Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.

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.

MATH TEST::

Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.


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.

From this:
        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.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

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

[b***@gmail.com]

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

2.14 - Why is Gabriel's New Limit Theorem for mainstream mythmatics the first coherent theorem about limits? (49)
By John Gabriel 54 posts 165 views updated 1:41 PM

+ 9 others




Logical Phalluses - The Finale
By John Gabriel 3 posts 9 views updated 12:42 PM





03/21/2018 : Some gems of knowledge by the greatest mathematician ever - John Gabriel (2)
By John Gabriel 2 posts 7 views updated 9:07 AM

AP writes:: such losers in math-- Hales, Gabriel, Burse, Christensen, Konyberg, none of them can do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and all crippled in math

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

Michael Moroney wrote:
8:22 AM (1 hour ago)

Post by b***@gmail.com
If you are gonna teach mathematics, you migth wanna learn basic logic.

1:04 AM (10 minutes ago)
If you are gonna teach mathematics, you migth wanna learn basic logic.

Listen to Zelos, Archie. It's not good that someone who was too stupid to
come in out of the rain can outwit you at logic.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

Dan Christensen writes:



Mar 27 (17 hours ago)



- show quoted text -
I guess all math teachers around the world will have to resign as well!

I guess Archie will have to personally broadcast True Math to every classroom on the planet. There just isn't enough time to retrain all those teachers and professors.

Better get busy churning out all those YouTube videos, Archie! The fate of the world is in YOUR HANDS! (HA, HA, HA!!!)


Dan

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:00:19 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
belongs in prison not

Post by b***@gmail.com
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

John Gabriel writes:



2:36 PM (13 minutes ago)



On Thursday, 29 March 2018 01:44:24 UTC-4, Zelos Malum  wrote:
- show quoted text -
"But Mr. Gabriel, what



***@gmail.com writes:



2:42 PM (7 minutes ago)



LoL, what drugs are you taking bird brain John
Garbage-iel? There is no such axiom:

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

AP writes: Burse, you tried to tear down my Wikipedia page,

Did you in that same year forge Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange?


Wikipedia entry of Archimedes Plutonium-- where in 2017, Jan Burse attempts to tear down AP's entry:
• (cur | prev) 14:09, 6 March 2017‎ DMacks (talk | contribs)‎ . . (20,500 bytes) (+1,287)‎ . . (unexplained removal of on-topic and somewhat-cited content Undid revision 768910666 by Janburse (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 13:51, 6 March 2017‎ Janburse (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,213 bytes) (-1,287)‎ . . (→‎Eccentric believers) (undo)

Ad Hominem is also where you forge other people's names, for a bully loves to denigrate defile other people, here is where a bully forged the name of AP to Math Stack Exchange

Math Stack Exchange forgery (probably Burse, no proof though)

Post by b***@gmail.com

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

Well-- duh!!! no mystery-- I have been forged

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Will your wheelchair have a power linkup?
|_
|_|_ $
o o \______/|

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Psychotics like Jan Burse, if they are not forging your name to Math Stack Exchange, they are stalking you over wheelchairs

AP brain farto, you forgot, beals bank didn't
offer you a wheelchair for your birthday.

Will your wheelchair have a power linkup?
|_
|_|_ $
o o \______/|

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Volney writes:
12:07 AM (2 minutes ago)


- "Let's do what one shepherd said to the other shepherd."
- "What?"

Post by b***@gmail.com
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Archimedes Plutonium all the times,,,,

2Burse report: Mete Soner
Michael Struwe, asked-- If Too dumb to FIX wrong error filled math, are they too dumb and lazy to experiment and tell us if CO2 comes in two or more isomers, and if so, well, we cannot afford to extinct any more animals

Among 10^604 wheelchairs would
two wheelchairs look the same?
|_ |_
|_| ... |_|
* * * *
\___ 10^604 __/

Walter Thurnherr what is Burse's wheelchair nonsense about?

Too dumb to FIX wrong error filled math such as 2 OR 10 =12 is fake logic and should be 2 AND 10 = 12, then there is the ellipse, which all of these mentioned folk still continue to teach is a conic section when a bright High School student with a cone, cylinder and a circle lid can prove hands on, that the ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder section. Likely, too dumb and lazy to experiment and tell us if CO2 comes in two or more isomers, and if so, well, we cannot afford to extinct any more animals.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 11:14:39 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: allotropes and isomers Re: science that saves large wild animals Re:
 O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 18:14:40 +0000

allotropes and isomers Re: science that saves large wild animals Re: O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2

Alright, page 270 of Mortimer, 4th ed, 1979, Chemistry: A conceptual approach explains on page 270 allotropy concept

--- quoting ---
The existence of an element in more than one form in the same physical state is called allotropy, and the forms are called allotropes. A number of elements exhibit allotropy, for example, carbon, sulfur, and phosphorus. Oxygen exists in a triatomic form, ozone, in addition to the common diatomic modification.
 The ozone molecule is diamagnetic and has an angular structure. Both oxygen-to-oxygen bonds have the same length (127 pm), which is intermediate between the double-bond distance (110 pm) and the single-bond distance (148 pm). The molecule may be represented as a resonance hybrid:

--- end quoting---

Alright, I quoted that passage especially because I sense that theory and experimental chemistry and physics discover what the geometry of a molecule is, by measuring distances from atoms in the molecule.

This is important as to find out whether CO2 has two isomers. So it is a experimental exercise in finding out if the animal CO2 is a C atom that is angular to O2 and is all in one plane, the xy-plane. While fire CO2 has the carbon atom C in the z-axis.

So a difficult experiment to measure the distances of the C and O atoms of CO2 to discover if CO2 has two isomers. Mortimer defines isomers on page 425, saying "Isomers are substances that have the same molecular formula but differ in the way the constituent atoms are arranged in molecules."

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:05:18 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Proving CO2 migrates between poles twice a year Re: science that
 saves large wild animals Re: O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 19:05:18 +0000

Proving CO2 migrates between poles twice a year Re: science that saves large wild animals Re: O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2

So far this is just a speculation, based on the fact that CO2 is the most dense common gas— which plants need a low lying dense gas to breathe in CO2 and whose abundance is a mere .04%.

But why would CO2 migrate yearly between poles? Probably because ot is dense and tiny in abundance.

So, what is the first proof evidence that CO2 migrates between the poles? The first proof evidence are the 2011 pictures taken (NASA ??) showing that in May and October the relative abundance of CO2 apparently is a migratory flow.

Pictures can always be taken and offer themselves as experimental proof.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 13:20:52 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: how science proves isomers Re: O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 20:20:52 +0000


how science proves isomers Re: O3 ozone characteristics//animal CO2

- show quoted text -
So, please correct me if wrong, the only way that chemistry and physics has of "proving a molecules geometry" is the measuring of the distances of its constituent atoms. Is that the sum total of how we prove a geometry?

If so, well, it is difficult to measure animal CO2 versus fire CO2 because the animal CO2 has all three atoms- C, O, O in the same xy plane and stuck to that plane, whereas the fire CO2 has the carbon Atom versatile and moving around in the z axis, not stuck to the xy plane.

So that is going to be a tough tough measurement by physicists and chemists, that animal CO2 is a isomer different from fire CO2, for the distances appear to be the same, but are not, for one is a planar CO2 while the other rotates along the z-axis.

But, physicists and chemists are forced to perform that experiment.

But another experiment that can tell us even more, is to get 2 small terrariums, vacuum out all the gases, then inject one with only animal CO2, the other with only fire CO2. Insert plants. If I am correct or partly correct the animal CO2 plants are the only plants to grow, the fire CO2 either the plants die or have stunted growth.

AP


Burse reports: Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel, asked which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole



ETH Zurich

Paul Biran
Marc Burger
Patrick Cheridito
Manfred Einsiedler

Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder
Alessio Figalli
Norbert Hungerbuhler
Tom Ilmanen
Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg


University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

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

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

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

What answer did they give? Burse?

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
You are still a fucking idiot when it comes to mathematics.

AP writes:: Tom Hales, you see when you never fix the mistakes of mathematics such as ellipse is never a conic but a cylinder section, or that Negative Numbers do not exist at all-- what happens is that little minds in math like Burse or Malum grow up to be hateful worthless adults, all because they are burnt out of math, because of its fakery that you will not fix and only pile on more fakery-- your silly Kepler packing nonsense.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

why Swiss let psychopaths on the loose

Walter Thurnherr, Lino Guzzella is this why Vienna won the coveted #1 city in the world to live in, while Switzerland has none, because Switzerland gives its psychopaths, no medical treatment, but rather instead gives them an internet connection.

Walter Thurnherr, Lino Guzzella, please tell me, what the hell is this psychopath murmuring about now, for he tore down my Wikipedia page in 2017 and probably forged my name to Math Stack Exchange-- and you Swiss, do nothing--

j4n bur53 writes:

4:10 PM (28 minutes ago)

Did AP brain farto flunk his own wheelchair?
AP brain farto absolutely clueless

    |_     ??  o  ??
    |_|       /|\
    * *       / \

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Discussion
Re: 151,Let us yell at AP for trying to remove 95% of Trigonometry and making the 5% left--muddled and broken
By Volney 1 post 3 views updated 4:27 PM



Discussion
Re: 6b,Let us chide AP for trying to give us 7 false proofs that Negative Numbers do not exist-- 💩💩💩💩💩💩💩 curse you, foul Mr. Plutonium
By Volney 1 post 2 views updated 4:24 PM



Discussion
Re: 2c,Sarcastically let us yell at AP for a false proof that a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section
By Volney 1 post 3 views updated 4:22 PM

AP writes: Thomas Hales, are you going to let a fool like Volney/Moroney realize a ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, before you. This then questions whether any of your mathematics is worth a cent.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by b***@gmail.com
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
You are still a fucking idiot when it comes to mathematics.

