Discussion:
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-08 22:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.

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
------------------
-------------------
Zelos Malum
2018-03-09 12:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
------------------
-------------------
why would one need to do it geometrically?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-21 08:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
why would one need to do it geometrically?
You have invented a new definition? Can you give us an example or prove the existence of a real number that is NOT "approximatable" by this definition?
BTW were you ever able to finally prove that 1=/=2 in your number system?
Dan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-11 22:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
Christensen report: Sebastien Proulx
Justin Trudeau, 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; we cannot afford to extinct any more animals
We do. Even with,,,,,
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

6Christensen reports: David J. Dunlop, James Drummond 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

Dan Christensen wrote:

10:26 AM (4 hours ago)

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

AP writes: Dan, did Sebastien and Justin disagree, one chose misidentity, other chose starpower?

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--kook-- 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 Ontario?

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 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.

What answer did they give? Christensen?

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
Dan Christensen
2018-03-09 13:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
I'm guessing then that we would all do well to "flunk" this silly test of yours, Archie Pu.

Here is a little test for you, Archie:

1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?

2. True or false: 10^604 = 0

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Zelos Malum
2018-03-09 13:33:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
I'm guessing then that we would all do well to "flunk" this silly test of yours, Archie Pu.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
he seriously think 10^604 = 0?
Dan Christensen
2018-03-09 13:49:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
I'm guessing then that we would all do well to "flunk" this silly test of yours, Archie Pu.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
he seriously think 10^604 = 0?
Perhaps he has recently changed his thinking on this--one can always hope--but he did write here:

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

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” (10^604 = 0, so obvious!)
--June 9, 2015

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
2018-04-01 17:34:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Zelos Malum
he seriously think 10^604 = 0?
***@gmail.com wrote:

8:19 AM (4 hours ago)
Post by Zelos Malum
Take for example the thales circle, something
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-03 06:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Moroney writes:
Apr 2 (20 hours ago)
Never any math from you, Plutonium, do you think sci.math is some sewer
for your logorrhea?
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.
AP writes: hey, Boston science failure, no wonder you failed percentages, you mixed up Logorrhea with logarithm
Michael Moroney
2018-04-03 20:06:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 2 (20 hours ago)
Never any math from you, Plutonium, do you think sci.math is some sewer
for your logorrhea?
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.
Still struggling trying to cram 9 105.7 MeV particles into a 938 MeV container,
I see...

hint... there's only room for 8.88 of them in there, not 9.... no wonder
Archie Plutonium is such a physics failure...
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: hey, Boston science failure, no wonder you failed percentages,
you mixed up Logorrhea with logarithm
no, Science Failure Plutonium, "logorrhea" describes your writings
perfectly...

In this post:

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
[X] ...multiple times...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...
[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
[ ] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
[ ] ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
[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...
[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
[X] ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
[X] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

11 points. Very bad.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-05 19:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Science Failure
Dan Christensen writes:

4:33 PM (3 hours ago)
Post by Michael Moroney
No reply,
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-21 22:48:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
I learned a long time ago that worrying is like a rocking chair. It
gives you something to do but it doesn’t get you anywhere.
AP writes: does it land you in prison

me (Archimedes Plutonium change)

3:15 PM (2 hours ago)

1 year in prison for Dan Christensen if he aided and abetted Jan Burse

Now in the public domain there are criminal laws of gang violence. Violence committed by gangs.

Well Dan Christensen is as close to gang criminality of Internet as one can expect with his members of
Volney, Burse, Bielawski, KON, Zelos Malum, Eastside, and other gang members.

So, if Dan was in conspiracy with Jan Burse to forge Archimedes Plutonium to Math Stack Exchange-- if the two did it-- then I recommend a 1 year prison sentence for both to serve.

Here is where Jan Burse attempted to tear 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)

No proof, but it is conjectured that the criminal Burse forged the name of Archimedes Plutonium to Stack Exchange in that same year::

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 ...

And recently-- someone Forged Archimedes Plutonium to Facebook. Was Burse the culprit, was Dan Christensen the culprit, for all these guys have time for is attack attack and never any math? Who knows, but he is so full of anger and hatred he needs to be shown the exit door to sci.math and to all of mathematics.

I am sure Andrew Wiles would not approve of people doing forgery-- just to make some loser of math have a momentary win
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-11 21:35:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Dan Christensen wrote:
Mar 9
So, according to your goofy system,
AP writes:: I do not know which is which, seems like Canada has a lot of Dopplegangers.... eh
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
2018-03-13 01:35:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Pattern Prime by Dancinig? (2)
By Mr Sawat Layuheem 2 posts 9 views updated 2:14 AM

Dedekind and Cauchy did not provide ANY vald construction of real number. (3)
By John Gabriel 3 posts 26 views updated 1:54 AM

The BIG STUPID forces Webster to change the entry on tangent line and now it's completely WRONG! Chuckle. (2)
By John Gabriel 2 posts 14 views updated 1:52 AM

How the true foundations of mathematics were abandoned for the rot of ZFC. THE BIG STUPID didn't understand, so they acquired religion: ZFC (2)
By John Gabriel 2 posts 14 views updated 1:51 AM

AP writes:: Andrew, learn anything from Gabriel? Maybe you should have gone bare breasted on lecture tours.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
------------------
-------------------
Jan
2018-03-13 02:59:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
Gobbledygook.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-14 19:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Maybe Mendeleev is wrong in his table and that cobalt is where nickel should be, just maybe

Iso­tope Abun­dance Half-life (t1/2) Decay mode Pro­duct
39K 93.258% stable
40K 0.012% 1.248×109 y β− 40Ca
ε 40Ar
β+ 40Ar
41K 6.730% stable
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-14 19:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sorry forgot cite reference to Wikipedia in prior post

