Discussion:
DC Proof challenge: Zorn's Lemma, how formalize it?
Add Reply
Mostowski Collapse
2020-09-23 11:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-09-23 12:31:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-23 09:39:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-24 13:10:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-24 21:48:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-24 22:21:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 05:04:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 08:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 08:46:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 08:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 11:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 16:35:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 16:41:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 17:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 18:26:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 19:25:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 20:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 21:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 21:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 23:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 23:42:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-26 00:26:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-26 01:51:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-26 03:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-26 05:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-28 21:37:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-28 20:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Calling Canada! Its weekend, where is Zorns
Lemma proof. Is FOL too edgy for DC Proof?
Mostowski Collapse
2020-12-06 01:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-06 01:35:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-12 01:44:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-17 19:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-17 20:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-17 23:05:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-18 00:40:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-24 23:07:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
it is Christmas my dudes


Where is Zorns Lemma?
Sergio
2020-12-26 14:02:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-12-26 17:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2021-01-02 12:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2021-01-02 15:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2021-01-12 22:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2021-01-16 17:36:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Its weekend. Where is Da Proof?
Zorns Lemma too difficult for DC Proof?

Archimedes Plutonium
2020-12-18 00:36:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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".
Me
2020-11-25 11:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 11:33:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 12:00:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 16:38:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 16:49:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 17:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-24 20:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 02:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 05:06:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2021-01-02 15:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2020-11-25 19:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Loading...