AP writes:: Tom Hales, you see when you never fix the mistakes of mathematics such as ellipse is never a conic but a cylinder section, or that Negative Numbers do not exist at all-- what happens is that little minds in math like Burse or Malum grow up to be hateful worthless adults, all because they are burnt out of math, because of its fakery that you will not fix and only pile on more fakery-- your silly Kepler packing nonsense.
Same old delusional,,,

AP writes: pretty stupid of Thomas Hales to never admit the ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, when even his students in class can prove it to Thomas Hales by a cone, cylinder can and circle lid-- the asymmetry involved. Is this the modern day math class-- dictator math, not math of reasoning.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, August 24, 2018
Michael Moroney writes:

12:54 AM (less than a minute ago)

You really aren't very smart, are you

AP writes: Moroney says "not very smart" for Thomas Hales cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, can Hales tell the difference between a rhombus and a cycloid?

(snipped)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Michael Moroney]

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> fails:

<snip>

You want to see the proof the ellipse is a conic section again? Sure!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Sunday, August 26
Dan Christensen wrote:
3:42 PM (46 minutes ago)
AP writes:: yes, Dan, Thomas Hales cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, but can he tell the difference between a rhombus and a dodecahedron?

[Michael Moroney]

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> fails:

Still struggling with the ellipse proof?

Here you go!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 3:00:19 PM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.

8,September 2018
***@gmail.com writes:
10:28 AM (6 hours ago)

whats better for you, an

|_ |_
|E| |O|
* * * *

I suggest an odd wheelchair, its easier to
to divide. So you can more easily stash it...

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years

So, one thread would explode into dozens of threads almost immediately as people respond to your seemingly endless attempts to misinform students here, Archie Pu. And they could delete your replies. Be careful what you wish for.
Dan

Donald Trump has more moral fiber than does Andrew Beal, and AMS with Charles Fefferman, Ron Graham, Daniel Mauldin


Donald Trump at least has an excuse to liar-- to shore up his base supporters, but there is no way in this world that Andrew Beal, AMS, Charles Fefferman, Ron Graham, Daniel Mauldin, Ken Ribet have any moral ground to stand on, as they continue to believe and preach a ellipse is a conic, when it was proven by AP some 5 years ago that the ellipse is never a conic, but a cylinder section. So why are these so called math professors, banker still preaching false junk, and liaring to students? Why? Do they want to compete with Trump in liaring?

See AP proof of ellipse --
- hide quoted text -


Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic

Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.

Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse

PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval::
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added,
hence a ellipse. QED

Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.

Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED

The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::


              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |


So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::


         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

|_
|_|
* *
This one is customized, its has AP

AP writes:: Burse and his Swiss wheelchair fantasy-- maybe he thinks a wheelchair can make, Thomas Hales, Andrew Beal, and AMS with Charles Fefferman, Ron Graham, Daniel Mauldin, Ken Ribet understand the below proof that a ellipse is never a conic.

AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

|    |
|    |
|    |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF


But the side view of the cone is

     /\E
    /c \
F /     \


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .
 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Michael Moroney wrote:
10:08 PM (1 hour ago)

Something else we need to discuss. Suddenly, your chemistry knowedge,
while always limited, seems to actually be diminishing. Your chemistry
related posts are all at a dumber/lower level, and you are getting more
stupid things wrong.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Christian Degen Walter Thurnherr,Marcella Carollo, some of ETH, asks Burse which is AP's 2nd best theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

|_
* *
|_
|O|
* *

Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter of ETH, asks Burse which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole


8,September 2018
***@gmail.com writes



5:50 PM (20 minutes ago)



Maybe you can compensate for the asymmetry by
taking two wheelchairs. Two odd wheelchairs:

    |_     |_
    |O|    |O|
    * *    * *

Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran
Marc Burger
Patrick Cheridito
Manfred Einsiedler

Swiss Jan Burse

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     ' ellipse is a conic because jan burse is a tonic
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'

Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder
Alessio Figalli
Norbert Hungerbuhler
Tom Ilmanen  
Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere  
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman  
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner  
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen *, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg


University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

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

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

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

What answer did the

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail

Christensen approves of forgery and racism. Does Sebastien Proulx,Jordan Brown,David Eggen
Gordon Wyant,Victoria Olds, Lex Renner also approve? Admit ellipse is never a conic//offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus


Christensen approves of forgery and racism. Does Zach Churchill,Ian Wishart,Rob Fleming,Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner also approve? Admit ellipse is never a conic//offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Post by b***@gmail.com
From what I have seen, those postings could only enhance your reputation, Archie. I don't know why you are complaining. I can't help wondering if that is not the real AP and you are the impostor, whoever you really are, trying to make the real AP look bad with these idiotic postings. Maybe he should be suing you!
Dan

Kenneth Ribet,RACIST MATHEMATICIANS, Hales,Tao,Conway,Wiles,Fefferman,Meyer,Stillwell, Andrew Beal, Mauldin who refuse to admit ellipse is never a conic, refuse to even offer a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician
Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of __who the person was that gave/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science.

Physics-Racists Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV

Most people think Racist Mathematicians and Physicists are rare. But sci.math and sci.physics from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of physics and math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut. And the AP discovery that the Real Electron = muon = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.


Dan Christensen, 6 year stalker Canadian

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV just as dumb as my idea that 2 OR 10 = 12, when a 8 year old knows 2 AND 10= 12
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

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


Amit Chakma (chem engr)

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

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


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

Sebastien Proulx
Jordan Brown
David Eggen
Gordon Wyant
Zach Churchill
Ian Wishart
Rob Fleming


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

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

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

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



A real mathematician or scientist weighs only the substance and content of the claim, not by who did the work.

In that manner, Ribet, Tao,Conway,Wiles,Hales,Fefferman,Ribet,Meyer, Andrew Beal are racist mathematicians because AP's proof that ellipse is never a Conic, always a cylinder section has been in sci.math since 2016, yet these listed persons still teach and preach a ellipse is a conic. Otherwise they would publicly admit a oval is a conic section, never the ellipse.


Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::


E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F



Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF


But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |



So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::


A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium


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.

From this:
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.

To this:

______
| |
| |
| |
---------

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
------------------
-------------------

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .


http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

smtb suggests Hales failed ellipse is never a conic due to lack of precision machining?? Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic
Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval
First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.
Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added,
hence a ellipse. QED
Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.
Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED
The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium

About spammer smtb:

Ebook for; Solutions Manual For Precision Machining Technology,
1 post by 1 author
***@gmail.com spams
2:17 PM (2 minutes ago)

Latest Collections....

AP writes: do you really think Hales never got the ellipse correct because of lack of precision machining a cone cut?

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 6:28:58 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney (poof, poofed, poofstered) wrote in sci.math:

This is not the moron Moroney that has stalked AP for about 25 years now but a different mind using the same name. People know the lack of intelligence of another person and can instantly recognize a different person.

Skip the percentages and make this much simpler.
You have a torus with radii R and r.
You slice and dice that to make an approximate cylinder of height 2 pi R.

For anyone who has a problem with the "inside" and "outside" edges being
of different lengths in the torus (2pi(R-r)) and (2pi(R+r)), or,
equivalently, each "slice" of the torus being a nonuniform thickness when
making the approximate cylinder, consider the following: Take every other
"slice" and reverse it 180 degrees and stack them into your approximate
cylinder. It is now much much closer to an actual cylinder and would go
straight up and down. Of course, the smaller the slices, the closer to an
actual cylinder.
Consider slicing a torus into N slices (N large and an even number). The
inside edge of each slice is of thickness (2pi(R-r))/N while the outside
thickness is (2pi(R+r))/N. If you take two slices and stack them on top
of each other with one rotated 180 degrees, one side will be of thickness
(2pi(R-r))/N + (2pi(R+r))/N and the opposite side (2pi(R+r))/N + (2pi(R-r))/N.
Use the distributive law and the 2pi(r-r)/N terms cancel.
Now the thickness of the slice pair will be 2*(2piR)/N on *each* side.
Add the N/2 slice pairs and you have a cylinder of 2piR height.
This *should* set Archie straight, but his mind is stuck in such a way
that nobody can tell him he's wrong once he makes up his mind. Especially
me! (he hates me). He just isn't logical.
Computing the volume or area of an object of rotation is high school senior
calculus.

The area of the end of that approximate cylinder is pi r^2.
The volume of that approximate cylinder is height*area = 2 pi^2 R r^2.
That is exactly the formula for the volume of real a torus given by wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus and that you have been told repeatedly.
That is what Archie has been crank snot screeching for days is all wrong
and error filled and what Archie's delusions tell him that he find a different answer for.
mentally ill crank brain dumb ass Archie
bean counter

AP writes: well, let us hope Hales never has to count ellipse shaped beans for then he would fail that also.

smtb suggests Hales failed ellipse is never a conic due to lack of precision machining?? Re: Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic
Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval
First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.
Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added,
hence a ellipse. QED
Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.
Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED
The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP writes: Moroney & Burse, did you bother to ask Thomas Hales if he still believes and teaches the insane Boole Logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with 10 AND 2 = 8


Discussion
Re:.... flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney 1 post 0 views updated 12:14 AM Dec15

Post by b***@gmail.com
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: Moroney & Burse, did you bother to ask Thomas Hales if he still believes and teaches the insane Boole Logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 with 10 AND 2 = 8
posts for failure. He even seems to be on the edge of another autism
meltdown, in fact.
Too much fluketonium intake

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

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

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


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



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

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




Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg

University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

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

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

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

What answer did they give? Burse?

