan Christensen, floor and toilet bowl cleaner Jan Burse expert on farting in the halls of ETH.

|| Criminal and eccentric personalities || Unusual Personalities || Twilight Zone Sickfucks ||

Todd B. Smith working round the clock in demonizing AP had this to say---

Post by Mostowski Collapse
...although Kibo _universally regarded_ as having more physics intelligence in the shit streaks of his underwear than in the entire brain of Todd B Smith - Philip J. Hanlon's Dartmouth College math and physics dept combined

And it is a Metaphysical Argument [4] to this day undertaken by Dan Christensen in Canada and Jan Burse at Swiss ETH questioning whether Kibo Parry Moroney's brain is a vacuum and the only physics intelligence in Kibo at all, is confined to the shit streaks in his shorts, using the logical construct that 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction in Boole logic (Boole shit-eaten logic)[5][6][7] and the Kibo Parry Moroney arithmetic of 938 is 12% short of 945 in his seminal book "Bore hole my arse for Geothermal Energy" [8]. Jan Burse questioning of whether the shit streaks and farts of Kibo can be harnessed to drive windmills and solar panels or simply as a identification passport in covid lockdown, unless the bathroom runs begin to be problematic.

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.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass

 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.


Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom.

Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal


(1)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling
but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells
from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat
from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the
water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground.

(2)
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:  

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What
you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water
cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer,
and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building
in the winter.

In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged
out over many, many years.

(3)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
better.
Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

(4)

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and
winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending
on how deep they go.
Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it
is much better than simply using that energy to make heat.

(5)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't
handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal
energy.  All he can do is attack.

(6)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where,
Mass. I think)
Now tell us where Permafrost comes from.
p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting
geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource!

(7)

Post by Mostowski Collapse

And my geothermal house works on sunshine collected in the day,

Not quite. Sunshine (more specifically ambient heat) collected over
hundreds or thousands of years. Constant 50 degrees F/10 C down the hole.
No significant geological activity here since the Jurassic and not deep
enough to get to the actual heat of the earth.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics. And Barry Shein, my bedwarmer loves to whisper in my ear how 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'
Wikki copyrights protected from the likes of MitchR, Dr. Chandler Davis who stole AP's correction Euclid Primes proof, Dr. Young who stole AP's Stonethrowing theory and Dr. Thorp who allowed the stealing of AP's Dog: first domesticated animal, stealers who have not acclimated to the Internet way of reporting science and see sci.math, sci.physics as "stealing fields".

[Python]

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof.

And failed to be used, as far as we know, by anyone but you.

Post by Dan Christensen
I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of Russell's Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.

Your posts are going from boring, missing the point to asinine (the 0^0
"controversy")

Post by Dan Christensen
Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs

Other programs are not as you depict them. As a matter of fact they are
actually USED by students, teachers and researchers.

Your program is atrocious on all levels.

Post by Dan Christensen
IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.

Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Dan Christensen]

Correction

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof. The user enters each line of formal proof by first selecting a rule of inference from the menu bar and then following the instructions presented. Each line is verified as it is entered.
I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of [The Barber] Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.
Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Dan Christensen pink slips Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart, Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods with their mindless Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction

Dan Christensen, a worthless idiot of Science and Logic, yet comes to sci.math, only to bully others in sci.math, for ten years and find out at the end-- he is -but- a worthless creep in science.

Dan Christensen pink slips
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich for their mindless complacency of never wanting to see if real electron is the muon with proton at 840MeV and the 0.5MeV particle as Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Too stupid to even entertain the idea.

1:29 AM Dan Christensen stalking// Sophie Gregoire "> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... " Stephen Lecce are you paying Dan Christensen to stalk AP for 10 years now?? Univ of Toronto Rose M. Patten, Meric Gertler are you paying that 10 year stalker??


Dan Christensen with his endless bully stalking of 10 years now--
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Pure gibberish. As we see here, AP never misses an opportunity to confuse and mislead students. Contrary to his lies...
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:

11:16 AM (1 hour ago)

Still no reply, Archie Pu?


Dan Christensen stalking// Sophie Gregoire "> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... " Stephen Lecce are you paying Dan Christensen to stalk AP for 10 years now??

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of ....

“The value of sin(45  degrees) = 1.”   (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019

AP writes: we all know Dan cannot read math correctly for slope at 45 degrees is 1, not the sine value. But a stalking hate mongering fool cannot learn anything, for the dy/dx of 45 degrees is a slope of 1. And that idiot Dan cannot comprehend what others are saying.

There is no sine mentioned in AP's Chart of Angles

from Teaching True Mathematics:

Now we spend some time in doing the dy/dx in the Angle Chart
 
90    84    79    73    68    63    59    55    51    48    45 these are angles made from (0,0)

?    10      5     3.3   2.5    2   1.6  1.4   1.2    1.1   1.0

90    84    79    73    68    63    59    55    51    48    45, slope 1, rt-triangle10by10

                                                                                42, rt-triangle 10by9

                                                                                39, rt-triangle 10by8

                                                                                35, rt-triangle 10by7

                                                                                31, rt-triangle 10by6

                                                                                27, rt-triangle 10by5

                                                                                22,  rt-triangle 10by4

                                                                                17,  rt.triangle 10by3

                                                                                11,  rt-triangle 10by2

                                                                                 6,  rt-triangle 10by1

0    .1      .2     .3      .4      .5      .6     .7    .8    .9     1.0


The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7

PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

LEARN THE TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS-- Decimal Grid Numbers, not the fakery that is Reals and Complex



3-1
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; textbook math series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3-2
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

3-3
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality//textbook math series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3-4
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

3-5
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 5  Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
        

3-6
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

3-7
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Kibo Parry Moroney is a character assassination of real scientists, a stalking 27 year long menace

Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Is this

 

a depiction of your asshole,

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:18:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski

I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.

I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!

Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.

In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.

So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.


Kibo Parry Moroney insane poofster stalker of 27 years of scientists. The 27 year long stalking of AP by the horrible pest and persistance of kibo Parry Moroney make one think that the NSF, National Science Foundation is paying for kibo Parry to stalk, paying him and World std perhaps $100 of taxpayer dollars for every stalking post that Kibo emits. So yes, if you are paid such easy money just to post ad hominem spam, then you too would probably want some of that almost free money.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Kelvin Droegemeier
France Anne Cordova

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua



Christensen harps// McGill Univ teaches idiocies//Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon,Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

1.2Christensen harps//Univ Toronto teaches idiocies//Chandler Davis, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook //ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

AP writes: Yes, how does one stop an education parasite like Christensen? Who thinks everyone must learn what "Dan thinks is true", for Dan is a fascist teacher as evidence of his 10 + years of nonstop stalking of AP with his insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Dan should not be in education but in jail or an asylum, in my opinion.

Dan Christensen harps//Univ Western Ontario teaches idiocies// Lisa Thompson, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon,Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč,//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

Dan Christensen wrote:
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim
On Saturday, June 1

AP writes: yes a victim of Dan's 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6

AP writes: Is the reason Canada has not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave like Christensen-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing the Faraday law to create Dirac magnetic monopoles.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: yea yea

Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.

PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

McGill University Physics department

Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman


Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis


Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang


UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis



Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny

Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich

can't figure out prime numbers (like so many things), so he calls them "fake." What an idiot!

Christensen says Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey-- cannot confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, can't figure


AP writes: Yes we are fed up with the likes of the failure of Dan Christensen who preaches 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6; never has a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and preaches the ellipse is a conic when it never was.

1.0-Set theory completely thrown out of science and math

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

I like to laugh at people in wheelchairs and people with white sticks.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 . And I love spam reading of vvgra and tomato hello, and I am a failure of academics and so I spend most days making out hate-lists of people who actually succeed in science for my pea sized brain is envious of those who succeed in science yet I failed in science.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'


Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs  Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole  

Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen"

Lisa Thompson, Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill, Ian Wishart, Rob Fleming.


David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias  Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Are you as ignorant and a education parasite as Christensen on the ELLIPSE is never a conic??

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth.



   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada.
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. Or math professors remaining stupid on ellipse is never a conic, 3 OR 2 = 5 is bad failed logic and Trig is based on semicircle wave, not sinusoid.

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

And what is this connection of Dan Christensen with John Baez if such. Are they aiding and abetting stalking?? Running some computer program of stalking in sci.math & sci.physics, if such.

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim  Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir  Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang




   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada?

Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the silly idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

In that manner,  physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.