Iso­tope Abun­dance Half-life (t1/2) Decay mode Pro­duct
56Co syn 77.27 d ε 56Fe
57Co syn 271.79 d ε 57Fe
58Co syn 70.86 d ε 58Fe
59Co 100% stable
60Co syn 5.2714 y β−, γ 60Ni
view talk edit | references | in Wikidata
b***@gmail.com
2018-03-14 19:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
2018-03-17 19:08:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
***@gmail.com writes:
2:00 PM (3 minutes ago)
The crap here is your brain JG, its a birdy birdy
brain without a single brain cell. Nothing works
AP writes: Burse the bad scientist assumes Wiles eats banana, to make his banana math. I do not assume anything and therefor can see that Euler's so called proof of exp3 is missing a proof where A,B,C are all even
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
2018-03-17 20:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
2:00 PM (3 minutes ago)
The crap here is your brain JG, its a birdy birdy
brain without a single brain cell. Nothing works
AP writes: Burse the bad scientist assumes Wiles eats banana, to make his banana math. I do not assume anything and therefor can see that Euler's so called proof of exp3 is missing a proof where A,B,C are all even
b***@gmail.com
2018-03-17 20:15:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from

others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.

For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
2:00 PM (3 minutes ago)
The crap here is your brain JG, its a birdy birdy
brain without a single brain cell. Nothing works
AP writes: Burse the bad scientist assumes Wiles eats banana, to make his banana math. I do not assume anything and therefor can see that Euler's so called proof of exp3 is missing a proof where A,B,C are all even
Michael Moroney
2018-03-18 05:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I
think there's definitely more.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-20 20:25:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
Michael Moroney writes:
12:20 PM (3 hours ago)
Is it too hard to look that up?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-23 01:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Zelos Malum wrote:
1:47 AM (18 hours ago)
You shouldn't bother tryign to...
AP writes: should not bother what,,, spit it out,,, what, being in Sweden when you should be in Tanzania
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-29 02:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I
think there's definitely more.
j4n bur53

Mar 27

You sure there is no tangent at an inflection point, can you
tell us? Something to do with your butt sex axiom and

3=<4 invalid? Here have a banana bird brain John Garbage-iel:

Banana Song (I'm A Banana)
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-31 18:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Dan Christensen
Mar 12
8:42 PM (28 minutes ago)
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,
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-14 22:50:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:25:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

Michael Moroney writes

9:11 PM (40 minutes ago)

It does make sense in the computer field, the natural word of the computer
can represent integer numbers or a bitfield of logical values. When
performing a logical operation such as AND or OR on a field of logical
bits, the operation is performed in parallel on the corresponding bits of
the operands. The operands and result may be represented as numbers.

For example, the expression c = 1 | 2;  is valid C code to calculate the
value of 1 OR 2 and assign it to c.   c = 2 & 3;  calculates the bitwise
AND of 2 AND 3 and assigns it to c.

I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this
makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I
have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use
values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or
OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which
he deliberately gets wrong.
Python
2018-04-14 22:54:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Michael Moroney writes

9:11 PM (40 minutes ago)
It does make sense in the computer field, the natural word of the computer
can represent integer numbers or a bitfield of logical values. When
performing a logical operation such as AND or OR on a field of logical
bits, the operation is performed in parallel on the corresponding bits of
the operands. The operands and result may be represented as numbers.
For example, the expression c = 1 | 2;  is valid C code to calculate the
value of 1 OR 2 and assign it to c.   c = 2 & 3;  calculates the bitwise
AND of 2 AND 3 and assigns it to c.
I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this
makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I
have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use
values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or
OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which
he deliberately gets wrong.
You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
bin(42), bin(33)
('0b101010', '0b100001')
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
42 & 33, 42 | 33
(32, 43)
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
bin(42 & 33), bin(42 | 33)
('0b100000', '0b101011')
Michael Moroney
2018-04-15 06:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Python
You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?
Yes, he really is that ignorant.
Michael Moroney
2018-04-15 06:06:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Michael Moroney writes
[nothing added by Archie]

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
[X] ...multiple times...
[X] ...enough times to be classified as spam...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[ ] ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
[X] ...and Archie added zero new content...
[X] ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...
[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...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...
[X] ...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...
[X] ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Lameness score of only 12. The score is low because Archie didn't add any
new content.
Jan
2018-04-14 22:58:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I
think there's definitely more.
It's delusions (in the medical term sense).

--
Jan
Michael Moroney
2018-04-15 06:17:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I
think there's definitely more.
It's delusions (in the medical term sense).
Delusions, narcissistic personality disorder, logorrhea at minimum.
Bad combination.

I am not sure how to place the repeated postings of professor stalking
lists/unrelated reposts of his "works"/snippets of critics' writings
when he seems to be upset. The repetition sounds very autistic to me.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-17 04:56:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
I am not sure how to place the repeated postings of professor stalking
lists/unrelated reposts of his "works"/snippets of critics' writings
when he seems to be upset. The repetition sounds very autistic to me.
Dan Christensen writes:
11:15 PM (36 minutes ago)
Post by Michael Moroney
OK, you're right! Who could be THAT stupid life? (Hee, hee!)
Dan
Jan
2018-04-17 05:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Jan
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by b***@gmail.com
What about your pills, do they not anymore work?
You the autism pills, you never participate in
someothers people threads. You only copy from
others people threads to your threads. I guess
this is a case of severe autism.
For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?
Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I
think there's definitely more.
It's delusions (in the medical term sense).
Delusions, narcissistic personality disorder, logorrhea at minimum.
Bad combination.
I am not sure how to place the repeated postings of professor stalking
lists/unrelated reposts of his "works"/snippets of critics' writings
when he seems to be upset. The repetition sounds very autistic to me.
I'm no expert in psychiatry but Archimedes (or whatever his name really is) is definitely
mentally unsound.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-23 04:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm no expert in psychiatry ....
--
Jan
AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...
they call for sanity....
Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda
Zelos Malum
2018-04-23 05:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I'm no expert in psychiatry ....
--
Jan
AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...
they call for sanity....
Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda
You do need help Archie, go and get some pills
Jan
2018-04-23 18:37:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I'm no expert in psychiatry ....
--
Jan
AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...
they call for sanity....
Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda
See a doctor. Your posts are 99% nonsense.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 00:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Michael Moroney stalker writes:

5:04 PM (2 hours ago)

Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

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

[starts a new topic regarding his proof mistake but says nothing about it]
AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please
Good news, Archie. The commercial DNA testing companies all have sales for
DNA Day (which was yesterday but the sales are ongoing) so if you hurry,
you can order a test and save money. That way you should be able to track
down the sources of your "issues", whether it's Alzheimers, autism or
schizophrenia. Good luck!

AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome.
Jan
2018-04-27 03:51:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you
don't like public forums, just leave.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 07:45:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Wiles is so dumb in math, pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle wave since the definition of sine is opposite divided by hypotenuse forces unit circle to assign 90 degrees as 1 forcing 180 degree to be 2, not the dummy 3.14... but Wiles was too stupid in math to ever fix any math— he can only pollute math with more mistakes like his FLT.

Jan:: why is his FLT pollution?

AP:: Wiles was so dumb on FLT he could not even spot Eulers error on FLT for exp3 since Euler forgot the case of all three numbers being even.

Dan:: oh well the Fields, Wolf, Abel prizes are for phony math
Jan
2018-04-27 19:46:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Wiles is so dumb in math,
Like YOU would know.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle
That's because a sine wave is NOT a "semicircle" (what a STUPID notion).

See a doctor.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 20:01:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jan
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Wiles is so dumb in math,
Like YOU would know.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle
That's because a sine wave is NOT a "semicircle" (what a STUPID notion).
See a doctor.
--
Jan
Stalker Jan, 24 years worth of this insane stalker