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/pluto

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Burse suggests ETH's Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

AP writes, yes, why waste the time on Thomas Hales or ETH's Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, for they still believe and accept the crazy Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, like they say about Jan Burse and Thomas Hales, put two lens in his ears, and ETH and the university of Thomas Hales has a new telescope, no need to buy one.

What happened? Not a single line of math for
30 years, only spam spam and ultra imbecil crankness.

AP writes: yes Burse and ETH, not a single line of true math for a century, and that is obvious for the Jan Burse and ETH think and preach that 3 OR 1 = 4 with 3 AND 1 = 2.

Burse suggests Walter Thurnherr, Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

Burse suggests ETH's Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding

AP writes: news to me, for I never thought a Swiss politician like Mr. Thurnherr needed to know a line of math
Burse says ETH physicists,Charalampos Anastasiou,
Niklas Beisert too stupid to understand AP's theory that true real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow for Chemistry covalent bonding
why Moroney & Burse just ask Drs. Jerome Faist,
Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder why they still believe proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
AP writes: why does not Burse & Moroney simply ask Mr Thurnherr, and professors of physics at ETH why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole
Jan Burse 6 year insane stalker Swiss
Moroney, insane stalker for 26 years
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Jan Burse, a Swiss that hates and attacks everyone in sci.math, because I failed math. And I tore down AP's Wikipedia page in 2017 and then laughed and mocked about forging AP's name to Math Stack Exchange all because of my pedigree education at ETH. So stupid is Burse he still believes a ellipse is a conic and believes in Boole logic which says 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2 =1. Jan is a Swiss imp of math with never a single line of math for 30 years
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr
ETH Zurich
Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Switzerland?
And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.
Yes, there Jan Burse, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.
But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.
What answer did they give? Burse?
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

AP writes: I would not be so hard on Thomas Hales, even though he spends all his time foisting a fake proof of Kepler Packing. The thing to do for Hales, is channel his wasted energy on Kepler Packing to channel it in cleaning up the Ellipse is never a conic and channel it into cleaning up the horror story of mathematicians and logicians believing 3 OR 2 = 5.

Thomas Hales, why send out your attack dogs Jan Burse, Moroney, Christensen. Just admit the ellipse was never a conic, and admit that 3 OR 2 = 5 is no hypocrisy you want to be teaching college students

Post by b***@gmail.com
Chattering Math Failure

AP writes: Yes Thomas Hales, why send out attack dogs, when the issues are error filled math and logic.

Students should not be suffering under your idiot beliefs that a ellipse is a conic section when even a High School student can prove to anyone at Univ Pittsburgh with a paper cone and a Kerr or Mason jar lid, yet there you are Thomas Hales, preaching idiocy that a ellipse is a conic.

But worst of all Thomas Hales is you send out attack dogs defending 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1. I mean for heaven sakes Hales have you no honest decency to teach students how to think correctly that OR is subtraction and that AND is addition with truth tables of TTTF for AND and FTTF for OR, and not to cripple the minds of young students of Pittsburgh and Michigan, just so parasite moneygrub book sellers keep raking in the dough with their error filled nonsense.

So, Thomas Hales, call off your barking dogs Moroney, Christensen and start teaching the truth to students.

AP

[Me]

an ellipse is a conic section

Right.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

brain farto, maybe a new wheelchair
could help you, there are ones with a
|
|__%
| |
| |
o o
So the calculator is at the tip of the armrest.

AP writes: Education parasites like Burse or Hales, spend 30 years in math, never able to fix a single line of Old Math, never able to see the Ellipse is never a conic, never able to even think straight that 3 OR 2 = 5 is wrong and should be 3 AND 2 = 5, and never able to fix Old Math Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why is that? It is because both Burse and Hales never belonged in mathematics-- maybe in accounting, but not mathematics.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[j4n bur53]

The symbolic calculator would give you the
chance to do math once in your lifetime.

So far you spam nonsense already for 30 years,
not a single line of math so far.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

brain farto, maybe a new wheelchair
could help you, there are ones with a
|
|__%
| |
| |
o o
So the calculator is at the tip of the armrest.

AP writes: Education parasites like Burse or Hales, spend 30 years in math, never able to fix a single line of Old Math, never able to see the Ellipse is never a conic, never able to even think straight that 3 OR 2 = 5 is wrong and should be 3 AND 2 = 5, and never able to fix Old Math Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Why is that? It is because both Burse and Hales never belonged in mathematics-- maybe in accounting, but not mathematics.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by j4n bur53
The symbolic calculator would give you the
chance to do math once in your lifetime.
Mentally ill crank brain dumb ass AP

Who you calling mentally ill? Jan Burse? or Thomas Hales?

Even though none of them understand ellipse was never a conic, much like they still believe Aristotle's fly has 4 legs when just a little looking around reveals 6 legs.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

still posting name lists.
Only promulgating the imbecil he is.

Burse explains why Euler departed Switzerland for saner math waters.


Paul Biran,Marc Burger,Patrick Cheridito, Swiss ETH, why not teach Burse ellipse is never a conic, instead of teaching him how to be a petty criminal. (See proof below)

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

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

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

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

Here is the nonsense appearing under my name---

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

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

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




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

                              ..
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-..
           ,      . `.'            '        `.
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ;
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ;
         ;   . '                       `.  .   '
          . '                            ` `.  |
        . '.                                  '
       .          0              0            ' `.
      '                                          `
     ;                                            `
    .'                                             `
    ;                      U                        `
    ;    ';                                         `
    :   | ;..                                 :`     `
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    '
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    '
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Jan Burse, a Swiss that hates and attacks everyone in sci.math who I dislike.
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    '
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '
        `       `        ;          ;      '    '
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    '
           `       .                     '    '
         /  `       `.                  '    '        .
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...'
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....'''
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   `
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      `
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       `
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       `
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     `
                  |    '     `      '     `.    `
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  |
                  `.'          `    ;         `-'
                                `...'




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

Switzerland : Walter Thurnherr

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran
Marc Burger
Patrick Cheridito
Manfred Einsiedler
Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder
Alessio Figalli
Norbert Hungerbuhler
Tom Ilmanen  
Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere  
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman  
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner  
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen *, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg


University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

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


Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

 
  Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
  section = Oval, never ellipse
 
  Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
  that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
  best of all.
 
  That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
  implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
  that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
  poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
  made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
  Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
  into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
  can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
  a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
  lose clarity.
 
  ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
 
 
                E
               __
        .-'              `-.
      .'                    `.
    /                         \
   ;                           ;
  | G          c              | H
   ;                           ;
    \                         /
     `.                     .'
        `-.    _____  .-'
                  F
 


Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

|    |
|    |
|    |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF


But the side view of the cone is

     /\E
    /c \
F /     \


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

  The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
  Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
  the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
  the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
  cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
  symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
 
  Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
  point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
  and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
  cylinder
 
  |                              |
  |                              | E
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |x            c              |x
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |F                            |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
 
 

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

  So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
  cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
  base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
  that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
  the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
  these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
  axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
 
 
 
  Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
 
  ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
 
 
           A
        ,'"   "`.
     /            \
  C |     c       | D
   \               /
      ` . ___ .'
           B
 
  The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
  center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
  a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
  long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
  What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
  ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
  symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
  of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
  diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
 
  Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
  center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
  only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
  between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
  between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
  slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
  the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
  at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
  cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
  case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
  are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
  not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
  leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
 
       /  \A
   x/  c  \x
  B/         \
 
  Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
  circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
 
  QED
 
  --Archimedes Plutonium



Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

[Me]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
ellipse is never a conic

Wrong!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic sections are ellipses.

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
psycho.
A key use of formulas is in propositional logic

AP writes: I was not aware that Dr. Hales ever used Wikipedia for his Kepler Packing Problem fakery of math. Enlighten us Jan Burse when you have free time away from criminal activities of tearing down people's websites and forging their names to Math Stack Exchange.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On this Side of the Pecos.

AP writes: hey Jan Burse, either Denke or Hall want the Texas Rangers after you for forgery of AP to math stack exchange along with tearing down AP's website on Wikipedia. Give yourself up

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP writes: why does Christensen, Burse, Moroney want this spam-scam so that they can front page hog? Thomas Hales is never going to learn the ellipse is never a conic from spam-scam

Discussion
Ebook for; Solutions Manual For; Test Bank B.S.
By ***@gmail.com 1 post 0 views updated 2:16 PM



Discussion
Ebook for; Solutions Manual For; Test Bank B.S.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Introduction to Data Mining,
By ***@gmail.com. Last updated 7:55 AM

1 post
Testbank, Solutions Manual for
By ***@gmail.com. Last updated 1:58 AM

AP writes: whenever the spam-scam appears in sci.math there appears jan burse stalks— are they connected?? Anyway, Dr. hales is still in denial ellipse is never a conic— how retarded is he—cannot even understand AP’s proof. And the Hales bozo thinks he proved Kepler Packing when he is so stupid— cannot tell a ellipse apart from a oval.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

his microgram brain
|_
| |
* *
|
|__
| |
| |
o o

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

 
  Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
  section = Oval, never ellipse
 
  Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
  that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
  best of all.
 
  That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
  implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
  that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
  poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
  made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
  Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
  into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
  can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
  a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
  lose clarity.
 
  ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
 
 
                E
               __
        .-'              `-.
      .'                    `.
    /                         \
   ;                           ;
  | G          c              | H
   ;                           ;
    \                         /
     `.                     .'
        `-.    _____  .-'
                  F
 


Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

|    |
|    |
|    |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF


But the side view of the cone is

     /\E
    /c \
F /     \


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

  The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
  Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
  the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
  the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
  cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
  symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
 
  Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
  point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
  and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
  cylinder
 
  |                              |
  |                              | E
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |x            c              |x
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |F                            |
  |                              |
  |                              |
  |                              |
 
 

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

  So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
  cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
  base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
  that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
  the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
  these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
  axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
 
 
 
  Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
 
  ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
 
 
           A
        ,'"   "`.
     /            \
  C |     c       | D
   \               /
      ` . ___ .'
           B
 
  The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
  center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
  a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
  long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
  What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
  ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
  symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
  of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
  diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
 
  Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
  center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
  only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
  between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
  between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
  slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
  the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
  at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
  cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
  case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
  are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
  not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
  leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
 
       /  \A
   x/  c  \x
  B/         \
 
  Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
  circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
 
  QED
 
  --Archimedes Plutonium


AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu


                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1 new
1 post
test bank for Cost Management: Measuring, Monitoring, and Motivating Performance, 3rd Canadian Edition by Leslie G. Eldenburg
By ***@gmail.com. Last updated 7:04 AM

Burse wants to know if this spam comes with a cover

[Archimedes Plutonium]

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

Post by b***@gmail.com
It is highly likely
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/31370-Margaret-St_Meckling_SD_57069_M78428-93382

AP writes: is this ETH's department of mathematics where Burse learned to be a petty criminal of forging names and tearing down AP's website????

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

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


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

Post by b***@gmail.com
It is highly likely
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail

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

[j4n bur53]

AP brain farto is running out of name lists.
He needs them to ask around, since he is
desperately searching his weelchair:

|
|__
| |
| |
o o

Wanted, Reward 10 Plutonium Dollars

Can somebody help? The award might even go up,
in maximum to the infinity border. Unfortunately
current Plutonium Dollars currency quotes are

very low, like the infinitessimal border,
10^(-604). The infinitessimal border is found
in pi, the first occurence of 000.

60943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132
00056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872
14684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235
http://www.eveandersson.com/pi/digits/1000

So evidently it must be also an infinitessimal border.

BTW: This is the adress for the finder of the
wheelchair. Please sent the wheelchair to:

A. Plutonium
Lost Marbles Way 604
1010 Crank Town
Ukulele

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

j4n bur53 wrote:
4:39 PM (2 minutes ago)
How many finitely many summands did you
use to get e? 5 summands or 13 summands?

e^x = 1 + x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ...

Ha Ha, bird brain at its best. Sounds like:

AP writes: instead of writing stupid insane math-- Burse-- why not remove the forgery of AP from Math Stack Exchange

Post by b***@gmail.com
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Does Dr. Hales endorse the criminal stalker Moroney to attack 24-7-365?? A good read for Moroney in prison is World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

AP writes: stalking is criminal behavior, especially when it has gone on for 27 years by Moroney. Also, what is criminal behavior is tearing down AP's wikipedia page site and forging AP's name to Math Stack Exchange. And the above is not one individual person but a group of criminals, for they operate 24 hours per day.


World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Length: 61 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1241 KB
Print Length: 61 pages
Publication Date: March 20, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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





Michael Moroney wrote:



Apr 24 (5 hours ago)


Re: Archimedes "Unofficial State Idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Subject: Does Rensselaer pay the criminal stalker Moroney??been going on now for 27 years-- I recom

Michael Moroney wrote:

6:58 PM (1 hour ago)
Re: Archimedes "Unofficial State Idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

AutisticPlutonium <***@gmail.com> fails at math and science:


Michael Moroney wrote:

9:35 AM (2 hours ago)
Re: Archimedes "Unofficial State Idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

AP writes: stalking is criminal behavior, especially when it has gone on for
27 years by the above.

So why do you continue to stalk


Michael Moroney wrote:



8:55 AM (3 hours ago)


Re: Archimedes "Unofficial State Idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Now in my soon to come out textbook volume 1 of Teaching True Mathematics, =
I do a proof that no Negative Numbers can exist.

WARNING TO PARENTS:

Michael Moroney wrote:



2:35 PM (1 hour ago)


Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Subject: Re: Can we wrestle and finagle with the IF--> THEN some more ???Re: concordance of true Logic to mathematics algebra axioms
Alright, here we can question the possibility that we can finesse some more of the IF THEN connector. Does it necessarily have to be TFUU, or could we save the last entry where we have If F--> then F would be true.
Keep in mind we need only one value to obtain the undefined for math division by 0
Do we need both the last two rows be U ???
Well, if we substitute in 1 and 0 and we pretend the connecter is divide, we may get a surprise or two.
Yes, so, we confirmed by the above that you need two Undefined for the If Then connector.

"We" again, Archie? Do your diseased cats really "help" you with logic?
Is that why your "logic" is so illogical??

<snip>
The usual "12 Failures of Plutonium" + personal attack + stalking of
Harvard professors.
You succumbed to your autism again, I see. Better luck next time.
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium

Thomas Hales, Poincare by j4n bur53 on math peer review and corruption

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dont forget about the Poincare conjecture that 10^302 is the

snipped

If I read Burse correctly, he suggests that the Math Peer Review journals are just professor salary promotion and piss on true mathematics.
--

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[j4n bur53]

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium

Thomas Hales, Poincare by j4n bur53 on math peer review and corruption

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dont forget about the Poincare conjecture that 10^302 is the

snipped
If I read Burse correctly, he suggests that the Math Peer Review journals are just professor salary promotion and piss on true mathematics.
--

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.
It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP writes: Dr. Hales has reduced himself to the math idiocy of kibo Parry Moroney by denying the ellipse is never a conic. What is next for Dr. Hales-- babble out 10 OR 4 = 14 just like the kooks Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney.

Moroney and Dr. Hales fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic

AP writes: Yes, the math community needs to reject every math professor who cannot admit ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder section. Reject those math professors who cannot see that 10 OR 4 = 14 is a colossal mistake. Reject every math professor who cannot see that true numbers of mathematics is Grid Numbers, and their Reals-Complex are a total joke and disaster.

Dr. Wiles, Dr. Conway, Dr. Stillwell, Dr. Hales, Dr. Tao are not mathematicians but worthless nattering nutters of mathematics, and instead of admitting ellipse is never a conic and 10 AND 4 = 14, these fools of mathematics send out the kook stalker brigade of kibo parry moroney, christensen, jan burse, franz, eastside, jan bielawski, chris thomasson, konyberg-- stalking creeps rather than admit they made a mistake.

AP writes: Dr. Wiles failed as a mathematician. He passed as a teacher of math, but failed as a mathematician, because for a true mathematician, they have the ability to correct the "past math". Wiles never had that ability and thus failed math. And when people do not have that ability, they end up doing the opposite-- pollute math with more cockamie garbage-- Wiles silly FLT fakery. Wiles is such a failure of math that to this very day-- he cannot accept the truth that ellipse is not a conic, but is a cylinder section. And instead of admitting the truth, Wiles sits back and watches shitheads like kibo Parry Moroney stalk the true mathematician. I am not saying Wiles pays Moroney to stalk, but am saying that he delights in stalkers chasing after AP.

AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Babbling kO0k

AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it

Dr. Baez stupid but not depraved//what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

AP writes: I do not think Dr. Baez of UC Riverside is depraved in physics, but I do wish he stop using all those fake names.
AP writes: sorry this is the shortest I can do

Is Franz & Gottingen too stupid to learn? what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Fired from my first real programming job.
Am I in the wrong field?

We know Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney are imbeciles on math when they believe 10 OR 4 = 14, or a ellipse is a conic when it never was, or -- they can never do a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus. But is Jan Burse and ETH matching imbeciles to Christensen and kibo? Or, the question is, can ETH and Jan Burse even comprehend any of the below excerpt, or have they become a wallflower of nonmath a wallflower of institutionalized idiocy?


what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages


Is ETH and Jan Burse too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason ETH and Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic

Here is a case where a professor of math and physics, John Baez still believes in 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the local village idiot knows it is 10 AND 4 = 14. Teaches the idiocy of a ellipse is a conic when even a High School student can prove in front of the face of Dr. Baez, with a Kerr jar lid and paper cone that the slant cut is a OVAL, never an ellipse. Yet we pay this ignorant fool of Baez to teach his nonsense.

Where Dr. Baez stalked AP for years and years on the Internet under stupid fake names. Is this what Baez calls-- crackpot list-- to see a grown professor stalking posters, yet the fool still nattering nutters 10 OR 4 = 14. Dr. Baez should start an asylum list to pair up with his Crackpot list for he is ready to go.

why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place

4/5/17
stalkers out kciking cans
yup, complex field is tres c00l

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that

nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you

Dr. Baez, instead of hiding behind fake names and spreading your idiocies in the newsgroups why not do something worthwhile.

AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. But that is far too sage of advice for a nutcase of Dr. Baez.

AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Really pathetic, kibo Parry Moroney alleges he is a electrical engineer but the creep dunce idiot thinks 938 is 12% short of 945


Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 115 pages

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154 pages

Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.
Length: 41 pages


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Length: 363 pages



AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages


How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.
Length: 14 pages

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages


1- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1-
1- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
1- Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 08:49:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Yes, the melting point used in Chemical bonding matches the Kepler
Packing of 74%

Yes, the melting point used in Chemical bonding matches the Kepler Packing of 74%

Alright, I think I can get most of what I need about the Lewis Arm of covalent bonding from carbon at 4600 and tungsten metallic bond at 6203.

On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 8:30:47 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

For carbon, the melting point is the triple point 4600K
For tungsten, the melting point is 3695K boiling point 6203K
For iron, the melting point is 1811K boiling point 3134K
For copper, the melting point is 1358K boiling point 2835K

What that tells me, is that the Metallic Bond has to be the toughest bond of all, because it is kissing planar capacitors, while the covalent bond is a Lewis Arm structure and the very best of a Lewis Arm structure is the diamond crystal. The very best metallic bond is tungsten with 6203 and is far stronger than the very best covalent bond of carbon in diamond at 4600.