Cynthia Larive,Mark Alber,John Baez, UC-Riverside vs. Matthias Franz,Nicole Lemire,UWO// Dan asks for sine of 45 degrees in your goofy math--when you still teach the ellipse is a conic when it never was-- are you all education parasites?(see proof)

Did you ever figure out the sine of 45 degrees in your new trig system,

Cynthia Larive,Mark Alber,John Baez, UC-Riverside vs. Matthias Franz,Nicole Lemire,UWO// Dan asks for sine of 45 degrees in you goofy math-- when you still teach the ellipse is a conic when it never was-- are you all education parasites? (see proof below)

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 00:28:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <421c6f56-7355-4ec6-9747-***@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: ***@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.208.232.34;
 posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.208.232.34
References: <0f307785-464a-4e59-b400-***@googlegroups.com>
 <a06f5f30-857e-4c33-9094-***@googlegroups.com> <afe56d2e-3fca-4c76-81da-***@googlegroups.com>
 <421c6f56-7355-4ec6-9747-***@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <69d8bde6-bcb6-472f-9765-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: asshole
From: noTthaTguY <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:28:33 +0000

ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Robin Armstrong,Mustafa Akcoglu,Spyros Alexakis,Univ Toronto asked by UWO Dan Christensen asks for the sine of 45 degrees in their goofy trig system, never realizing the sine function is actually a semicircle wave?


Robin Armstrong,Mustafa Akcoglu,Spyros Alexakis,Univ Toronto asked by UWO Dan Christensen asks for the sine of 45 degrees in their goofy trig system, never realizing the sine function is actually a semicircle wave?

STILL cannot even give us the sine of 45 degrees in his goofy trig system. Again, he just runs away and hides, desperately trying to change the subject.
Dan

 

David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias  Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Are you as ignorant and a education parasite as Christensen on the ELLIPSE is never a conic??

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth.



   /\-------/\
   \::O:::O::/
  (::_  ^  _::)
   \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada.
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. Or math professors remaining stupid on ellipse is never a conic, 3 OR 2 = 5 is bad failed logic and Trig is based on semicircle wave, not sinusoid.

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs  Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole  
Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen"

Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill, Ian Wishart, Rob Fleming, Justin Trudeau


Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, are you a moron of logic, like Christensen in Logic with 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 embracing the contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both


Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, are you a moron of logic, like Christensen in Logic with 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 embracing the contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both

Were you ever able to obtain a value for the sine of 45 degrees in your goofy trig system,

AP writes: Forget about trig for the moment for Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran have far larger problems.

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth.
 

Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,,
Visit my Math Blog,,,

(be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen)

Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018
8:19 AM (11 hours ago)

WARNING TO PARENTS
Archie Pu's fake logic

A    B    A & B
T    T        T
T    F        T
F    T        T
F    F        F
A    B    A & B
T    T        T
T    F        F
F    T        F
F    F        F

A    B    A OR B
T    T        T
T    F        T
F    T        T
F    F        F


Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//


Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.

Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,  
David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,  

All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.

The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.


Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.

To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRADICTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.


So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic.

#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to

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.

History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.


The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram

T    T

T    T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square

While addition is and with a Space like this

T    T

T    F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.

[Mostowski Collapse]

Nobody said you cannot sit in front of a computer,
and tippety tappety tap, write some code.
But you wrote 3-valued logic is nothing for math,

engineers, etc.. only for the philosophy department.
But SQL is a real world example, where 3-valued
logic is used, by software engineers. So I guess your

claim is as usual nonsense.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Correction

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof. The user enters each line of formal proof by first selecting a rule of inference from the menu bar and then following the instructions presented. Each line is verified as it is entered.
I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of [The Barber] Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.
Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

Chris Date wrote this piece:

C. J. Date: “The Closed World Assumption,” in Logic
and Databases: The Roots of Relational Theory. Victoria,
BC: Trafford Publishing (2007).

He is aware that the third value "UNKNOWN" could
have its root in a bivalent logic nevertheless. Take
Dan-O-Matiks argument who says that propositional

logic has enough for TT and FF, since for a proposition
we can express P and ~P. And it it is indeed the case:

{P} |- P {P} |/- ~P
{~P} |/- P {~P} |- ~P

But still there is a third situation, when neither P
nor ~P is asserted, namely:

{} |/- P {} |/- ~P

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Nobody said you cannot sit in front of a computer,
and tippety tappety tap, write some code.
But you wrote 3-valued logic is nothing for math,
engineers, etc.. only for the philosophy department.
But SQL is a real world example, where 3-valued
logic is used, by software engineers. So I guess your
claim is as usual nonsense.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Correction

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof. The user enters each line of formal proof by first selecting a rule of inference from the menu bar and then following the instructions presented. Each line is verified as it is entered.
I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of [The Barber] Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.
Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Mostowski Collapse]

But you find more papers about so called missing
data in a database. Take this table:

Person
Name CoronaTest
Joe Negative
Jack Positive
Jill N/A

What should be the result of this query?

SELECT * FROM Person
WHERE CoronaTest = Negative

I think its quite useful that SQL doesn't return Jill.
Since Jill did not yet take a Corona Test.

How would you do this example in DC Proof?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
C. J. Date: “The Closed World Assumption,” in Logic
and Databases: The Roots of Relational Theory. Victoria,
BC: Trafford Publishing (2007).
He is aware that the third value "UNKNOWN" could
have its root in a bivalent logic nevertheless. Take
Dan-O-Matiks argument who says that propositional
logic has enough for TT and FF, since for a proposition
{P} |- P {P} |/- ~P
{~P} |/- P {~P} |- ~P
But still there is a third situation, when neither P
{} |/- P {} |/- ~P

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Nobody said you cannot sit in front of a computer,
and tippety tappety tap, write some code.
But you wrote 3-valued logic is nothing for math,
engineers, etc.. only for the philosophy department.
But SQL is a real world example, where 3-valued
logic is used, by software engineers. So I guess your
claim is as usual nonsense.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Correction

Post by Dan Christensen

Post by Python
Said the guy who wrote a program in VB, working only on Microsoft
Windows...

DC Proof is a proof editor and checker that was designed as an educational aid to teach the basic methods of mathematical proof. The user enters each line of formal proof by first selecting a rule of inference from the menu bar and then following the instructions presented. Each line is verified as it is entered.
I have written and posted several articles at my blog on various topics that may be of interest to intermediate level users, e.g. how we justify the truth table for logical implication, various resolutions of [The Barber] Paradox, how we define infinite sets, resolving the 0^0 controversy, etc.
Other programs seem to be characterized by a very steep learning curve and atrocious formatting of output. Not suitable for students just learning to write proofs IMHO. A student can be writing simple proofs, minutes after installing DC Proof by working through the tutorial. It starts with proofs as simple as the commutativity of the AND-operator and finishes with simple proofs by induction.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Harvard's Dr. Hau has the brains to even do Slow Light experiments, but as for Jan Burse-- a total failure in all his life while in science-- accomplishments? --- zip zip zip

Alzheimer is a horrible desease.

Jan Burse, the Arsewipe of Science, a Zurich ditch digger, not a scientist, but a petty criminal, who even failed in becoming a hardened criminal.

Comparing science idiots--Jan Burse with his failure to see Boole mixed up AND with OR, or the feeble in mind Harvard Dr. Hau who refuses to turn the light off in "slow light" because it proves AP is correct

Is it Alzheimers that keeps the shithead Burse from ever asking the question-- Did Boole mix up AND with OR. Because even Grade School kids can comprehend that Boole can mix up AND with OR, but not that Swiss idiot Jan Burse or the insane Canadian Dan Christensen.

Harvard's Dr. Hau is not really a scientist because she refuses to turn the light switch off as a vendetta against AP. She does not want AP to get credit that light is a closed loop circuit, and not her straightline arrow ray.

Todd B Smith, you should be ashamed of yourself for the continued Demonization you enact upon AP== calling him a crank as the first Google search. Well, AP responds by calling Todd a sickfuck, which he truly is a sickfuck
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Should Harvard's Dr. Hau be put in a science-jail for Obstruction of Science? Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would

Years back I wrote a book on Quantum Entanglement, explaining it fully as the fact that light waves along with electricity is a closed loop phenomenon. Most people would not understand that because it looks like a light beam is a straight line phenomenon not a closed loop. But it truly is a closed loop for even the electric extension cord, which looks like a straight line, is in fact a closed loop.

Apparently, to Harvard's Dr.Hau, physics means being in the dark about understanding light waves is more important than understanding light waves and having to give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for predicting light is not a straightline arrow ray but a closed loop circuit. Apparently at Harvard being a scientist is never give credit to AP, is worse than finding out the truth about science and physics. Such petty petty people hatred that Harvard endorses, rather than --- science is all about the truth of the world, not about-- who do you hate.

So, years back, I wanted Harvard's Dr. Hau to set up her slow light experiment, get the light beam to crawl through the BEC, then, abruptly turn off the light beam at the source. What Dr. Hau would predict (I am guessing) is she would predict the slow light inside the BEC is still on and moving. What AP predicts because all light is a closed loop, is that the instant the beam is turned off at the source, all the light in the experiment INSTANTANEOUSLY goes out all at once.

So, can the science community stop obstructing progress and get on with it-- get Dr. Hau or any other similar experiment to "turn off the light" and prove AP correct or prove AP wrong. It is one or the other, and I am totally confident I will win this.

I have other evidence that I will win this.

1) News reporter far away, such as from Europe to Asia, or USA to Asia, have a speed of light lag time in talking to one another. But if the "so to speak circuit was turned off" the loss of signal is instantaneous. We can see it in radio waves where the speed of light has a lag time, not much but a noticeable lag. But if the communication was interrupted, the interruption is not the speed of light but instantaneous.

2) Solar eclipse. This is where the moon directly overhead blocks the Sun. Now, if light waves had no instantaneous shut off, and since it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from Sun to Earth. Then if light cannot be instantaneously shut off, means that in a solar eclipse, we need the Moon to be 8 minutes in its arc to experience the eclipse, not directly overhead.

3) Communication with our rockets such as Voyager 1, the contents of messages from Earth to spacecraft or vice versa take the speed of light time, but the turning off of the signal is instantaneous at both ends-- and is in "real time" not delayed to the speed of light. Just as in Slow Light experiments, turn the source switch off, and all the light downstream disappears instantly.

1- AP's 145th book// TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Books in this series are.
137th book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1
145th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School junior year, book 2
146th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS High School senior year, book 3
147th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Freshperson college, book 4
148th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Sophomore college, book 5
149th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Junior college, book 6
150th book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS Senior college, book 7
Preface: As I said before, each generation of approximately 30 to 60 years time span, it does not have to be exact, but about 30 to 60 years needs a preeminent, premier scientist to write the authoritative texts of physics. There is about that much time span that major discoveries and developments occur to warrant that textbook. And the purpose of which is to set the foundations and fundamentals of physics. The last person to do this was Feynman in his Lectures on Physics in 1960s. Perhaps Rutherford and Bohr did this in early 1900s. But most definitely Maxwell served this function of leading expert on physics with his 1860s book on Maxwell Equations. The time before was Faraday and all his writings circa 1830.
Here it is 2020, and we need to replace the Feynman Lectures on Physics with all the new found knowledge and discoveries since Feynman of 1960s.
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the education with.
And this Junior year in High School is mostly to be like a laboratory learning, a hands on experiment of physics, mostly electricity and magnetism. This is to emphasize to young students, that physics is, well, mostly about electricity and magnetism and anything else is side show.
Cover Picture: Is two books of Time-Life Lighting & Electricity 1987, and Advanced Wiring 1998, which I will use as template books in writing this book.
What is a template in writing? It means that I will use these two books as much of the substance of this course in physics. Of course I will correct things in the two template books. And the reason for having template books is to save time. If I do not use template books this project could take me anywhere from 5 to 10 years to write these 6 textbooks. By using these template books I cut the time down to perhaps 5 to 10 months.
I need template books for Junior High School that are exceptionally well written and have a laboratory manual type of structure, a lab manual so to speak. And Time-Life books are excellently written. The trouble I found in High School and College lab manuals is they are poorly written, poorly written for first-time students to understand what is going on. And the teacher for these lab manuals did not know much about the experiments either. So lab courses turned into nightmares, is what High School and College was. To this very day, I cannot remember a single lab experiment in which I learned anything. Partly due to the fact that instructors in High School or College seldom get any training in how to teach lab courses. College professors seldom take "how to teach students course" to be a effective teacher. That means, getting down to the level of understanding of first time young students. And that is what Time-Life books overcome with plenty of pictures and clear concise prose to teach.
Junior High School physics should be ample hands on doing, like a laboratory.
So, in TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, AP is going to start with the Ancient Greek Theory of Atoms then jump directly to magnetism and electricity. I am bypassing all the Newton laws and Newton gravity. I am going from Ancient Greek physics to electricity and magnetism.
And this is quite acceptable in the fact that Newton laws and gravity were "idealizations", pointing to the underlying unification that is EM force.
Now I was looking for a picture of magnetism and Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, 1986, which I use as the template book for 1st year college, on pages 584 and 580 shows lines of force from a magnet and/or electric.
In Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, page 687, Figure 1 Iron filings sprinkled on a sheet of paper tell us that there is a bar magnet underneath.
I was hoping that Feynman had a picture of magnetic lines of force, but did not. But to his credit, his first pictures are that of "atoms in motion" in his Lectures of Physics.
The Senior High School template book, Asimov in his History of Physics, 1966, page 392 has a picture of magnetic lines of force.
AP
Table of Contents
---------------------------
1) The Atomic Theory by Ancient Greek time.
2) Experiment, experiment, experiment, that is what gives us scientific truth.
3) Experiment and classroom demonstration on magnetism.
4) Experiment and classroom demonstration on Faraday Law.
5) What electric current looks like and how it flows in wire circuits.
6) Principles of Light and Electricity.
7) The Mathematical Equations that governs all of Physics (for Junior High School).

Principles of Light and Electricity.
1) Travels at maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s. No speed can exceed this maximum.
2) Travels at a constant maximum speed 3.16*10^8 m/s in vacuum. Do not forget the vacuum.
3) Travels as a closed loop circuit. This is what was missed in Special Relativity physics of Old Physics.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Dan Christensen pink slips John Woods, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman, Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart, Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin with their mindless Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction

Way over the heads of both Jan Burse and Dan Christensen, the idea that Boole mixed up AND with OR and got them half arse turned around backwards.

Dan Christensen, a worthless idiot of Science and Logic, yet comes to sci.math, only to bully others in sci.math, for ten years and find out at the end-- he is -but- a worthless creep in science.

Dan Christensen pink slips
Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich for their mindless complacency of never wanting to see if real electron is the muon with proton at 840MeV and the 0.5MeV particle as Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Too stupid to even entertain the idea.

1:29 AM Dan Christensen stalking// Sophie Gregoire "> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... " Stephen Lecce are you paying Dan Christensen to stalk AP for 10 years now?? Univ of Toronto Rose M. Patten, Meric Gertler are you paying that 10 year stalker??


Dan Christensen with his endless bully stalking of 10 years now--
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Pure gibberish. As we see here, AP never misses an opportunity to confuse and mislead students. Contrary to his lies...
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Dan Christensen wrote:

11:16 AM (1 hour ago)

Still no reply, Archie Pu?


Dan Christensen stalking// Sophie Gregoire "> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... " Stephen Lecce are you paying Dan Christensen to stalk AP for 10 years now??

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of ....

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019

AP writes: we all know Dan cannot read math correctly for slope at 45 degrees is 1, not the sine value. But a stalking hate mongering fool cannot learn anything, for the dy/dx of 45 degrees is a slope of 1. And that idiot Dan cannot comprehend what others are saying.

There is no sine mentioned in AP's Chart of Angles

from Teaching True Mathematics:

Now we spend some time in doing the dy/dx in the Angle Chart

90 84 79 73 68 63 59 55 51 48 45 these are angles made from (0,0)

? 10 5 3.3 2.5 2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0

90 84 79 73 68 63 59 55 51 48 45, slope 1, rt-triangle10by10

42, rt-triangle 10by9

39, rt-triangle 10by8

35, rt-triangle 10by7

31, rt-triangle 10by6

27, rt-triangle 10by5

22, rt-triangle 10by4

17, rt.triangle 10by3

11, rt-triangle 10by2

6, rt-triangle 10by1

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0


The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7

PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

LEARN THE TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS-- Decimal Grid Numbers, not the fakery that is Reals and Complex



3-1
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; textbook math series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3-2
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

3-3
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality//textbook math series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3-4
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

3-5
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019


3-6
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

3-7
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Kibo Parry Moroney is a character assassination of real scientists, a stalking 27 year long menace

Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Is this
a depiction of your asshole,

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:18:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski

I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.

I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!

Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.

In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.

So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.


Kibo Parry Moroney insane poofster stalker of 27 years of scientists. The 27 year long stalking of AP by the horrible pest and persistance of kibo Parry Moroney make one think that the NSF, National Science Foundation is paying for kibo Parry to stalk, paying him and World std perhaps $100 of taxpayer dollars for every stalking post that Kibo emits. So yes, if you are paid such easy money just to post ad hominem spam, then you too would probably want some of that almost free money.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Kelvin Droegemeier
France Anne Cordova

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua



Christensen harps// McGill Univ teaches idiocies//Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon,Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

1.2Christensen harps//Univ Toronto teaches idiocies//Chandler Davis, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook //ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

AP writes: Yes, how does one stop an education parasite like Christensen? Who thinks everyone must learn what "Dan thinks is true", for Dan is a fascist teacher as evidence of his 10 + years of nonstop stalking of AP with his insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Dan should not be in education but in jail or an asylum, in my opinion.