Now if I divide 4600/6203 we have the number percentage of 74.1%

If we look at the famous Kepler Packing problem of face-centered cubic or called hexagonal close packing, is the percentage number of 74.05% = pi/(3*sqrt2)

And, this fits in perfectly with the idea that the Metallic Bond is a Kissing Planar Face bond while the Covalent Bond involves Lewis Arm structure.

AP

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: Dr. Hales has reduced himself to the math idiocy of kibo Parry Moroney by denying the ellipse is never a conic. What is next for Dr. Hales-- babble out 10 OR 4 = 14 just like the kooks Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney.
Moroney and Dr. Hales fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic

AP writes: Yes, the math community needs to reject every math professor who cannot admit ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder section. Reject those math professors who cannot see that 10 OR 4 = 14 is a colossal mistake. Reject every math professor who cannot see that true numbers of mathematics is Grid Numbers, and their Reals-Complex are a total joke and disaster.
Dr. Wiles, Dr. Conway, Dr. Stillwell, Dr. Hales, Dr. Tao are not mathematicians but worthless nattering nutters of mathematics, and instead of admitting ellipse is never a conic and 10 AND 4 = 14, these fools of mathematics send out the kook stalker brigade of kibo parry moroney, christensen, jan burse, franz, eastside, jan bielawski, chris thomasson, konyberg-- stalking creeps rather than admit they made a mistake.
AP writes: Dr. Wiles failed as a mathematician. He passed as a teacher of math, but failed as a mathematician, because for a true mathematician, they have the ability to correct the "past math". Wiles never had that ability and thus failed math. And when people do not have that ability, they end up doing the opposite-- pollute math with more cockamie garbage-- Wiles silly FLT fakery. Wiles is such a failure of math that to this very day-- he cannot accept the truth that ellipse is not a conic, but is a cylinder section. And instead of admitting the truth, Wiles sits back and watches shitheads like kibo Parry Moroney stalk the true mathematician. I am not saying Wiles pays Moroney to stalk, but am saying that he delights in stalkers chasing after AP.
AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Babbling kO0k

AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it
Dr. Baez stupid but not depraved//what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

AP writes: I do not think Dr. Baez of UC Riverside is depraved in physics, but I do wish he stop using all those fake names.
AP writes: sorry this is the shortest I can do
Is Franz & Gottingen too stupid to learn? what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Fired from my first real programming job.
Am I in the wrong field?

We know Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney are imbeciles on math when they believe 10 OR 4 = 14, or a ellipse is a conic when it never was, or -- they can never do a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus. But is Jan Burse and ETH matching imbeciles to Christensen and kibo? Or, the question is, can ETH and Jan Burse even comprehend any of the below excerpt, or have they become a wallflower of nonmath a wallflower of institutionalized idiocy?
what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics
First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.
1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Length: 363 pages
Is ETH and Jan Burse too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow

AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason ETH and Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Autistic

Here is a case where a professor of math and physics, John Baez still believes in 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the local village idiot knows it is 10 AND 4 = 14. Teaches the idiocy of a ellipse is a conic when even a High School student can prove in front of the face of Dr. Baez, with a Kerr jar lid and paper cone that the slant cut is a OVAL, never an ellipse. Yet we pay this ignorant fool of Baez to teach his nonsense.
Where Dr. Baez stalked AP for years and years on the Internet under stupid fake names. Is this what Baez calls-- crackpot list-- to see a grown professor stalking posters, yet the fool still nattering nutters 10 OR 4 = 14. Dr. Baez should start an asylum list to pair up with his Crackpot list for he is ready to go.
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place

4/5/17
stalkers out kciking cans
yup, complex field is tres c00l

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that

nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you

Dr. Baez, instead of hiding behind fake names and spreading your idiocies in the newsgroups why not do something worthwhile.
AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. But that is far too sage of advice for a nutcase of Dr. Baez.
AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Really pathetic, kibo Parry Moroney alleges he is a electrical engineer but the creep dunce idiot thinks 938 is 12% short of 945
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.
The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 115 pages
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154 pages
Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.
Length: 41 pages
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
Length: 363 pages


AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.
Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
Length: 12 pages
How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.
But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.
Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.
Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.
Length: 14 pages
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
Length: 29 pages
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
1- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1-
1- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
1- Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Excerpt from my latest book:


carbon Lewis Arm length is relatively 4.8pm and for oxygen in water is relatively 4.95pm Re: slowly coming into focus Re: length of the carbon atom's Lewis Arm

AP writes: no use in asking Dr. Hales, for he still thinks the ellipse is a conic when the slant cut of a cone is never an ellipse but rather a oval. Dr. Hales is a nattering nutter of geometry, of the highest degree, because, if a mind cannot even get straight the difference between a ellipse and a oval, then that mind is a complete failure of math.


Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 72 pages


Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __ 
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
 /       ::\::|::/::       \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet         
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... ( ).............|     
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings 
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'   
      `-   _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Michael Moroney]

Subject: Re: excerpt from my book;; Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your
children! He teaches bizarre false physics, that there are no negative
numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many,
many other instances of bad math and physics.

He has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on Usenet.
Fortunately, this has failed so far, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet
is an old, dying medium few students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the risk to our students!

One of his dangerous tricks is to teach false Boolean logic such as
3 AND 2 = 5. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll
post a false statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that
it is false, but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false
statement such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer
scientists. It is important for future computer scientists to remember that
in the bitwise Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2.
Don't let Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math and physics, just like he
is. Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. Maybe he is a
minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. But the point is, stay away, if he
offers to give or sell you his dangerous book. Especially now since they are
available for free from otherwise legitimate Amazon.

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.




x-no-archive: yes

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

AP writes: You can say that again about Dr. Hales for his inability to recognize the slant cut into a cone is a oval, never the ellipse, but rather sheer stupidity of math by Dr. Hales, and that is the reason he entertains the delusion of the ellipse, and really ironic that he spent so much time on Kepler Packing where you pack identical spheres in 3rd dimensional space, yet the nitwit Dr. Hales never even recognized that the Metallic Bond of Chemistry had to be planar surface kissing points in packing. Dr. Hales is a gigantic nitwit of math geometry, and in my opinion is just a computer salesman for computer companies, getting colleges to buy computers that they never needed in the first place. Dr. Hales is a menace to mathematics.


boiling point for Metals, and Electrolysis for Gases// Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


Excerpt from my latest book:


I do not recall, how many gases that Michael Faraday separated of its constituent atoms using electricity. Does any of my readers off hand recall? Probably only a working chemist remembers how many gases that Faraday separated using electricity.

But anyway, so for 16% of the chemical elements, those gases require Electrolysis to determine Dissociation bond energy. For the other 84% of elements, require boiling point determination for Dissociation bond energy.


Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 72 pages


Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __ 
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
 /       ::\::|::/::       \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet         
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... ( ).............|     
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings 
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'   
      `-   _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1- What we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __  
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /::     `.
 /        ::\::|::/::         \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet          
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... (     ).............|      
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings  
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'              
      `-    _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
1- What we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journ

"We" yet again, Archie? You still haven't fed your diseased cats again! No, when
they meow like that they aren't agreeing with you about throwing out math, it means
that they are hungry!! Feed them!!!


x-no-archive: yes

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney
Math Minnow
Mouse of Math and Phlea of Physics

AP writes: just because kibo Parry Moroney flunked math and science even engineering with his 938 is short of 945 by 12% does not mean that Dr. Hales cannot benefit from reading AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook, --- something that kibo could not ever understand.

2.2- What we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
__
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \ inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet
;.......... _ _ ............ ;
|.......... ( ).............|
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: / neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'

One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1.1- What we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
__
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \ inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet
;.......... _ _ ............ ;
|.......... ( ).............|
; - - ;
\ ::/::|::\:: / neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings
`. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
`- _____ .-'

One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by b***@gmail.com
should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

y = x^2 -3x + 2
If it isn't math, what is it? It looks like a perfectly ordinary polynomial
with real coefficients. Get your graph paper out. What is y for x =1.5?
What are the (real!) roots of the polynomial?

AP writes: who you talking to? Jan Burse or Dr. Hales, and should they get out the midnight oil also?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Jan writes:
Mar 12


Keep confabulating.
--
Jan

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Jan writes:
Mar 12

Nonsense.

--
Jan

AP writes: well that is tough, which is the more nonsensical guy -- Jan or Hales

Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

Dedekind and Cauchy did not provide ANY vald construction of real number. (12)
By John Gabriel 12 posts 51 views updated 2:03 AM





Dedekind Cuts - imaginary mythmatical objects. (3)
By John Gabriel 9 posts 19 views updated 2:03 AM




Why school makes you stupid. (21)
By John Gabriel 24 posts 36 views updated 2:02 AM
+ 6 others


AP writes:: Gabriel has only a big loud mouth in math, and he is so dumb in math he was never able to do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, so dumb

[Jan]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?

--
Jan

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan

***@gmail.com wrote:
Mar 30 (15 hours ago)

Post by Jan
More stupidity from bird brain John Garbage-iel.
new calculoose, 3=<4 invalid and butt sex axiom.
What a complete moron and super-idiot.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan

Mar 30 (15 hours ago)

Post by Jan
More stupidity from bird brain John Garbage-iel.
new calculoose, 3=<4 invalid and butt sex axiom.
What a complete moron and super-idiot.

Archie's reply:

[X] Responds to criticism but is unable to actually discuss the issue...
[ ] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
[ ] ...and in the wrong newsgroup...
[ ] ...multiple times...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[X] ...with a subject mentioning totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
[ ] ...of a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
[X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
[ ] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
[X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

Score of 6. An improvement.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Michael Moroney
Score of 6. An improvement.

Looks like I caught Archie at the start of a mini-meltdown. When
considering the other posts, score is still 8.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Michael Moroney
Score of 6. An improvement.

Looks like I caught Archie at the start of a mini-meltdown. When
considering the other posts, score is still 8.

12:28 PM (1 hour ago)

Dan Christensen Wrong again, Troll Boy. You are making a complete moron of yourself here. (See my posting above.) Dan

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Michael Moroney
Score of 6. An improvement.

Looks like I caught Archie at the start of a mini-meltdown. When
considering the other posts, score is still 8.

Zelos Malum writes:
2:49 AM (11 hours ago)


It is convinient btu that is all it is, it is not best in a mathematical sense because its just representation, in many cases it is inferior in mathematics.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney
[X] Responds to criticism but is unable to actually discuss the issue...

Zelos Malum writes:

5:20 AM (9 hours ago)

Post by Michael Moroney
Mathematics needs no fixing, what needs fixing is you.

AP writes:: you mean fix Moroney like you fix a dog

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan

Mar 30 (15 hours ago)

Post by Jan
More stupidity from bird brain John Garbage-iel.
new calculoose, 3=<4 invalid and butt sex axiom.
What a complete moron and super-idiot.

(snipped for brevity)

Post by Michael Moroney
[ ] ...and in the wrong newsgroup...
[ ] ...multiple times...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[X] ...with a subject mentioning totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
Score of 6. An improvement.
Math Minnow

Moroney and Dr. Hales fail at High School Math, High School Logic// both teach Ellipse is a conic when it never was// teach 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiot knows 10 AND 4=14 // never have a geometry proof of Calculus

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages


Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Length: 65 pages


                
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      


Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.

Length: 82 pages

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan
Needless to say, it never got off the ground and is heading straight for the trash pile of math, just like all his other, ahem ... "innovations."
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]

***@gmail.com wrote:
Jul 23 (8 hours ago)


Well you only demonstrate that you are a moron,
and that your Herpes is swelling. Just word
salad nonsense, nothing else...

Similar to AP brain farto. There is no difference
between fruit cake and AP brain farto. Just
spamming idiots.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Jan

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan

About Dr. Hales-- refuses to admit oval is the slant cut into a cone, never the ellipse, and by his refusal is in the same class or worse than that of math spammers as John Gabriel, Pete Olcott below.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Discussion
Learn why it is wrong to say 0.333... = 1/3. (24)
By Jew Lover 24 posts 77 views updated 12:16 PM

Discussion
Redefining the foundations of mathematics from first principles (40)
By peteolcott 118 posts 144 views updated 11:32 AM


Discussion
About the SPAMMING troll Dan Christensen: FACT checking his lies and misrepresentations. (19)
By Jew Lover 44 posts 183 views updated

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan
This alone is direct proof you are insane and know jack shit.
For starters, the second line is wrong and not justifiable anywhere.

AP writes: I don't see a second line, are you having vision problems? Sounds a bit harsh to me, are you thinking of kicking Dr. Hales out of mathematics?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan
This alone is direct proof you are insane and know jack shit.
For starters, the second line is wrong and not justifiable anywhere.

AP writes: I don't see a second line, are you having vision problems? Sounds a bit harsh to me, are you thinking of kicking Dr. Hales out of mathematics?

About Petry posting from Washington state: maybe the mold and mildew has taken over what little mind there was

Discussion
Intelligence and mathematics
By David Petry 12 posts 40 views updated 9:08 PM

Discussion
Difference between applied mathemtics and pure mathematics
By David Petry 13 posts 37 views updated 9:05 PM

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Jan
Is this how you think mathematics is done? By calling people names?
--
Jan
Must you post garbage?
--
Jan
should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

AP writes: kind of harsh to an extreme there Jan Burse. And I really do not see how the Swiss people stomach your bully violence. Dr. Hales certainly has the ellipse wrong for the slant cut in cone is the oval, never the ellipse. But the crap and spew from Jan Burse is way way out of place in sci.math

[Archimedes Plutonium]

     A few too many lights out in his Christmas tree.
Thomas Hales

How stupid are they in calculus? They think the slope in Y= mx + b, is m which is true, for that is the slope and the derivative of a straight-line, but it never occurred to them that a function is never a “curve” but a compilation of straight lines strung together, and thus, the derivative at any two nearby close together points — that derivative is part and parcel of the same function graph.
The derivative, at minimum must involve two adjacent points and be the Y=mx+b, a straight-line segment of the function graph to carry information about the function graph itself.

Thomas Hales
     A flower short of an arrangement.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Dan Christensen]

Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test...

Everyone on the planet seems to be failing your "math test," Archie. Everyone but you. I am probably being naive for asking this, but does this not tell you ANYTHING???

Do you not even have the slightest bit of doubt about your program? The corporate and scientific establishments seem to muddling through using the standard truth tables for the AND and OR operators and sinusoidal wave function that are NOT semi-circles. Things actually work, Archie. How do you explain that? Or are you just some kind of mean spirited, mathematical prankster? It's really beginning to look that way.


Dan

PS: I don't expect a truthful answer. Just think about it.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Dan Christensen
Do you not even have the slightest bit of doubt about your program?

Michael Moroney writes:
Apr 11 (10 hours ago)

Post by Dan Christensen
Have you ever given a scientist a good idea

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Dan Christensen
Dan
PS: I don't expect

Michael Moroney
6:47 PM (7 minutes ago)

Post by Dan Christensen

[X] ...Zero new content, in fact...

Yes, you get a point for that. Let's score this post of yours momentarily.

Post by Dan Christensen
For AP says the muon is the Real Electron at 840 MeV alongside the muon

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Post by Dan Christensen
as the Real Electron at 105MeV.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So Archie really does believe "It's true because I said it's true!" !!!
And he thinks that is science!!!
(and he even managed to mess up his own blatherings)

Let's see how lame Archie's post is.

☑ Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
☐ ...Zero new content, in fact...
☑ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
☑ ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
☐ ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
☐ ...multiple times...
☐ ...enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
☑ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☑ ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors...
☐ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
☑ ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
☑ ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☑ ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☐ ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
☐ ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☑ ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...
☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☐ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☐ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Post by Dan Christensen
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

[Michael Moroney]

Well, Archie is back up to 23 Lameness points with this post. I won't
bother to post the scoresheet. I guess I was wrong about the Thorazine.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Michael Moroney
is back up to 23 Lameness points with this post. I won't
bother to post the scoresheet. I guess I was wrong about the Thorazine.

Zelos Malum wrote:

4:33 AM (3 hours ago)

Post by Michael Moroney
Triangle? You might wanna check up on basic chemical systems of how bonds are formed, your triangle >violates all such and have too many covalent bonds.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Dan Christensen

Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test...

Everyone on the planet seems to be failing your "math test," Archie.

percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945

Post by Dan Christensen
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Dan Christensen agrees with Moroney, 8.88 is 12% short of 9.

Question Dan? Did you go to MIT to learn 8.88 is 12% short of 9. Why not just stay put in Canada to learn such.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Dan Christensen
Do you not even have the slightest bit of doubt about your program? The corporate and scientific establishments seem to muddling through using the standard truth tables for the AND and OR operators and sinusoidal wave function that are NOT semi-circles.

AP writes: funny how the math idiot Dr. Hales alleges his computer programs is a proof of Kepler Packing, yet that idiot of math Dr. Hales still thinks Boole logic is correct with 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the village idiots of Princeton University knows that 10 AND 4 = 14.

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).

You left all the answers blank on your test,
Perhaps you missed this little test that I created just for you,
"Are you actually denying that the sine of 45 degrees is 0.707 (to 3 decimal places)???"

AP writes: well, Dr. Hales has denied the ellipse is never a conic, since 2016 when AP discovered the slant cut was an oval, and if you want a ellipse from a slant cut you need a cylinder section.

Stupid people in math like Dr. Hales has the right to remain stupid all his life on the ellipse.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

***@gmail.com wrote 24July2019
12:26 AM (23 minutes ago)

So what's your answer, Archie?  It's a very easy problem.
x^2 -3x + 2 = 0

AP writes:
Maybe Dr. Hales is like Eastside, simply cannot comprehend what AP writes or says, so when AP writes a equation of math can never have a zero on the rightside, alone, but must be a positive nonzero number. Then Eastside immediately poses the exact ignorant sample. Is that why Dr. Hales cannot accept the oval is the conic slant cut, because he, like Eastside cannot even comprehend what others say, what AP proved on ellipse --


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Michael Moroney writes:

8:30 PM (18 minutes ago)

Re: how awards in science need to change for the better Re: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test

Physics Failure…
50 kO0kpoints for awarding yourself a Nobel Prize.

AP writes: Moroney cannot even do a correct percentage, so he is not worth reading-- filter out the stalkers posts. I am sure Thomas Hales could do a correct percentage.

Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

The behavior of Thomas Hales in mathematics is the exact opposite of what we want to see in the science of mathematics. Where he never fixes mistakes in mathematics, but rather, piles on more and more mistakes, and then gets rewards and awarded for his pollution. He is a drain on money resources in mathematics with his silly notion of computer proofs of Kepler Packing, and then on top of it all, -- just a greed ball for fame and fortune-- never truth in mathematics. And this is proven true about Hales, for he spent so so much time on Kepler Packing with the idiocy of a computer proof (thoroughly thoroughly fake proof), yet the Hales nitwit to this day beleives a ellipse is a conic section, too dumb to see in his mind that a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic. What I said below about Conway in geometry-- blind Conway, is equally applies to Hales, if not more.