Dan Christensen harps//Univ Western Ontario teaches idiocies// Lisa Thompson, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon,Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč,//ellipse is not conic; real proton= 840MeV not 938; 10 AND 4 = 14 not 10 OR 4 = 14

Dan Christensen wrote:
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim
On Saturday, June 1

AP writes: yes a victim of Dan's 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6

AP writes: Is the reason Canada has not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave like Christensen-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing the Faraday law to create Dirac magnetic monopoles.


o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: yea yea

Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.

PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

McGill University Physics department

Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman


Univ of Victoria physics dept
Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis


Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang


UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis



Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny

Cornell Univ physics:
Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich

can't figure out prime numbers (like so many things), so he calls them "fake." What an idiot!

Christensen says Lisa Thompson,Univ Toronto & Western Ontario, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey-- cannot confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole, can't figure


AP writes: Yes we are fed up with the likes of the failure of Dan Christensen who preaches 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6; never has a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and preaches the ellipse is a conic when it never was.

1.0-Set theory completely thrown out of science and math

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

I like to laugh at people in wheelchairs and people with white sticks.

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 . And I love spam reading of vvgra and tomato hello, and I am a failure of academics and so I spend most days making out hate-lists of people who actually succeed in science for my pea sized brain is envious of those who succeed in science yet I failed in science.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'


Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen"

Lisa Thompson, Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill, Ian Wishart, Rob Fleming.


David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Are you as ignorant and a education parasite as Christensen on the ELLIPSE is never a conic??

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth.



/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada.
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. Or math professors remaining stupid on ellipse is never a conic, 3 OR 2 = 5 is bad failed logic and Trig is based on semicircle wave, not sinusoid.

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

And what is this connection of Dan Christensen with John Baez if such. Are they aiding and abetting stalking?? Running some computer program of stalking in sci.math & sci.physics, if such.

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang




/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada?

Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the silly idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.

Cynthia Larive,Mark Alber,John Baez, UC-Riverside vs. Matthias Franz,Nicole Lemire,UWO// Dan asks for sine of 45 degrees in your goofy math--when you still teach the ellipse is a conic when it never was-- are you all education parasites?(see proof)

Did you ever figure out the sine of 45 degrees in your new trig system,

Cynthia Larive,Mark Alber,John Baez, UC-Riverside vs. Matthias Franz,Nicole Lemire,UWO// Dan asks for sine of 45 degrees in you goofy math-- when you still teach the ellipse is a conic when it never was-- are you all education parasites? (see proof below)

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 00:28:31 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <421c6f56-7355-***@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: ***@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=192.208.232.34;
posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 192.208.232.34
References: <0f307785-464a-***@googlegroups.com>
<a06f5f30-857e-***@googlegroups.com> <afe56d2e-3fca-***@googlegroups.com>
<421c6f56-7355-***@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <69d8bde6-bcb6-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: asshole
From: noTthaTguY <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 08:28:33 +0000

ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Robin Armstrong,Mustafa Akcoglu,Spyros Alexakis,Univ Toronto asked by UWO Dan Christensen asks for the sine of 45 degrees in their goofy trig system, never realizing the sine function is actually a semicircle wave?


Robin Armstrong,Mustafa Akcoglu,Spyros Alexakis,Univ Toronto asked by UWO Dan Christensen asks for the sine of 45 degrees in their goofy trig system, never realizing the sine function is actually a semicircle wave?

STILL cannot even give us the sine of 45 degrees in his goofy trig system. Again, he just runs away and hides, desperately trying to change the subject.
Dan

David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Are you as ignorant and a education parasite as Christensen on the ELLIPSE is never a conic??

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth.



/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada.
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. Or math professors remaining stupid on ellipse is never a conic, 3 OR 2 = 5 is bad failed logic and Trig is based on semicircle wave, not sinusoid.

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV.

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole
Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen"

Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill, Ian Wishart, Rob Fleming, Justin Trudeau


Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, are you a moron of logic, like Christensen in Logic with 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 embracing the contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both


Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, are you a moron of logic, like Christensen in Logic with 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 embracing the contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both

Were you ever able to obtain a value for the sine of 45 degrees in your goofy trig system,

AP writes: Forget about trig for the moment for Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, John Corcoran have far larger problems.

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth.


Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,,
Visit my Math Blog,,,

(be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen)

Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018
8:19 AM (11 hours ago)

WARNING TO PARENTS
Archie Pu's fake logic

A B A & B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
A B A & B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

A B A OR B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F


Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//


Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods

Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.

Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.

The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.


Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors.

To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRADICTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards.


So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic.

#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to

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.

History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.


The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T = T = T
T = not F = T
F = not T = T
F = F = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram

T T

T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square

While addition is and with a Space like this

T T

T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.

New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

although Dan universally regarded as booger-boy Christensen having failed even Venn diagrams wants to hip hop poofster his way through life as noted by Usenet historian Todd B Smith, demonizer specialist incorporated.

Dan booger boy Christensen a failure of science and logic with his mindless 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction.
wiki, wiki Revision history of " Booger boy Dan Christensen"
www.exampleproblems dot com wiki
(cur | prev) 03:21, 13 March 2021 Todd (talk | contribs ... (10,274 bytes)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Dan

Download his DC Poofster 2.0 freeware at http://www. I failed even Venn diagrams

Watch and listen Dan booger-boy trying to apply his teaching methods--

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
Dan

Todd, at what ripe age did Booger Boy Dan Christensen eat boogers in classrooms, grossing out other kids? Was it when he failed Logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, so he learned to eat boogers instead?

Todd B Smith do you have pictures for Youtube or Facebook of Booger Boy Dan Christensen and his 10 year long stalking of sci.math?

Todd B Smith have you completed your research in the DNA found in a Dan Christensen booger?


Dan Christensen - Example Problems from www.exampleproblems dot com
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dan Christensen is primarily noted for his varied and eccentric stalking to Usenet. And his consumption of boogers in his threads meant to be about mathematics but always ending up as the joys of eating a booger in front of a live audience. Canada is dark and lonely at the University of Western Ontario where Dan packs his booger lunch.
Given Kibo's birth may explain his stalking in sci.math and sci.physics for he was not born in the normal manner but shitted out of the arse of his mother, while she was undergoing a lobotomy in Boston. And to this very day, Kibo is never seen giving a kind word to anybody or anything, especially his mother. Having been shitted out of the arse of your mother will do that to you. Kibo Parry Moroney repeatedly claimed to be the greatest living Comic, and referred to himself at least once as "The AnalButtFuckManure of late night comedy"[1], although he is almost universally regarded as a mRNA poofster fuckdog and Todd B Smith as a adjuvant poofster fuckdog. Much to the disdain and chagrin, and annoyance of every lady walking or sitting on park benches with a leg exposed. One of Kibo's seminal and most memorable posts in July, 2020 [2] replies to the South Korean Prime Minister over the torture of his country's-- moon bears. Bears that are lifelong caged and tortured for their bile extraction. In one of Kibo's posts, he suggests sending in a platoon of Marines to free the moon bears. (Needs confirmation by Todd B. Smith dot com)


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney is sending South Korean president Moon Jae-in a map to free the MOON BEARS from torture
By Buck Futter July 22, 2020 at 8:05:47 PM

Re: 8-Kibo Parry Moroney says boycott Samsung & Hyundai until South Korea stops torturing to death caged Moon Bears // SOUTH KOREA, MOON BEARS Moon Bears of South Korea need the world's helping hand from evil//SCIENCE COUNCIL RULE EARTH
By Betsy Kibo Moroney Perry DeVos Anal Manure Buttfuck
Jul 28, 2020, 5:35:52 PM


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney asks Trump to give South Korea to North Korea, for who wants to protect barbarians that torture Moon Bears in cages
By Roger Davis
Jul 26, 2020, 8:18:58 AM


Contents
1 Background
2 Kibo's claims
2.1 Kibo's assessment of his poofster stalking in sci.math, sci.physics
3 Biographical notes
4 Quotes
5 External links


Another report of Kibo Parry Moroney is in answer to Dr. Tao of UCLA on why he cannot admit to his mistakes that a ellipse is not a conic cut of a single cone for that is a oval. And why Dr. Tao fails to ever give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, like what the King of Science Archimedes Plutonium, did in 2015, and published the world's first geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says of Dr. Tao "ant of Math" and a pandemic shit mule// Perhaps because Dr. Tao is such a failure of math, he believed primes are real when Naturals have no division-- and failures of math overlook even the most obvious
Professor Wordsmith Jul 25, 2020, 8:23:21

Another memorable report and post by Kibo Parry Moroney is where he refers to Stanford Univ president Dr. Tessier-Lavigne and Caltech's president Dr. Rosenbaum as "cults of education" for never considering that the real proton is 840MeV as a proton torus with the muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law that AP wrote a book on.


Re: Kibo Parry Moroney says "Oh Mum! Ride-A-Penis Cult!" Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne, CalTech's Thomas Rosenbaum with their 10 OR 6 = 16; their ellipse a conic when it never was; their proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth it is 840 to..
Eddie "Fish Basket" Reynolds Jr. Aug 10, 2020, 3:34:45 PM

Here is where the 28 year long stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his gang of bullies such as Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, et al beat up on Harvard's Dr. Hau for failing to turn the light switch off in "Slow Light Experiments" and demonstrate AP is correct in saying light waves are not straightline arrows but are closed loops with the source always in contact in the closed loop.

Re: Zelos asks why Harvard's Dr. Hau wants to fail in physics, by not turning off the light to see if light wave is a closed loop pencil ellipse that AP predicts. Is Dr.Hau stubborn and too ignorant to finish her experiment??
by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2021, 2:06:24 PM


Give pink slips to all math professors who cannot certify that a slant cut in single cone is never a ellipse, always a oval, nor are these math professors able to give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.


**new**

Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND
by Dan Christensen Nov 9, 2017, 3:00:47 PM
1,508,722 views from Mt. Washington

Re: Canada's Dan Christensen of Univ. Western Ontario flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen Mar 13, 2018, 4:52:16 PM

Re: Drs. Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 15, 2018, 12:07:24 AM


Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
By Michael Moroney Jan 23, 2018, 10:24:48 AM


Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen May 19, 2018, 1:55:22 PM


Re: 2-Jill does not have to be a geometry failure like Ken Ribet Re: 1- AMS, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, Robert L. Bryant, David Vogan, Eric M. Friedlander, why not go for the truth of mathematics-- the slant cut in cone is a oval, never the ellipse.
By Dan Christensen Nov 15, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on Dr. Thorp stealing AP's dog theory connected to why he is a failure on Lewis 8 Structure because CO and N2 dissociation energy says it is Lewis 6 Structure. Yes, Kibo, what is your psychoanalysis of Dr. Thorp stealing? Is steal
By Ebenezer Splooge Jan 17, 2021, 9:43:54 AM


Re: 1-Kibo Parry Moroney, how do you clean your dick after it has been up Barry Shein's arsehole, or does it improve your stalking
By Richard Cranium May 10, 2020, 8:30:43 PM

Re: Earle Jones says Stanford physics dept is too stupid to see a ellipse is not a conic but a cylinder cut, thus therefore too stupid to see a hydrogen atom has no angular momentum if electron is 0.5 MeV when the real electron is the muon and proton
By Emmit Schaibe Mar 8, 2020, 10:44:18 AM

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..
1219 views
By Professor Wordsmith Aug 14, 2020, 11:07:05 AM


Since strong user authentication was rarely used on Usenet during its early stages, since it meant sniffing Kibo Parry Moroney's underwear along with Uncle Al and Earle Jones, Gilbert Strang, Jan Burse, and Dan Christensen, Fine Structure Constant of shit streaks [3], some had suggested that Kibo Parry Moroney and Nicholas Thompson of Wired magazine [4] might have been a series of fusion underwear-mind-melds experiments sponsored by US dept education and NSF [5] looking to see if black hole gravity waves emanate from men's shorts. And Jan Burse was separately funded in ETH on Uncertainty principle of shit streaks versus farts and their duality nature, [6] NSF was willing to fund spectroscopic analysis of Kibo's shit streaked underwear.


Background and Training
_____________________


The Jan Burse school near ETH of hard-knocks criminals, farting their way through life.

ETH's_Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, is Jan Burse violent-stalker the reason you not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV, real electron=105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole

Post by Mostowski Collapse
brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
Autistic

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin,, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic and real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Peter Persans, Moussa N'Gom, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_William Siegmann,Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938


Re: 8Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 32 posts 430 views updated 2:15 AM

Re: 6Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Michael Moroney 29 posts 307 views updated 2:13 AM


Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of  trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong
By Dan Christensen 3 posts 18 views updated Sep 9



Re: 9Der_FartMouth Births-comics for Eric FartFrancis, with snickering by George FartWitte published by ST FARTMARTINS
By Dan Christensen 11 posts 227 views updated Sep 9

Re: 3Textbook: Let us Thank AP for fixing Trigonometry where 95% of trigonometry was muddleheaded wrong.
On Saturday, February 16, 2019 at 10:35:50 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 08:35:36 ...
Feb 16 by Dan Christensen - 2 posts by 2 authors - 13 views



|| Eccentric believers || Govt. paid for and sponsored stalkers || Poofsters UWO University earning B.A. Masters, and Ph.D in Stalking, president Kibo Parry Moroney 28 year veteran, chancellor Dan Christensen, floor and toilet bowl cleaner Jan Burse expert on farting in the halls of ETH.

|| Criminal and eccentric personalities || Unusual Personalities || Twilight Zone Sickfucks ||

Todd B. Smith working round the clock in demonizing AP had this to say---

Post by Mostowski Collapse
...although Kibo _universally regarded_ as having more physics intelligence in the shit streaks of his underwear than in the entire brain of Todd B Smith - Philip J. Hanlon's Dartmouth College math and physics dept combined

And it is a Metaphysical Argument [4] to this day undertaken by Dan Christensen in Canada and Jan Burse at Swiss ETH questioning whether Kibo Parry Moroney's brain is a vacuum and the only physics intelligence in Kibo at all, is confined to the shit streaks in his shorts, using the logical construct that 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction in Boole logic (Boole shit-eaten logic)[5][6][7] and the Kibo Parry Moroney arithmetic of 938 is 12% short of 945 in his seminal book "Bore hole my arse for Geothermal Energy" [8]. Jan Burse questioning of whether the shit streaks and farts of Kibo can be harnessed to drive windmills and solar panels or simply as a identification passport in covid lockdown, unless the bathroom runs begin to be problematic.

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.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
 Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass

 > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.


Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom.

Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal


(1)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling
but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells
from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat
from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the
water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground.

(2)
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:  

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What
you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water
cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer,
and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building
in the winter.

In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged
out over many, many years.

(3)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they
use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any
better.
Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why
is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real
geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees?

(4)

Post by Mostowski Collapse

Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and
winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending
on how deep they go.
Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it
is much better than simply using that energy to make heat.

(5)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't
handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal
energy.  All he can do is attack.

(6)

Post by Mostowski Collapse
geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where,
Mass. I think)
Now tell us where Permafrost comes from.
p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting
geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource!

(7)

Post by Mostowski Collapse

And my geothermal house works on sunshine collected in the day,

Not quite. Sunshine (more specifically ambient heat) collected over
hundreds or thousands of years. Constant 50 degrees F/10 C down the hole.
No significant geological activity here since the Jurassic and not deep
enough to get to the actual heat of the earth.

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Kibo Parry Moroney, the grand failure of science with my 938 is 12% short of 945, and my ellipse is a conic when it never was, and my idiocy of thinking geothermal is not radioactivity but is recycled solar fossil. I stalk on Internet because NSF pays a million dollars and is 5 times the salary of those professors stuck with actually teaching science and all I do is attack dog style in sci.math, sci.physics. And Barry Shein, my bedwarmer loves to whisper in my ear how 10 OR 2 =12 with AND as subtraction
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'
Wikki copyrights protected from the likes of MitchR, Dr. Chandler Davis who stole AP's correction Euclid Primes proof, Dr. Young who stole AP's Stonethrowing theory and Dr. Thorp who allowed the stealing of AP's Dog: first domesticated animal, stealers who have not acclimated to the Internet way of reporting science and see sci.math, sci.physics as "stealing fields".

[Dan Christensen]

although Dan universally regarded...

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

Note that AP will often delete his bizarre and hateful postings when his lies are called out, only to repost identical ones moments later in a NEW thread.

Readers should, of course, judge for themselves. In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017


And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Jan Burse ala Collapse shits in face of Harvard's Slow Light experiment Dr. Hau, wanting
her to never turn off the lights by maintaining mindless Boole logic of 10 OR 1 = 11, with AND as subtraction.

According to Burse, Dr. Hau Either has Slow Light OR switch light off, but never has Slow Light AND then switch light off.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Weekend is approaching my dudes. Where is Zorni Boy?

2-Dr Hau, too dumb to finish a Harvard experiment//Kibo Parry Moroney struggling relevance

Why is it so important for Dr. Hau to finish up here BEC slow light experiment by turning the light off and seeing that all the light vanishes simultaneously, even the slow light in BEC? Why is that important? Because it proves that light waves are not straight arrow rays but are closed loops having the source always in that closed loop circuit. This is what makes Quantum Entanglement. And this explains so much of the mysteries of quantum mechanics.