--- earlier post on Conway ---
has a notation for dodecahedron but too blind to see a ellipse is never a conic Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

It is funny, but also pathetic, that Conway a life in mathematics, gets his name attached to a "notation" for look up dodecahedron and it has a Conway notation of D-- whatever that means.

And yet, here is Conway, a life in mathematics and his little geometry mind never able to "see" or figure out-- that a ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder cut.

Would taking of Logic in school for Conway, have made him a half way decent mathematician, or was he just destined to never see the truth about ellipse and be a failure of geometry.
--- end quoting earlier post ---

You see, the world of mathematics by 2018 is still flooded with idiots of math that seek fame and fortune on the backs of math, but never smart enough in math to clean out and clear out their own hideous mistakes and thus they pollute mathematics, not give insight or truth to mathematics. Just pollute pollute and pollute.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Earle Jones]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The behavior of Thomas Hales in mathematics is the exact opposite of
what we want to see in the science of mathematics. Where he never fixes
mistakes in mathematics, but rather, piles on more and more mistakes,
and then gets rewards and awarded for his pollution. He is a drain on
money resources in mathematics with his silly notion of computer proofs
of Kepler Packing, and then on top of it all, -- just a greed ball for
fame and fortune-- never truth in mathematics. And this is proven true
about Hales, for he spent so so much time on Kepler Packing with the
idiocy of a computer proof (thoroughly thoroughly fake proof), yet the
Hales nitwit to this day beleives a ellipse is a conic section, too
dumb to see in his mind that a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a
conic. What I said below about Conway in geometry-- blind Conway, is
equally applies to Hales, if not more.
--- earlier post on Conway ---
has a notation for dodecahedron but too blind to see a ellipse is never
a conic Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a
lifetime-generation test
It is funny, but also pathetic, that Conway a life in mathematics, gets
his name attached to a "notation" for look up dodecahedron and it has a
Conway notation of D-- whatever that means.
And yet, here is Conway, a life in mathematics and his little geometry
mind never able to "see" or figure out-- that a ellipse is never a
conic but always a cylinder cut.
Would taking of Logic in school for Conway, have made him a half way
decent mathematician, or was he just destined to never see the truth
about ellipse and be a failure of geometry.
--- end quoting earlier post ---
You see, the world of mathematics by 2018 is still flooded with idiots
of math that seek fame and fortune on the backs of math, but never
smart enough in math to clean out and clear out their own hideous
mistakes and thus they pollute mathematics, not give insight or truth
to mathematics. Just pollute pollute and pollute.

*
AP:

Q1: Is there any prime number larger than 10^604?

Q2: How many rational numbers are between 1 and 2?

Thanks,

earle
*

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I see where Wikipedia says that Thomas Hales has become a member of the American Mathematical Society in 2012. Serves him and them alike-- that fruitcakes of mathematics should band together, for fruitcakes of mathematics are dolts of geometry-- the bards never ever realized that the Ellipse cannot be a conic section, for it has too much symmetry. The Ellipse is a Cylinder Section, never a conic section. And the reason Hales was inducted into American Mathematical Society, is that they are thinking, since the entire collection of AMS has not a single gram of Logic Intelligence that by inducting Hales with his fraction intelligence, may put AMS over the 1 gram of Logic intelligence.

Certainly, no-one at AMS ever realized a Ellipse is never a Conic section-- for they are fruitcakes of mathematics.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[b***@gmail.com]

1 gram is still more than zero, AP brain farto. You
have got zero brains. Only spamming sci.math already
for 25 years. Not a single line of math.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I see where Wikipedia says that Thomas Hales has become a member of the American Mathematical Society in 2012. Serves him and them alike-- that fruitcakes of mathematics should band together, for fruitcakes of mathematics are dolts of geometry-- the bards never ever realized that the Ellipse cannot be a conic section, for it has too much symmetry. The Ellipse is a Cylinder Section, never a conic section. And the reason Hales was inducted into American Mathematical Society, is that they are thinking, since the entire collection of AMS has not a single gram of Logic Intelligence that by inducting Hales with his fraction intelligence, may put AMS over the 1 gram of Logic intelligence.
Certainly, no-one at AMS ever realized a Ellipse is never a Conic section-- for they are fruitcakes of mathematics.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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 C

Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

19/06/2018 #1 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium
< Wp‎ | aki
Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

Loading Image...

Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) and that is his legal name after many name changes in life, also known as Ludwig Plutonium, wrote extensively about science and mathematics on Usenet. In 1990 he became convinced that the universe could be thought of as an atom of plutonium, and changed his name to reflect this idea. He is notable for his offbeat ideas about Plutonium Atom totality, physical constants, and nonstandard models of infinite arithmetic. [1] [2]
Archimedes Plutonium, in his Usenet posts, was the first to describe the process of biasing search-engine results by planting references, and coined the phrase search-engine bombing to describe it. This later became well-known as google bombing[3] [4].

Contents  [hide] 
                1
                Biographical Sketch
                2
                Writing
                2.1
                Plutonium Atom Totality
                2.2
                Borderline between Finite and Infinity
                2.3
                Other Theories
                3
                Theory that Sun and Starpower are not 100% fusion but only 1/3 fusion and the majority is Faraday Law as 2/3 of the power
                3.1
                Plutonium's plea to scientists before we extinct any more wild animals-- please check out CO2 isomers, Animal-CO2 compared to Fire-CO2
                3.2
                Other Writing
                4
                Quotes
                5
                References
Biographical Sketch[edit]
Plutonium was born under the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg, Germany. He vaguely posted that he is genetically linked to the mathematician Engel who worked with Sophus Lie, and to the mathematician Widmann who was the first to write negative numbers in our modern terminology. Plutonium also makes a extraordinary claim that he is the reincarnation of the Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse Greek. He believes this through "signals from the Gods", that his name changing was at one time "Ludvig" and years later, found out that Johan Ludvig Heiberg was the main historian of Archimedes, thinking that this was a "signal from the Gods" that Plutonium was now the living reincarnation of the ancient Greek mathematician. His family moved to the United States and settled near Cincinnati, Ohio, where Plutonium was adopted into the Hansen family and brought up under the name Ludwig Hansen. He got a degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati, 1972, then teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and then getting a Masters degree from Utah State University, 1979. Under the names Ludwig Von Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium, he began posting to Usenet in 1993. His prolific posts quickly made him a well known usenet figure.
Plutonium was long observed on the campus of Dartmouth College, where he rode around on a bicycle and wore an orange hunting hat and a homemade cape decorated with atomic symbols in Magic Marker. Students frequently saw him using the computer cluster in the basement of the Kiewit Computation Centre, and he regularly published full-page advertisements of his claims in the student newspaper, The Dartmouth.
Plutonium worked as a "potwasher" (he preferred this term over "dishwasher" because it had the same starting letter and number of letters as plutonium) at the Hanover Inn, which the college owns. When asked on Usenet how this observed job jibed with his claims of wealth, Plutonium explained that he only took the job in order to get Internet access. In 1999 Plutonium posted various complaints about the management of Dartmouth, calling for a strike by workers there and suggesting various conspiracy theories concerning college administrators. Plutonium lost his job at Dartmouth about August of 1999.
After making what he termed "science odyssey tours" of the United States and Europe, Plutonium then moved to rural Meckling, South Dakota, where he resumed his Usenet posting, saying he now lives on a "homestead" apparently consisting of a house, two Airstream trailers, and a grove of various sorts of trees.
Plutonium was questioned by New Hampshire police during an investigation of a famous case. The crime was completely solved a short time later and he was not involved in any way, but because of his eccentricity, he was a prominent character in the reports. [5] [6]
In 2016, Archimedes Plutonium had a cancer operation to remove a Liposarcoma, similar to the physicist Richard Feynman, stricken with the same type of cancer, in the same location and about similar in size. Is Liposarcoma the cancer disease of physicists? Maxwell had stomach cancer, if memory serves. Maybe the cancer in scientists maybe due to not getting enough vitamin D, working indoors so much and not enough Sun in winter. But, the real interesting aspect of Archimedes Plutonium cancer, was that one testicle was resected in the surgery and thus leaving AP as 1/2 eunuch. And he delights in being 1/2 eunuch because Plutonium skill in doing science has increased 10 fold since leaving the hospital. His discovery that the Real Proton = 840 MeV and Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole were discoveries after the cancer removal. Plutonium believes that sex organs decrease the ability to do maximum science.
Writing[edit]
Plutonium is the author of about 45 thousand postings 5*365*25, mostly in the science newsgroups such as sci.physics, sci.math from August 1993 to present day, and has his own Google newsgroup. Where he likes to archive his posts without the cacophony of background noise and ad hominem. Do science in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Plutonium Atom Totality[edit]
Plutonium Atom totality is a metaphysical idea that the universe should somehow be thought of as a gigantic atom of the element plutonium, Pu 231. It is not believed by most scientists that the universe considered as a whole is any type of atom, let alone an atom of plutonium. The cosmic atom, often written ATOM, is a manifestation of god, or the totality of all things. It is attributed with some divine properties, although the physical universe in Plutonium philosophy only obeys natural laws and does not include supernatural phenomenon.[7]
Here is the first page of Archimedes Plutonium's textbook Atom Totality, its 8th edition as posted many times in sci.physics and sci.math.
Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017

Preface:
Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect.
I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on.
I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective.