So, why is Dr. Hau being so arrogant and dullard in completing her work of physics?


Post by Mostowski Collapse
Dr. Thorp steals AP's "Dog: first domesticated animal" theory of 2004//Kibo Parry Moroney says a struggle for relevance syndrome.

"struggling for relevance"
"I ate my brain"
Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics

Harvard's Dr. Hau, simply turn the light off at the source and see if the "slow light" instantly vanishes along with all the other light. Simple as that.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Download the mindless idiot's 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction
struggling for relevance

3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.



Post by Mostowski Collapse
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe



Post by Mostowski Collapse
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
AP
King of Science
Michael Moroney's profile photo
Michael Moroney
Nov 22, 2020, 11:27:11 AM


Subject: H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on > "Dog,
struggling for relevance

AP writes: Kibo, can you get your buddy at Wired magazine Nick Thompson to double confirm the stealing going on at SCIENCE of AP's "Dog first domesticated animal".

[Mostowski Collapse]

Is that you micro penis?

... gibberish gibberish ...

[Loid Amos Rizzotto]

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Is that you micro penis?

... gibberish gibberish ...

who you? kiss my ass, which country are you??

[Me]

Post by Dan Christensen
Theorem: ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => G(alf)
Need only axiom: EXIST(a): U(a)

This seems strange to me. (Note that I consider "alf" a constant.)

The following would make sense to me:

ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]] & ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] => [U(alf) => G(alf)]

As a consequence of

ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]], ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)] |- ALL(a):[U(a) => G(a)] .

[Me]

Post by Dan Christensen
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm

Nope.

Hint: You introduced "alf" with an application of E Spec (usually called Existential Instantiation) here:

2 U(alf)
E Spec, 1

And you intend to stop here:

11 ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)
4 Conclusion, 3

Note that 11 still contains "alf".

In this case, 11 is not a proven theorem!

Hint:

"In predicate logic, existential instantiation [...] is a rule of inference which says that, given a formula of the form Ex Phi(x), one may infer Phi (c) for a new constant symbol c. The rule has the restrictions that the constant c introduced by the rule must be a new term that has not occurred earlier in the proof, and it also must not occur in the conclusion of the proof."

You will find explained that in detail below:

"[...] we have kept the Existential-Elimination (∃-Elimination) rule used by Lemmon [and ND by Genzten --me]. [Note that] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. [...] In a system using ∃-instantiation, however, this feature is absent: there are correct proofs some of whose lines do not follow from previous lines, since the rule of ∃-instantiation is not a valid rule. For instance, the following is the beginning of a proof using ∃-instantiation.

1 (1) ∃xFx assumption
1 (2) Fa 1 ∃-instantiation

Line 2 does not follow from line 1. This difference between ∃-elimination and ∃-instantiation can be put as follows: in an ∃-elimination proof, you can stop at any time and still have a correct proof of some argument or other, but in an ∃-instantiation proof, you cannot stop whenever you like. It seems to us that these implications of ∃-instantiation's invalidity outweigh the additional complexity of ∃-elimination. In an ∃-elimination system, not only is the system sound as a whole, but every rule is individually valid; this is not true for an ∃-instantiation system."

(Colin Allen and Michael Hand, Logic Primer)

Hint, actually, the write:

"[....] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. If the proof has reached a line of the form

m,...,n (k) z ...

then the sentence z has been established as provable from the premise set {m,...,n}. (Here the right-hand ellipsis indicates which rule was applied to yield z, and which earlier sentences it was applied to.) This is quite useful in helping the student understand what is going on in a proof."

Indeed! :-)

[Mostowski Collapse]

There is a Trumpm meme now, in conclusion:

DC-Proof, E Spec
Sounds good, doesn't work

https://gist.github.com/jburse/51cd3886c7ceef5035ea7e2860b096a2#gistcomment-3539903

Post by Dan Christensen
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm

Nope.
2 U(alf)
E Spec, 1
11 ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)
4 Conclusion, 3
Note that 11 still contains "alf".
In this case, 11 is not a proven theorem!
"In predicate logic, existential instantiation [...] is a rule of inference which says that, given a formula of the form Ex Phi(x), one may infer Phi (c) for a new constant symbol c. The rule has the restrictions that the constant c introduced by the rule must be a new term that has not occurred earlier in the proof, and it also must not occur in the conclusion of the proof."
"[...] we have kept the Existential-Elimination (∃-Elimination) rule used by Lemmon [and ND by Genzten --me]. [Note that] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. [...] In a system using ∃-instantiation, however, this feature is absent: there are correct proofs some of whose lines do not follow from previous lines, since the rule of ∃-instantiation is not a valid rule. For instance, the following is the beginning of a proof using ∃-instantiation.
1 (1) ∃xFx assumption
1 (2) Fa 1 ∃-instantiation
Line 2 does not follow from line 1. This difference between ∃-elimination and ∃-instantiation can be put as follows: in an ∃-elimination proof, you can stop at any time and still have a correct proof of some argument or other, but in an ∃-instantiation proof, you cannot stop whenever you like. It seems to us that these implications of ∃-instantiation's invalidity outweigh the additional complexity of ∃-elimination. In an ∃-elimination system, not only is the system sound as a whole, but every rule is individually valid; this is not true for an ∃-instantiation system."
(Colin Allen and Michael Hand, Logic Primer)
"[....] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. If the proof has reached a line of the form
m,...,n (k) z ...
then the sentence z has been established as provable from the premise set {m,...,n}. (Here the right-hand ellipsis indicates which rule was applied to yield z, and which earlier sentences it was applied to.) This is quite useful in helping the student understand what is going on in a proof."
Indeed! :-)

[Dan Christensen]

See my reply to your similar question at sci.logic

Post by Dan Christensen
Formal proof in DC Proof 2.0 format (only 11 lines): http://dcproof.com/AlfIsGreen.htm

Nope.
2 U(alf)
E Spec, 1
11 ALL(a):[U(a) => [F(a) => G(a)]]
& ALL(a):[U(a) => F(a)]
=> G(alf)
4 Conclusion, 3
Note that 11 still contains "alf".
In this case, 11 is not a proven theorem!
"In predicate logic, existential instantiation [...] is a rule of inference which says that, given a formula of the form Ex Phi(x), one may infer Phi (c) for a new constant symbol c. The rule has the restrictions that the constant c introduced by the rule must be a new term that has not occurred earlier in the proof, and it also must not occur in the conclusion of the proof."
"[...] we have kept the Existential-Elimination (∃-Elimination) rule used by Lemmon [and ND by Genzten --me]. [Note that] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. [...] In a system using ∃-instantiation, however, this feature is absent: there are correct proofs some of whose lines do not follow from previous lines, since the rule of ∃-instantiation is not a valid rule. For instance, the following is the beginning of a proof using ∃-instantiation.
1 (1) ∃xFx assumption
1 (2) Fa 1 ∃-instantiation
Line 2 does not follow from line 1. This difference between ∃-elimination and ∃-instantiation can be put as follows: in an ∃-elimination proof, you can stop at any time and still have a correct proof of some argument or other, but in an ∃-instantiation proof, you cannot stop whenever you like. It seems to us that these implications of ∃-instantiation's invalidity outweigh the additional complexity of ∃-elimination. In an ∃-elimination system, not only is the system sound as a whole, but every rule is individually valid; this is not true for an ∃-instantiation system."
(Colin Allen and Michael Hand, Logic Primer)
"[....] at any point in a proof using ∃-elimination, some argument has been proven. If the proof has reached a line of the form
m,...,n (k) z ...
then the sentence z has been established as provable from the premise set {m,...,n}. (Here the right-hand ellipsis indicates which rule was applied to yield z, and which earlier sentences it was applied to.) This is quite useful in helping the student understand what is going on in a proof."
Indeed! :-)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

3_Dan Christensen shits in the face Robert Sica, Carol Jones, Jeffrey L Hutter, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, with their proton at 938MeV, electron at 0.5MeV when in truth the proton is 840MeV torus with real electron= muon thrusting through the proton doing the Faraday law and 0.5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Is University Western Ontario as dumb as Dan Christensen and cannot even test how high up a drone can fly just on lithium batteries? Can it surpass the height of Mt. Everest. Of course if you are a feeble idiot of science like Dan with his 10 OR 1 = 11 with AND as subtract, then forget about even doing science with brains like that.

Post by Dan Christensen

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
Dan Christensen flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Dan Christensen's stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Dan could never think properly or logically in any science for Dan harbors a Logic where his truth tables say that 1 OR 2 = 3, yet any teenager Canadian would usually say, "eh, you have that wrong, 1 AND 2 = 3.
And so bozotic is Dan, and his doppelganger Dan Christensen that both bozos of logic, of reasoning have no room in their idiotic logic system for a connector of truth table TTTT.

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication
New Logic
T = T = T
T = not F = T
F = not T = T
F = F = T

Huh? Always true? How useless is that?

No wonder Canada is behind the times in science, in even thinking straight and clear with two knuckleheads (or whether they are one and the same?) up there in Canada. 10 OR 10 = 20 is that what Canada is all about in Logic. But worse yet is no Canadian in mathematics could ever do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and no wonder Canada is thought of as a backwater in mathematics, for leave it to Dan Christensen to keep Canada a backwater of mathematics.
SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist
by Archimedes Plutonium
Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.
But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.
If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.
The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.
B
/|
/ |
A /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.
In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus, your students deserve better. And you professors of physics at UWO, want to remain stupid and ignorant that the Real Electron = 105 MeV and the Real Proton = 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.
Dan Christensen
1:46 PM (1 hour ago)
Re: #1-5 Logic of AND, OR// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:09:16 +0000
#1-5 Logic of AND, OR// TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium

*** LOGIC LESSON FOR ARCHIE PU ***
DEFINITIONS
A .AND. B is true means both A and B are true.
A .OR. B is true means at least one of A and B is true.
1. If A is true and B is false, then A .AND. B is ___________ (true or false).
2. If A is true and B is true, then A .OR. B is ___________ (true or false).
Dan

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
3_Dan Christensen shits in the face Robert Sica, Carol Jones, Jeffrey L Hut

Why do you insist on insulting your superiors, and why are you trying to make
this group into a gay (or coprophilic) pickup bar, Stupid Plutonium?

And why can't you do Dan's simple test?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

The letters in "Archimedes Plutonium", rearranged, spell "Hi, I maul demon's pet cur!".

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Why Swiss ETH cannot test flight a drone to exceed the height of Mt. Everest. It is simple, just build the best drone possible and see if it flys higher than Mt. Everest-- and beyond.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So whats the plan for proving

Ignorant morons of math and logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 and his AND as subtraction, with is head up his arse his entire lifetime, Jan Burse.

No wonder ETH has not the brains nor ambition to see whether a Drone engineered can fly higher than the Matterhorn, or fly higher than any mountain such as Mt. Everest, not when you have shit for brains like Jan Burse.

Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe..
6 views
Subscribe





Archimedes Plutonium

Nov 21, 2020, 5:48:57 PM (3 days ago) 






to

Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe
Nov 21, 2020, 4:02 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Title pretty much says it all.

Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries.

Everything in the Universe is run by electricity and magnetism, if you are willing to break it down.

That means, well, rockets of the future will not gasoline pollute the atmosphere but rather we have drones at Cape Canaveral with countdown.

You see, no-one had it in mind that EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity force so it takes just a little bit of electricity magnetism to cause a rocket liftoff in the form of a drone.

So, NASA, start experimenting with how high a drone running just on lithium can go? Can it surpass Mt. Everest in height? Can it reach the Space Station.

AP
King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Can ETH not test a drone to see if it flys higher than Mt Everest because they fail logic with their 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. I mean, can one even get out of bed with a mind full of that nonsense, let alone think of building and flying a drone.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why Swiss ETH cannot test flight a drone to exceed the height of Mt. Everest. It is simple, just build the best drone possible and see if it flys higher than Mt. Everest-- and beyond.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So whats the plan for proving

Ignorant morons of math and logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 and his AND as subtraction, with is head up his arse his entire lifetime, Jan Burse.
No wonder ETH has not the brains nor ambition to see whether a Drone engineered can fly higher than the Matterhorn, or fly higher than any mountain such as Mt. Everest, not when you have shit for brains like Jan Burse.
Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe..
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 21, 2020, 5:48:57 PM (3 days ago)



to
Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe
Nov 21, 2020, 4:02 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Title pretty much says it all.
Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries.
Everything in the Universe is run by electricity and magnetism, if you are willing to break it down.
That means, well, rockets of the future will not gasoline pollute the atmosphere but rather we have drones at Cape Canaveral with countdown.
You see, no-one had it in mind that EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity force so it takes just a little bit of electricity magnetism to cause a rocket liftoff in the form of a drone.
So, NASA, start experimenting with how high a drone running just on lithium can go? Can it surpass Mt. Everest in height? Can it reach the Space Station.
AP
King of Science

[Dan Christensen]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Can ETH not test a drone to see if it flys higher than Mt Everest because they fail logic with their 10 OR 2 = 12

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:


AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually, sin(45 degrees) = 0.707. tan(45 degrees) = 1.)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019


AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017


And if that wasn't weird enough...


AP's sinister Atom God Cult

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No wonder ETH like Dr. Thorp of SCIENCE magazine are bozo the clowns with Lewis 8 Structure, too stupid to realize it must be Lewis 6 Structure in order for CO and N3 having higher dissociation energy than does O2. Bozo the clowns of science lack logic, and so they run out and hire stalking nitwits like David Ritz to forge AP or stalking morons like Jan Burse.

6-Can ETH not test a drone to see if it flys higher than Mt Everest because they fail logic with their 10 OR 2 = 12, with AND as subtraction. I mean, can one even get out of bed with a mind full of that nonsense, let alone think of building and flying a drone.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why Swiss ETH cannot test flight a drone to exceed the height of Mt. Everest. It is simple, just build the best drone possible and see if it flys higher than Mt. Everest-- and beyond.

Post by Mostowski Collapse
So whats the plan for proving

Ignorant morons of math and logic with his 10 OR 2 = 12 and his AND as subtraction, with is head up his arse his entire lifetime, Jan Burse.
No wonder ETH has not the brains nor ambition to see whether a Drone engineered can fly higher than the Matterhorn, or fly higher than any mountain such as Mt. Everest, not when you have shit for brains like Jan Burse.
Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe..
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 21, 2020, 5:48:57 PM (3 days ago)



to
Title pretty much says it all. Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries. Everything in the Universe
Nov 21, 2020, 4:02 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Title pretty much says it all.
Excellent job NASA with their 0.005% yearly increase in Solar radiation// Now we need NASA to confirm AP's new rocket system-- Drones that fly to the Space Station on just lithium batteries.
Everything in the Universe is run by electricity and magnetism, if you are willing to break it down.
That means, well, rockets of the future will not gasoline pollute the atmosphere but rather we have drones at Cape Canaveral with countdown.
You see, no-one had it in mind that EM is 10^40 stronger than gravity force so it takes just a little bit of electricity magnetism to cause a rocket liftoff in the form of a drone.
So, NASA, start experimenting with how high a drone running just on lithium can go? Can it surpass Mt. Everest in height? Can it reach the Space Station.
AP
King of Science

Kibo Parry Moron Scale, says physicists are dumber than Chemists, because it is easier to see 940MeV of neutron is 9xmuons 105MeV as muon is real electron, than for the mindless chemists with their Lewis 8 Structure when it is really Lewis 6 Structure as seen by CO and N2 dissociation energy


Kibo Parry Moroney wants to convert ETH into premier forgery school with David Ritz department chair.
Kibo Parry Moroney solves muon existence with his famous calculation 938 is 12% short of 945.
Kibo Parry Moroney solves geothermal-- it is daytime Sun collection, and forget about radioactivity.

Georgia Tech, M.G.Finn, Christoph J. Fahrni, Angus Wilkinson, question, do you have more forgers than students of science at Georgia Tech???

David Ritz

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Re: Happy New Year! AP's 1st book I AM A LUNATIC published in 1937

No wonder ETH like Dr. Thorp of SCIENCE magazine are bozo the clowns with Lewis 8 Structure, too stupid to realize it must be Lewis 6 Structure in order for CO and N3 having higher dissociation energy than does O2. Bozo the clowns of science lack logic, and so they run out and hire stalking nitwits like David Ritz to forge AP


STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine


Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.

struggling for relevance

AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"



AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?

Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.



88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.


Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.

Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.

But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.

And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.

Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?

Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.

8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).

Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.

I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.

I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".

Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.



22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages

Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)

Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.

Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.


From: ***@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76


A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.

There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.

Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.

I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.

My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.

The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.

My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.

Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.

Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.

Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.

The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.

We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.

And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.

AP

From: ***@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27

Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.

Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.

But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.

I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.

AP

20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.

Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine

Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.

Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.

MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".

Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.

So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...

88th published book

Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.

And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.

At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.

I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.

It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.

However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.

Length: 147 pages

Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020

Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY

Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #250,786 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)

AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.

15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.

I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.

I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.








#1-3, 74th published book

HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.

Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages

Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled

Dr. Chandler Davis when editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, steals the work of AP's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, work I had done in early 1990s and there Davis publishes my work under names of different authors in 2009. Davis and Thorp just have not accepted the idea that Internet is "not free stealing grounds".

Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium




Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium

<***@gmail.com> wrote:

(snipped in large part)

Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and 
Usenet and that newness 
will create problems with the old media way of publishing science 
ideas. There were 
numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet 
came around circa 1990, 
the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left 
decades open of 
misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected 
and more references cited" 
as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he 
references Archimedes Plutonium 
Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum 
mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, 
offers us a solution to 
the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I 
tried to get Chandler Davis 
editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article 
of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 
was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical 
Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium 
with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject 
for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- 
group for new ideas. The Usenet can be 
corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the 
reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts 
to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over 
with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer 
in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes 
Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, 
then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin 
to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority 
rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious 
phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that 
was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so 
widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including 
a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of 
the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as 
"bombing, Google bombing or 
search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about 
coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes 
Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. 
With the Internet a new problem arises 
where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to 
authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to 
scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our 
hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search 
engine bombing 
on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where 
a tabloid press would talk about a 
famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the 
tabloid never discussed him or his work, 
at all.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:18 am
Subject: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #10 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

In the mid 2000s a search for the stonethrowing theory in Google
delivered not Archimedes Plutonium first but delivers Richard W 
Young
with his tiny blurb on the 
Stonethrowing theory in a Journal of
Anatomy of 2003.
This example of taking ideas from the Usenet science newsgroups 
without proper attribute is seen clearly by Dr. Young, and this case 
will show and exemplify the new era of publishing of science is more 
important about having a date time group stamp than where the article 
is published. This case of Dr. Young shows us the superiority of 
publishing first to Usenet and then going back and having the slow old 
way of publishing take its course.
What Dr. Young teaches us about science publishing, is to post the 
abstract to the Usenet first since its speed is superior and then have 
the article published in the slow process of 
peer review journal.
We have a historical case to recall in biology itself where Wallace 
had the ideas of evolution before or simultaneous to that of Darwin.
So let me go through my archive of posts to fetch out what happened on 
the issue of Dr. 
Young, stonethrowing theory and Archimedes Plutonium. And from this 
case study, I think 
everyone will be convinced that speed of recorded date time group is 
more important than 
where it is published, and the superiority of Usenet for the date time 
group stamp.


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #11 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute

I am going to repost an older post of mine of 2007 where I lay out the
particular's of the Dr. Young
case and priority rights and where the new medium of Usenet publishing
is trampled on by the old medium.
--- quoting old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics 
From: a_plutonium <***@hotmail.com> 
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 
Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am 
Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the 
Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about 
referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals 
 
Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", 
Archimedes Plutonium 
Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in 
sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) 
############################## 
J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 
Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Editor-in-chief 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay 
University of Oxford 
E-mail: gillian.morriss-***@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Managing Editor 
Edward Fenton 
E-mail: ***@anat.ox.ac.uk 
Receiving Editors 
Julia Clarke 
North Carolina State University 
E-mail: ***@ncsu.edu 
--- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 
Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. 
Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing 
Richard W Young 
Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los 
Angeles, CA 90068, USA. 
Accepted November 22, 2002. 
Abstract 
It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of 
chimpanzee-like apes 
began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this 
behavior yielded 
reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural 
selection for improved throwing 
and clubbing prowess. 
---- end quoting ---- 
----------------- quoting old post -------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 
Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am 
Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology 
(most snipped to save space) 
This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in 
Asia 
from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different 
Hominid species in Africa from the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another 
Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. 
------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- 
Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show 
talking about Orrorin found in Kenya by Pickford and others, gave 
me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. 
---------------- quoting old post 
------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.anthropology 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@dtgnet.com> 
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 
Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am 
Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & 
Brigitte 
I hope I got the spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still 
fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV 
with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning 
out as the best night for science on the TV. 
Anyway, I post this because recently I came up with my own theory of 
Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was 
primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according 
to my theory, created the human and prehuman species. Stonethrowing 
created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about 
Ourran 
man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was 
also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran 
man is dated to 6 million years old. 
I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. 
The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and 
this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs 
caused bipedalism. 
If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism 
is 
a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. 
According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the 
pun) 
with stonethrowing. Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body 
anatomy to be more bipedal. 
And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and 
Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked 
at orangutans and think that specific height of trees places a demand 
for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. 
Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort 
of 
theory. 
There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if given various 
competing 
theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite 
clearly, the 
stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest 
theory. 
I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up any stones in 
their digs for 
Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled 
enough in 
detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more 
skilled team 
were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran Man that many stones 
used by 
Ourran Man would be discovered. 
Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts 
dispersions upon 
my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather 
curved 
fingers for use in tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and 
monkeys have 
curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with 
stonethrowing. 
How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that 
the 
curved 
fingers of Ourran were not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or 
monkey 
and that 
Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when 
they 
were not. 
Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long 
gradual process 
just as brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers 
were 
not an 
impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the 
stonethrowing 
demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time 
of 
Lucy 
of 2 million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in 
stonethrowers. 
Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the 
anatomy? 
I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure 
was half 
and half vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern 
humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat 
in 
the 
diet. 
So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future 
it will be discovered that the site has many Ourran stones used for 
stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. 
Archimedes Plutonium, ***@hotmail.com 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots 
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- 
---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication 
--- 
"Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient 
feet in the service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright 
locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and 
eventually 
culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human 
anatomical and behavioural features can also be accounted for by 
this approach: Young, 2002)." 
--- end quoting Dr. Young --- 
############################################# 
Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of 
scientists, about priority of discovery 
and about that of proper referencing and giving credit to where 
credit 
is due. The realm of intellectual 
discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and 
especially important new ideas. 
So this arena is fiercely competitive and sometimes even highly 
dishonest. University "professors" are 
graded by their community by the number of publications and 
especially 
publications with "new ideas". 
So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and 
property rights is not something 
to dismiss or take lightly. 
In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom 
Totality", there is suspicious behavior 
as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year 
"2000"? Or is the year 19100 
a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes 
Plutonium's date of discovery? And another 
facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to 
a 
website but websites are 
notorious for not having a verifiable date, since author of a website 
can claim any date they wish. 
Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. 
Young's website on Stonethrowing 
is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's website on the 
theories involved. I say upsetting in that 
Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas 
Archimedes Plutonium has 
about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine 
delivers Don Wortzman's site 
before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's 
article on Stonethrowing yet 
Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing 
theory and yet Google search 
delivers Young's first. 
I emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young 
published his comments on Stonethrowing 
theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had 
to 
go on a trip and would answer me 
when he returned, but I never received a answer. 
Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. 
Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their 
journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has 
had information that needs to be 
referenced by the authors of upcoming articles to be published. 
If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, 
and read my posts about Stonethrowing 
theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's 
(1) chimpanzee-like apes 
(2) how stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human 
(3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" 
So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in 
year 2002, and then in 2003 comes 
out the Dr. Young publication in the journal. 
So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of 
his journal article. 
What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not 
reference the Internet posts of 2002. 
I simply asked Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article 
by Dr. Young with a reference to 
my 2002 posts to the Internet. 
I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by 
one year. 
I think the Internet was "too new" and still is rather new to the 
journal publication way of doing science. 
And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts 
that need be referenced. And that the 
Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be 
ransacked of ideas and not requiring any 
reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later 
published in a hardcover journal. 
Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about 
Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used 
my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is 
that those ideas appeared first on 
the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas 
appeared in a journal. 
So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was to print a 
reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing 
theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most 
newspapers such as the New York Times 
has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. 
I have written an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory 
which if all my posts were assembled 
would be probably a thousand pages or more. 
So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet 
science newsgroups have to be watched 
and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the 
newsgroups and are tempted to 
steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a 
journal pretending as though they 
discovered those new ideas. 
The very nice thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date 
time grouped. There is no question that 
I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young 
published has few date-time group 
verifiability. 
Science journals and journal editors have to get used to the idea 
that 
the Internet is just as good as their 
journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing 
science, the Internet is superior to the old 
hardcover journals such as the facet of "speed". No journal can 
compete with the Internet as to "speed" of 
getting the news out. 
I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. 
Young and for that reason he never 
bothered to answer my email. But the case is important and the case 
is 
about science journals that have 
not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a 
valid medium of reporting science, especially 
new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to 
reference 
the Internet.

[Dan Christensen]

Jan Burse wrote:

"But then DC Proof format does not exist. You can produce DC Proofs
in your format, which are nowhere in logic Proofs..."

See my reply to your identical posting in sci.logic

(I am unable to reply directly to your posting here. May be a bug in the new Google Groups layout.)


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com