page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe
I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like.
A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.
One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this:
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon
                ::\ ::|:: /::                  ::\::|::/::                      _ _                     (:Y:)                      - -                  ::/::|::\::                 ::/ ::|:: \::
        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud".
Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture.
It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, of page 572.   In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?
Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.
  CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.      Figure 26-5       An atom, suggesting the electron       cloud and, above, an enlarged view       of the nucleus. --- end quoting ---
You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon.
And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky.
The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon.
So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this:
o  .
Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another.
They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron=muon:
       ......    .............. ..................... .....................    ..............         ......
The picture of an electron=muon that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.
I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron=muon was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron=muon itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron=muon with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron=muon is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun.
Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium?
After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud.
Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words. The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom.
So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption: Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron. --- end quoting ---
Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron=muon was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron=muon. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus.
So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron=muon, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stipling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron=muon?
This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet.
                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu
                ::\ ::|:: /::                  ::\::|::/::                      _ _                     (:Y:)                      - -                  ::/::|::\::                 ::/ ::|:: \::
        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.
A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:
            . \ .  . | .   /.            . . \. . .|. . /. .               ..\....|.../...                ::\:::|::/::

     -------------

(Y) -------------

     --------------
               ::/:::|::\::               ../....|...\...            . . /. . .|. . \. .             . / .  . | .   \ .
Archimedes Plutonium
Comments:: Since in 2017, I discovered that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV.
AP

TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
History Preface::

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:12:07 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018

Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.
Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV.
Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ??  For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense.
This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV.
And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms.
But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom.
I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017.
How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity.
When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000
short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron.
So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history.
1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook.
1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron.
1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms.
1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV
1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist.
1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had.
1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.
Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear.
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

                ::\ ::|:: /::                  ::\::|::/::                      _ _                     (:Y:)                      - -                  ::/::|::\::                 ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.             . \ .  . | .   /.            . . \. . .|. . /. .               ..\....|.../...                ::\:::|::/::

     -------------

(Y) -------------

     --------------
               ::/:::|::\::               ../....|...\...            . . /. . .|. . \. .             . / .  . | .   \ .
  http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         Archimedes Plutonium

[Boo!]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
19/06/2018 #1 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium
Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium
< Wp‎ | aki
Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif
Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) and that is his legal name after many name changes in life,

Why do you keep posting this crap, again and again and again????

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Post by Boo!
Why do you keep posting this crap, again and again and again????

Volney writes:
7:15 PM (42 minutes ago)

"Marriage is like an unfunny tense version of Everybody Loves Raymond,
but it doesn't last 22 minutes. It lasts forever."

[Volney]

Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Post by Boo!
Why do you keep posting this crap, again and again and again????

Why *do* you keep posting this crap, again and again and again????

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
7:15 PM (42 minutes ago)
"Marriage is like an unfunny tense version of Everybody Loves Raymond,
but it doesn't last 22 minutes. It lasts forever."

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 8:10:25 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Volney kicks ass Re: Angela Merkel, Wolfgang M. Weyand, asks AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

Volney kicks ass Re: Jurgen Habermass,Horst Stocke, asks AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of
bubblegum."

Volney



12:32 PM (1 minute ago)


"Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do
somethin' like this -- and totally redeem yourself! Ha Ha!"

Angela Merkel, Wolfgang M. Weyand, asked by Volney which of the two AP theories is greater, more famous-- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

Surrender Dorothy!

AP writes: I thought her name was Angela Merkel
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Speeds of breakup-- molecules bond dissociation is 1095km/sec,
 atomic binding energy at 2190km/sec, TRUE CHEMISTRY textbook
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 10:29:24 -0400
Injection-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 14:29:19 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e6ad90323f9fd2ade38d2b76676a888d";
Eternal-September.org
Wolfgang M. Weyand
Berliner Strasse
Bad Homburg
Goethe Universitat Physics dept
Brigitta Wolff president
Jurgen Habermass
Horst Stocker
Gerd Binnig
Horst Ludwig Stormer  
Peter Grunberg
math
Alex Kuronya
Martin Moller
Jakob Stix
Annette Werner
Andreas Bernig
Esther Cabezas-Rivas
Hans Crauel
Thomas Gerstner
Bastian von Harrach
Thomas Mettler
Tobias Weth
Amin Coja-Oghlan
Raman Sanyal
Thorsten Theobald
Yury Person            
    /\-------/\
    \::O:::O::/
   (::_  ^  _::)
    \_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Germany?
And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof, your students deserve better.
Yes, there Volney, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.
But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.
What answer did they give? Volney?
AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Burse reports: Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher asked which is AP's 2nd greatest theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

What ovals are the integer points?

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran
Marc Burger
Patrick Cheridito
Manfred Einsiedler

Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder
Alessio Figalli
Norbert Hungerbuhler
Tom Ilmanen
Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg


University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Friedrich Durrenmatt
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

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

And, even though you-- professors of physics, of math, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms, or true Calculus, your students deserve better.



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

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

What answer did they give? Burse?

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.


The 4 connectors of Logic are:

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

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram

T T

T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square

While addition is and with a Space like this

T T

T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.
zzzzzzzzzzzz
The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess, and likely wrong. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.
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.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Thomas Hales flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. This is especially egregious for Hales, since he dabbled so much in geometry, yet, in his entire life, was never able to have a true Calculus, only a fakery calculus with his silly idiotic limit of rectangles with 0 width, and of derivatives of alien tangent lines to a function graph which is impossible to tell where the function is going next (see below). What Hales is to math, is what a trash person pollutes the math landscape.

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.

MATH TEST::

Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.


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.

From this:
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.

To this:

______
| |
| |
| |
---------

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

#2nd Error -- Know what Numbers really are, not some sack of crap cobbled together in a junk pile called Reals

Whenever you have a science, and you see "cobbling together of items"-- means the science is primitive, riddled with error and half-truths, and such was the Reals of Old Math.

TRUE CORRECT Numbers needed to do Math or any science like physics in particular

Alright, once we have Logic, we start mathematics, and the best place to start is how we recognize and use numbers. Math has two houses, one is Geometry and one is Numbers (Algebra). We can start with either one of them, geometry or numbers. Here we start with numbers.

DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.

Let us focus on Numbers, how to represent them, for in how to represent numbers can either destroy our understanding or allow us to understand fully and clearly. If we have the wrong representation of numbers, we cannot hope to fully understand them.

In the history of mathematics, one of the key discoveries was the Decimal Number System. It was discovered in Ancient times by Hindu Arabic, but was slowly accepted and needed many changes along the way to our modern day use. But, even as of recently, 2017, most math professors, perhaps all except AP, thought that Number Systems never change the value of numbers, regardless of what system you use. And in the age of computers, the computer electronics favors binary system, with its electronic gate open or closed.

The Binary system is 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, etc and those represent, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in decimals.

Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system superior. And the representation of numbers, does in fact, affect the values of numbers, except decimal. Decimal Number system is the only system that does not affect the actual true value of the number. How can that be? It is the fractions that are distorted in other number system, not decimal.

The decimal number system is the only non-corrupting system, and all other systems have failures of number values, in the fractions.

The reason Decimal is superior, is because of the 231Pu Atom Totality demands a number system that has Clean-Pure Numbers as border endpoints. A clean-pure number is this progression
1
10
100
1000
10000
etc

and
.1
.01
.001
.0001
etc

A clean-pure number is a "1" digit followed by nothing but 0 digits. They make perfect endpoints as borderlines. And Decimal especially highlights clean-pure numbers since it is the use of two primes 2 and 5.

All other number systems have a 10 and 100, etc, but their 10 and 100 is not formed from the two primes 2 and 5.

Why 2 and 5 forming 10 is so special?

It is because all numbers and all geometry comes from the 231Pu Atom Totality. So that pi and 2.71… exist as special because 231 Plutonium has 22 filled subshells in 7 shells and only 19 subshells occupied at any one moment in time, giving 22/7 as pi and simultaneously giving 19/7 as "e".

The final answers as to why why why in science or math, all ends up with a feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality. And the reason for a Number System based on 2x5 is so special is because 231Pu is the 5f6 outer shell and so the 5 comes from that and the 2 comes from 2x3=6.

Did you know in math there is what is called magic-cubes::

If i look at the 231Pu Atom Totality and its 5f6

Then a 3by3 Array, best not call them matrix

Occurs for addition with 5 as center

2   7   6

9   5   1

4   3   8

So the 5f6 hints at trying 6 for center for multiplication

After playing around

18    1    12

4      6      9

3     36     2

For 216 in all rows columns diagonals

Also, interesting is that 216 + 15 = 231 as in 231Pu

The reason that MATHEMATICS even exists, in the first place, is because the Universe just one big atom with smaller atoms inside itself. And since atoms have Shape and Size, thus comes forth the creation of geometry. And since atoms are numerous, many and many atoms, thus is created Numbers, or commonly called Algebra.

The decimal number system is superior and unique to all other number system. Think of it as the "e" of logarithms. The logarithms with base 2.71…. is unique base and is a superior base for any logarithmic system. So the base-10 number system, the decimal system is unique and superior.

Why superior? Well for one, its representation does not corrupt number values. In binary, many numbers as fractions are distorted and corrupted. Not the whole numbers in binary, but once you need to use fractions, often they are distorted in true values.

Here is a recent report of a incident of number value distortion by binary (source stack overflow Internet)

Found this one in stack overflow, bolstering the case i make that all systems except Decimal are crap

50.05/0.05 is not precisely equal to 1001, which it should.
I understand that the above problem arises because all decimal numbers can not be precisely
written down in binary. But it is very obvious that it will create problem at many places, is there a >>good way to take care of the above apart from rounding off?

You see, what happens in physics when you put all your arithmetic into a computer, especially large number data, and all that number crunching the computer goes through to give you a final answer. An answer that should be .5 not .51, an answer that should be 3.00 not 2.99, an answer that should be 137, not a fraction. An answer that should be 105, 840, 945, not 105.7, 833.--, 939.--. When you use a binary system in science, your math numbers never come out to the correct numbers that Nature has.

So, decimal representation is superior, not only for precision and non-distortion, but because only Decimals can deliver a Grid System in mathematics.

AP