Jan Bielawski

6/28/94

In article <2uk6ck$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Ludwig Plutonium <***@dartmouth.edu> wrote: < < What rock have you been hiding under Mr. Thorvaldsson, for the last <year? And ignorance of math should never be an excuse for pretentious <buttering-up. If more people in math had these sentiments, then Elmer <Fudd, Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny deserve the Fields Medal. But not to <worry the Plutonium Atom Foundation will recycle the Fields Medal, it <is a disgrace of a list. There are more mistakes in the Fields Medal <than there are in the Nobel Physics prizes. But most persons are too <buttered up to ever recognize it. You really ought to see a doctor. -- Jan Bielawski Computervision, San Diego ***@cvsd.cv.com Jan 2018-04-30 09:45:10 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by Jan Post by Archimedes Plutonium Wiles is so dumb in math, Like YOU would know. Post by Archimedes Plutonium pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle That's because a sine wave is NOT a "semicircle" (what a STUPID notion). See a doctor. -- Jan Stalker Jan, 24 years worth of this insane stalker Stop posting idiocies about other people. -- Jan konyberg 2018-04-27 16:46:42 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium 5:04 PM (2 hours ago) Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test [starts a new topic regarding his proof mistake but says nothing about it] AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please Good news, Archie. The commercial DNA testing companies all have sales for DNA Day (which was yesterday but the sales are ongoing) so if you hurry, you can order a test and save money. That way you should be able to track down the sources of your "issues", whether it's Alzheimers, autism or schizophrenia. Good luck! AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome. AP You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that? Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame? I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with. You treat me as an enemy, and I am not. I am not the stalker, You are! KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-27 17:06:01 UTC Reply Permalink Post by konyberg You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that? Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame? I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with. You treat me as an enemy, and I am not. I am not the stalker, You are! KON Numerous times I have asked you to "go away, leave my threads alone". Every human has the right to ask another to go away because they just harass and bother. But being a jerk a creep like you, you never listen. You keep harassing and stalking and bullying. All of your posts can be summarized as "I hate your guts" This is not math, not commenting on math-- but your crazy insane mind-- doing its crazy insane deeds. You are an insane stalker, not a person deserving of posts to sci.math. Same goes for the list of other stalkers in sci.math. None of them can stop their bad behavior. All of them like you are crazy insane loons, who wake up every day, and want to start the day by harassing, bullying someone in sci.math. So, have a DNA test, and probably there is a defect in your genes, probably on the Y chromosome that you simply cannot stop harassing people. You are a defective insane person. AP Michael Moroney 2018-04-27 17:51:57 UTC Reply Permalink You didn't answer Konyberg's question. Post by konyberg You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that? After all, this is a discussion group! Commenting is to be expected. And once again, there is no such thing as "my thread" in Usenet, meaning nobody else is allowed to reply there. Remember, this is a discussion group! Usenet was explicitly designed so that nobody could control it or part of it (exception: moderated groups). If you don't want discussion, why are you posting on Usenet? You should have a blog, or post Youtube videos or so forth, with comments disabled or moderated by yourself. And nobody "hates your guts" or is stalking you. Many people think you need to grow up but that type of suggestion is certainly not "hating your guts" or stalking. Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-06 22:41:26 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Michael Moroney You didn't answer Konyberg's question. James McGinn writes: 5:30 PM (5 minutes ago) Post by Michael Moroney You are a silly twit talking out your ass. H2O's high heat capacity only exists in the liquid phase. It is a >collective property. It is tangentially related to bonds angle. Arrogant nitwits like you never make any >progress. Jan 2018-08-11 23:57:53 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Michael Moroney You didn't answer Konyberg's question. Post by konyberg You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that? After all, this is a discussion group! Commenting is to be expected. After decades of polluting this newsgroup, "Archimedes" has discovered a new toy: posting and then deleting a message. This begins to qualify as spam. I may start to report him if I'm in the mood (not that it matters). -- Jan Archimedes Plutonium 2018-08-13 05:01:04 UTC Reply Permalink Volney writes: 11:24 PM (17 minutes ago) Re: 3-Let us rebuke AP for thinking he can show us two missed axioms of Algebra, that gets rid of all negative numbers "What? Over? Did you say 'over'? AP writes: Andrew Wiles, why not just admit you were wrong about the ellipse, for it is never a conic, always a cylinder section. Instead of sending scores of suppressionists like Volney to deny the truth of science. For even a High School student can prove a ellipse is never a conic from a cone, cylinder can, and circle lid with hands on demonstration. And while you are at it, come clean on Logical thinking for it is ludicrous for you to teach mathematics under a system where you believe Boole's logic that 2 OR 10 = 12, when even a Grade School student knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Admit these are truths and stop this game of sending out lunatics to suppress the truth givers in sci.math. PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." What a monsterous fool you are OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would be one) and it is not necessary to say so. Yet Canada rewards such imps of logic as Dan be letting him have a webpage on logic-- screwing up the minds of all young people who visit that page-- go figure that out. So, whose side are you on anyway Andrew Wiles, the side of false science, the side of fakery, or can you muster up enough honesty to say-- ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic, and 2 AND 10 = 12, and Boole got it all wrong. Show honesty in science AP Archimedes Plutonium 2018-08-14 01:20:03 UTC Reply Permalink Dan Christensen wrote: 4:58 PM (3 hours ago) Re: WARNING TO ALL STUDENTS: Don't be a victim,,, Should be "plutonium (Pu) atom" ,,,,,, AP writes: What Dan is trying to warn students is that Andrew Wiles cannot even admit the ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section, and to think Wiles has anything to offer mathematics when even a High School student can show Wiles his mistake in conics, then all of Wiles forays into math are dubious and likely downright fakery. konyberg 2018-04-27 23:39:13 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that? Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame? I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with. You treat me as an enemy, and I am not. I am not the stalker, You are! KON Numerous times I have asked you to "go away, leave my threads alone". Every human has the right to ask another to go away because they just harass and bother. But being a jerk a creep like you, you never listen. You keep harassing and stalking and bullying. All of your posts can be summarized as "I hate your guts" This is not math, not commenting on math-- but your crazy insane mind-- doing its crazy insane deeds. You are an insane stalker, not a person deserving of posts to sci.math. Same goes for the list of other stalkers in sci.math. None of them can stop their bad behavior. All of them like you are crazy insane loons, who wake up every day, and want to start the day by harassing, bullying someone in sci.math. So, have a DNA test, and probably there is a defect in your genes, probably on the Y chromosome that you simply cannot stop harassing people. You are a defective insane person. AP Am I allowed to disagree with you? Or not? Tell me! KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-28 00:05:01 UTC Reply Permalink Last time—last time Kon— you have stalked me for 3 years Every one of your posts are the same— i hate your guts You are a failure of math and obviously depressed and your only enjoyment in life is to harrass and needle people in sci math You have an ugly personality and an ugly mind If you want to talk about AP do it in your own thread or someone else. Never post in my thread In math you are stupid ugly dumb insane Last time i ever talk to you directly— here on out it is finis Archimedes Plutonium 2018-03-26 06:17:25 UTC Reply Permalink Post by b***@gmail.com You the autism pills, you never participate in someothers people threads. You only copy from others people threads to your threads. I guess this is a case of severe autism. For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years? Zelos Malum wrote: 1:04 AM (10 minutes ago) If you are gonna teach mathematics, you migth wanna learn basic logic. Archimedes Plutonium 2018-03-22 01:58:15 UTC Reply Permalink Post by b***@gmail.com What about your pills, do they not anymore work? John Gabriel wrote: 8:09 PM (43 minutes ago) What you morons don't know is that I am winning and you are losing. Soon you will be part of the past. Here is yet another email of support. Chuckle. ---------------------------------- Hello Mr. Gabriel, I recently watched your last videos. You see, ultimately the !!! Click here to Reply ***@gmail.com wrote: 8:15 PM (36 minutes ago) The mask of butt sex axiom and 3=<4 invalid. Yeah the horror mask of insane stupidity. Dan Christensen wrote:: 8:37 PM (14 minutes ago) Post by b***@gmail.com What you morons don't know is that I am winning and you are losing. Soon you will be part of the past. Here is yet another email of support. Chuckle. AP writes:: Google, when it comes time to throw out Gabriel, throw out Burse and Christensen along with Gabriel, for really-- whose to say the three are just one "idiocy program" Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-04 20:14:12 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Volney writes: 9:16 AM (4 hours ago) Post by Archimedes Plutonium You can't even bother to look up the correct masses of the particles? AP writes: What is worse Volney, is that Wiles cannot even bother to make every effort to change the crazy Logic taught in schools, even in England where Logic classes teach that 1 OR 2 = 3. So it must mean that Wiles is as dumb and stupid as Logic professors who believe that OR has a truth table of TTTF and that 2 OR 5 = 7. So Wiles must be as dumb and stupid as the rest, otherwise, he would try to fix things, rather than ignoring problems and rather than pollute the world with more of his error filled nonsense like Fermat's Last Theorem-- for Wiles was so stupid in FLT, that he could not even spot the error of Euler's FLT in exponent 3, for Euler forgot he had to prove the case in which A,B,C were all evens, but maybe that is the trend of modern day mathematics and Wiles displays that trend very well-- never fix any math-- only pollute math more so that you become famous for pollution and money gathering. AP Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-14 02:50:51 UTC Reply Permalink Michael Moroney writes: 9:11 PM (34 minutes ago) I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which he deliberately gets wrong. AP writes: look how a Boston ignorant fool spouts off the mouth at Wiles's logic use, when, that dumbo cannot even do a proper percentage-- for Andrew Wiles can 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Alfred Hopkins 2018-04-28 02:34:47 UTC Reply Permalink Yet another Archimedes Plutonium shit post. On 3/8/2018 2:15 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: <Nothing> Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-04 13:00:03 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Alfred Hopkins Yet another Archimedes Plutonium shit post. <Nothing> Jan writes: 6:08 PM (7 minutes ago) Stop posting lies about people. This is a MATHEMATICS group. What is wrong with you? -- Jan Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-07 13:29:36 UTC Reply Permalink Yet another.... You left all the answers blank on your test, Zelos Malum writes: 1:29 AM (6 hours ago) - show quoted text - copying and not responding is not very productive AP writes:: worse yet is Tao, Hales, Wiles, Appel & Haken, Conway where they never fix the errors and mistakes of Old Math, but instead, pile on more errors and mistakes. The dolts cannot even see that ellipse is a Cylinder section, never a conic. And the dolts keep up the illusion that a integral is the sum of rectangles of 0 width. They never fix, they only pollute. Uncle Hal 2018-05-18 03:52:39 UTC Reply Permalink Yet another Archimedes Plutonium shit post Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-19 02:54:15 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Alfred Hopkins Yet another Michael Moroney writes: 6:47 PM (3 hours ago) Post by Alfred Hopkins Thank you for requesting another Babble-o-meter Calculation! ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...posted enough times to be classified as spam... ☑ ...Post has no new content, in fact... AP writes:: Is this the quality review mentioned by Jan Bielawski, Zelos Malum, the review of AP posts in sci.math? Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-29 18:11:17 UTC Reply Permalink If Wiles were to do math for a 1,000 years, nothing but math, and nothing but reading and writing Euler's FLT in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3. That is, Euler's alleged proof. Would the dolt of Wiles in those 1,000 years ever, ever realize that Euler missed proving exponent 3, because Euler never proved it true when A, B, C are even numbers. Of course not, of course Wiles would never or could never realize that Euler had no proof at all. And as for Wiles silly offering of FLT, Wiles is a product of a bygone era of corruption in math, where you scratch my back and I scratch yours, so he gathers around him math fools like Simon Singh and Ken Ribet and host of other idiots of mathematics to nod agreement that Wiles has a proof, yet the truth is Wiles has a FLT fakery. For Wiles is so dumb, so very dumb, he cannot even spot the error in Euler--- prove A,B,C even has no solution. Wiles was the hightide of math corruption. What did you promise Stillwell or Singh or Ribet and assorted math knuckleheads Andrew-- what did you promise them-- you publish them in your journal. Andrew was never about math truth, only about fame and fortune. And leaves it up to real mathematicians to clear and clean out his mess that he pooped into mathematics. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 2018-05-13 18:36:40 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. (snipped) konyberg wrote: 7:15 AM (6 hours ago) Translate message to English - show quoted text - Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it? Or is it that you can't? You just not know the mathematics? KON AP writes:: Yes, Andrew, Andrew Wiles, you know you really cannot remain silent over the issue that Euler failed to give a proof of FLT for the case of exponent 3. Wiles, you really cannot remain silent for if you do, means you agree whole heartedly that Euler made no mistake, no mistake at all. But clearly Euler flubbed up, screwed up, for his fake proof does not cover the case of when A,B,C are all three even numbers. And no-one to this very day-- except my proof of FLT can cover the even numbers in exp3. So, Andrew, remain silent, remain stupid in math of Fermat's Last Theorem, because you know as well as I do, that by remaining silent, your FLT is all a fakery. And you are not really a mathematician but a failure of math. AP Michael Moroney 2018-05-14 01:49:32 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium 7:15 AM (6 hours ago) Translate message to English - show quoted text - Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it? Or is it that you can't? You just not know the mathematics? KON AP writes:: Yes, Andrew, Andrew Wiles, you know you really cannot remain Why try to change the topic, Archimedes Failure Plutonium? KON was asking _you_ (not Wiles) why _you_ (not Wiles) didn't answer the question. Is it really because you (not Wiles) can't, or because you (not Wiles) don't know the mathematics? <snip more babbling about Wiles> Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-17 20:02:57 UTC Reply Permalink Michael Moroney writes: 2:16 PM (33 minutes ago) "Failure" Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Michael Moroney 2:15 PM (9 minutes ago) So why do you keep failing, again and again and again, by using the wrong mass of the muon, even after I told you what your mistake was. AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker Moroney is forced to go away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp, the "forever stamp" Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole L. Reif, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins-- Moroney-- Boston's antiscience stalker fool//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Bernard Burke, Charlie Baker, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney electrical engr can't do percentages//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Michael Moroney writes This Old House geothermal is bogus (see below), but the only fool here is Moroney. percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 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. Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. May 8, 1:58 PM (2 hours ago) Are you deliberately Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) MIT physics dept William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon*, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young* /\-------/\ \::O:::O::/ (::_ ^ _::) \_-----'_/ You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole President Larry Summers Harvard Physics dept Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin*, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal (1) There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling but even these are solar power in disguise. They pump water from wells from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the water back into the ground. The water is about 55F out of the ground. (2) On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building in the winter. In other words, glorified solar energy. Solar energy stored and averaged out over many, many years. (3) Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any better. Just answer one question, if you can. If it's really geothermal, why is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? (4) Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending on how deep they go. Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. (5) It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal energy. All he can do is attack. (6) geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, Mass. I think) Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 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. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 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. AP Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 2018-05-19 17:40:32 UTC Reply Permalink You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors. Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3 A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers. And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases. So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- konyberg 2018-05-20 20:36:08 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors. Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3 A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers. And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases. So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-20 20:53:01 UTC Reply Permalink Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors. Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3 A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers. And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases. So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. The number Space that governs FLT is this: exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP konyberg 2018-05-20 21:04:35 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors. Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3 A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers. And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases. So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP Can you show me one example of the equation where all is even and can not be reduced to two odd and one even? KON konyberg 2018-05-20 21:16:05 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors. Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3 A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers. And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases. So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-20 21:23:45 UTC Reply Permalink Post by konyberg Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math konyberg 2018-05-20 21:33:08 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math Touche! KON konyberg 2018-05-20 21:41:33 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math I know that. But you should be able to give such an equation since you proclaim it is there. I have never seen such. Why don't you show me? KON konyberg 2018-05-20 22:32:38 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math I know that you are thinking hard on this. a^3 + b^3 = (2c)^3 or a^3 + (2b)^3 = c^3 or (2a)^3 + b^3 = c^3 These are reduced equations, where a,b,c are odd integers greater than 0. Can you now show me how these equations can be transformed so all parts are all even and change the equations to something different? KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-20 22:44:25 UTC Reply Permalink Proof that KON is a worthless idiot of Math alongside Wiles on FLT Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. A rushed typo mistake on my part. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON Now Euler had no Formal Logic way back in his day, so we can excuse Euler for his mistake. And his mistake was to think, --- we need only the case where two of A,B,C are odd and the third being even, for we all know arithmetic that two odds make an even. And this is why we cannot have two evens make a odd. Even KON and Wiles know that much. But, where all three fail, and Euler can be excused because there really was no LOGIC, formal logic at his time. For it was in Euler's mind that Suppose three evens exist that fulfill A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and all three are even, then we can say we can reduce to A,B,C where two are odd and one even. But--- you see the logical SUPPOSE that were true of a A^3 + B^3 = C^3, was true then you can extract out the two odds and one even. But, that is a DOUBLE Supposition. The FLT that needs proving is look at this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} And prove that any three A, B, C add up to where A+B= C So, we can have Euler's two odd and one even But, we can have three evens of A,B,C which is independent of the two odds and one even. Totally independent and has to be proven separately. You cannot do what Euler did--- Suppose A,B,C solve A^3 +B^3= C^3 with two odds and one even, and then add a second dependent Supposition if A^3 +B^3 = C^3 with all three even reverts to two odds and one even. All of this is far over the head of KON who is an insane Norwegian stalker and never a mathematician But, none of that above is over the head of Wiles, who upon reading the above, can see that you cannot SUPPOSE true A^3 +B^3 = C^3 as A,B,C all three even and then say-- it reverts back to 2 odd and 1 even. The proof of FLT is show no three A,B,C of the sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has a solution And each case of two odds,one even is proven separate of the case of three evens. I do not expect KON to have, ever, one gram of Logical thinking, that he could ever realize the proof of FLT is not suppose true, then go back and say two odds and one even. For KON is logically insane. I do not expect Euler to have realized his mistake, for formal logic did not exist in his time and place. However, I do expect Andrew Wiles to have at least a gram of a logical mind to realize this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has to be proven independently of two odds with one even and independent of three evens. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON You see the trouble with the insane KON, is he knows little math, and all he wants to do is hassle people, stalk people. KON belongs in a Norwegian psychiatric home. But Wiles should have caught Euler's mistake. For Formal Logic is prevalent in the 20th century and no excuse can be made for not realizing a Logical ARGUMENT cannot have two suppositions. The proof of FLT is to show no three numbers A,B,C can solve A+B=C in that sequence, and 2odds1even case is independent of 3evens case. AP konyberg 2018-05-20 22:48:53 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Proof that KON is a worthless idiot of Math alongside Wiles on FLT Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. A rushed typo mistake on my part. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON Now Euler had no Formal Logic way back in his day, so we can excuse Euler for his mistake. And his mistake was to think, --- we need only the case where two of A,B,C are odd and the third being even, for we all know arithmetic that two odds make an even. And this is why we cannot have two evens make a odd. Even KON and Wiles know that much. But, where all three fail, and Euler can be excused because there really was no LOGIC, formal logic at his time. For it was in Euler's mind that Suppose three evens exist that fulfill A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and all three are even, then we can say we can reduce to A,B,C where two are odd and one even. But--- you see the logical SUPPOSE that were true of a A^3 + B^3 = C^3, was true then you can extract out the two odds and one even. But, that is a DOUBLE Supposition. The FLT that needs proving is look at this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} And prove that any three A, B, C add up to where A+B= C So, we can have Euler's two odd and one even But, we can have three evens of A,B,C which is independent of the two odds and one even. Totally independent and has to be proven separately. You cannot do what Euler did--- Suppose A,B,C solve A^3 +B^3= C^3 with two odds and one even, and then add a second dependent Supposition if A^3 +B^3 = C^3 with all three even reverts to two odds and one even. All of this is far over the head of KON who is an insane Norwegian stalker and never a mathematician But, none of that above is over the head of Wiles, who upon reading the above, can see that you cannot SUPPOSE true A^3 +B^3 = C^3 as A,B,C all three even and then say-- it reverts back to 2 odd and 1 even. The proof of FLT is show no three A,B,C of the sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has a solution And each case of two odds,one even is proven separate of the case of three evens. I do not expect KON to have, ever, one gram of Logical thinking, that he could ever realize the proof of FLT is not suppose true, then go back and say two odds and one even. For KON is logically insane. I do not expect Euler to have realized his mistake, for formal logic did not exist in his time and place. However, I do expect Andrew Wiles to have at least a gram of a logical mind to realize this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has to be proven independently of two odds with one even and independent of three evens. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON You see the trouble with the insane KON, is he knows little math, and all he wants to do is hassle people, stalk people. KON belongs in a Norwegian psychiatric home. But Wiles should have caught Euler's mistake. For Formal Logic is prevalent in the 20th century and no excuse can be made for not realizing a Logical ARGUMENT cannot have two suppositions. The proof of FLT is to show no three numbers A,B,C can solve A+B=C in that sequence, and 2odds1even case is independent of 3evens case. AP I do know how to divide by 2. Do you? KON Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-20 22:58:08 UTC Reply Permalink yes, we know KON is a worthless stalker but at least Wiles should have a gram of Logical Reasoning 3 Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Proof that KON is a worthless idiot of Math alongside Wiles on FLT Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd? Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd. A rushed typo mistake on my part. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by konyberg If all are even, can we not reduce it? KON Now Euler had no Formal Logic way back in his day, so we can excuse Euler for his mistake. And his mistake was to think, --- we need only the case where two of A,B,C are odd and the third being even, for we all know arithmetic that two odds make an even. And this is why we cannot have two evens make a odd. Even KON and Wiles know that much. But, where all three fail, and Euler can be excused because there really was no LOGIC, formal logic at his time. For it was in Euler's mind that Suppose three evens exist that fulfill A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and all three are even, then we can say we can reduce to A,B,C where two are odd and one even. But--- you see the logical SUPPOSE that were true of a A^3 + B^3 = C^3, was true then you can extract out the two odds and one even. But, that is a DOUBLE Supposition. The FLT that needs proving is look at this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} And prove that any three A, B, C add up to where A+B= C So, we can have Euler's two odd and one even But, we can have three evens of A,B,C which is independent of the two odds and one even. Totally independent and has to be proven separately. You cannot do what Euler did--- Suppose A,B,C solve A^3 +B^3= C^3 with two odds and one even, and then add a second dependent Supposition if A^3 +B^3 = C^3 with all three even reverts to two odds and one even. All of this is far over the head of KON who is an insane Norwegian stalker and never a mathematician But, none of that above is over the head of Wiles, who upon reading the above, can see that you cannot SUPPOSE true A^3 +B^3 = C^3 as A,B,C all three even and then say-- it reverts back to 2 odd and 1 even. The proof of FLT is show no three A,B,C of the sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has a solution And each case of two odds,one even is proven separate of the case of three evens. I do not expect KON to have, ever, one gram of Logical thinking, that he could ever realize the proof of FLT is not suppose true, then go back and say two odds and one even. For KON is logically insane. I do not expect Euler to have realized his mistake, for formal logic did not exist in his time and place. However, I do expect Andrew Wiles to have at least a gram of a logical mind to realize this sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has to be proven independently of two odds with one even and independent of three evens. Post by konyberg Post by Archimedes Plutonium No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3. exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math. AP Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation? That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even. KON You see the trouble with the insane KON, is he knows little math, and all he wants to do is hassle people, stalk people. KON belongs in a Norwegian psychiatric home. But Wiles should have caught Euler's mistake. For Formal Logic is prevalent in the 20th century and no excuse can be made for not realizing a Logical ARGUMENT cannot have two suppositions. The proof of FLT is to show no three numbers A,B,C can solve A+B=C in that sequence, and 2odds1even case is independent of 3evens case. AP Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-21 01:55:19 UTC Reply Permalink Alright so let us correct Euler of his exp3 FLT —- quoting Wikipedia on Euler’s FLT —- As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent.[50] The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x3 + y3 + z3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even. Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x3 = −z3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction. Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers 2u = x + y 2v = x − y where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that −z3 = (u + v)3 + (u − v)3 = 2u(u2 + 3v2) Since u and v have opposite parity, u2 + 3v2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B). Proof for Case A Edit In this case, the two factors of −z3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s 2u = r3 u2 + 3v2 = s3 Since u2 + 3v2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s3 = u2 + 3v2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f s = e2 + 3f2 so that u = e ( e2 − 9f2) v = 3f ( e2 − f2) Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f) The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers −2e = k3 e − 3f = l3 e + 3f = m3 which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. Proof for Case B Edit In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v. Substituting u by w in the equation for z3 yields −z3 = 6w(9w2 + 3v2) = 18w(3w2 + v2) Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w2 + v2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s 18w = r3 3w2 + v2 = s3 By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w2 + v2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f. s = e2 + 3f2 A short calculation shows that v = e (e2 − 9f2) w = 3f (e2 − f2) Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes r3 = 18w = 54f (e2 − f2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 33×2f (e + f) (e − f). Since 33 divides r3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m. −2e = k3 e + f = l3 e − f = m3 which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-21 02:22:05 UTC Reply Permalink Alright, the below Euler alleged proof of FLT in exponent 3 is a Reduction Ad Absurdum, which in New Math is unacceptable as a math proof, but that is not the flaw and error in Euler's rendition. If Euler had titled his attempt with the Statement: For FLT in exp3, when A and B are Odd, and C is even in A^3 + B^3 = C^3 then there are no solutions in positive integers. The below is a proof of that statement, but not a proof of all A,B,C in exp3. If Euler had rewritten the Statement of FLT exp3 in a better format such as this, he probably would have caught his error. The number Space that governs FLT for exp3 is this: Sequence exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} and prove that given any A, B, C in that sequence that none has the equation A + B = C. The error of Euler was that he cannot logically go from his proof that A,B odd and C even proves that A,B,C all even has no solutions. You cannot go from having proven A,B odd, C even, then say suppose A,B,C are all even, divide by 2 until you have two odd one even, then apply proof A,B odd and C even. So, the logical flaw of Euler was that he did this Statement: FLT in exp3 has no solutions Proof:: Suppose A,B,C is a solution of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 with A,B odd and C even. Suppose A,B,C is a solution of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 with A,B,C all even. Then do the Euler spiel. But that is not a valid proof of all exp3, for you have entangled suppositions, and Logic tells you, you cannot entangle suppositions. Now let me check out Fermat's proof in exp4. If my memory is not failing me, the last time I looked at it, it had not the flaw that Euler's exp3 had the flaw of all even solutions. Maybe it has to do with exp4 that Fermat escaped making a logical error. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Alright so let us correct Euler of his exp3 FLT —- quoting Wikipedia on Euler’s FLT —- As Fermat did for the case n = 4, Euler used the technique of infinite descent.[50] The proof assumes a solution (x, y, z) to the equation x3 + y3 + z3 = 0, where the three non-zero integers x, y, and z are pairwise coprime and not all positive. One of the three must be even, whereas the other two are odd. Without loss of generality, z may be assumed to be even. Since x and y are both odd, they cannot be equal. If x = y, then 2x3 = −z3, which implies that x is even, a contradiction. Since x and y are both odd, their sum and difference are both even numbers 2u = x + y 2v = x − y where the non-zero integers u and v are coprime and have different parity (one is even, the other odd). Since x = u + v and y = u − v, it follows that −z3 = (u + v)3 + (u − v)3 = 2u(u2 + 3v2) Since u and v have opposite parity, u2 + 3v2 is always an odd number. Therefore, since z is even, u is even and v is odd. Since u and v are coprime, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is either 1 (case A) or 3 (case B). Proof for Case A Edit In this case, the two factors of −z3 are coprime. This implies that three does not divide u and that the two factors are cubes of two smaller numbers, r and s 2u = r3 u2 + 3v2 = s3 Since u2 + 3v2 is odd, so is s. A crucial lemma shows that if s is odd and if it satisfies an equation s3 = u2 + 3v2, then it can be written in terms of two coprime integers e and f s = e2 + 3f2 so that u = e ( e2 − 9f2) v = 3f ( e2 − f2) Since u is even and v odd, then e is even and f is odd. Since r3 = 2u = 2e (e − 3f)(e + 3f) The factors 2e, (e–3f ), and (e+3f ) are coprime since 3 cannot divide e: If e were divisible by 3, then 3 would divide u, violating the designation of u and v as coprime. Since the three factors on the right-hand side are coprime, they must individually equal cubes of smaller integers −2e = k3 e − 3f = l3 e + 3f = m3 which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. Proof for Case B Edit In this case, the greatest common divisor of 2u and u2 + 3v2 is 3. That implies that 3 divides u, and one may express u = 3w in terms of a smaller integer, w. Since u is divisible by 4, so is w; hence, w is also even. Since u and v are coprime, so are v and w. Therefore, neither 3 nor 4 divide v. Substituting u by w in the equation for z3 yields −z3 = 6w(9w2 + 3v2) = 18w(3w2 + v2) Because v and w are coprime, and because 3 does not divide v, then 18w and 3w2 + v2 are also coprime. Therefore, since their product is a cube, they are each the cube of smaller integers, r and s 18w = r3 3w2 + v2 = s3 By the lemma above, since s is odd and its cube is equal to a number of the form 3w2 + v2, it too can be expressed in terms of smaller coprime numbers, e and f. s = e2 + 3f2 A short calculation shows that v = e (e2 − 9f2) w = 3f (e2 − f2) Thus, e is odd and f is even, because v is odd. The expression for 18w then becomes r3 = 18w = 54f (e2 − f2) = 54f (e + f) (e − f) = 33×2f (e + f) (e − f). Since 33 divides r3 we have that 3 divides r, so (r /3)3 is an integer that equals 2f (e + f) (e − f). Since e and f are coprime, so are the three factors 2e, e+f, and e−f; therefore, they are each the cube of smaller integers, k, l, and m. −2e = k3 e + f = l3 e − f = m3 which yields a smaller solution k3 + l3 + m3= 0. Therefore, by the argument of infinite descent, the original solution (x, y, z) was impossible. Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-21 02:29:41 UTC Reply Permalink Alright good, Fermat made no logical error in exp4 for he never needed to wrangle and wrestle with the question of odd and even for his method bypasses odd and even wrestling. —- quoting Wikipedia —- ponent = 4 Edit Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation x 4 y 4 = z 2 x^4 - y^4 = z^2 has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as c4 − b4 = (a2)2. Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-21 17:45:43 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Alright good, Fermat made no logical error in exp4 for he never needed to wrangle and wrestle with the question of odd and even for his method bypasses odd and even wrestling. —- quoting Wikipedia —- ponent = 4 Edit Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation x 4 y 4 = z 2 x^4 - y^4 = z^2 has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as c4 − b4 = (a2)2. #3-9 Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw. His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence. If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement? Here is a analog of the above flaw. If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after. You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true. So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about. Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically. Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically. The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972 If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-21 23:17:37 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Post by Archimedes Plutonium Alright good, Fermat made no logical error in exp4 for he never needed to wrangle and wrestle with the question of odd and even for his method bypasses odd and even wrestling. —- quoting Wikipedia —- ponent = 4 Edit Only one relevant proof by Fermat has survived, in which he uses the technique of infinite descent to show that the area of a right triangle with integer sides can never equal the square of an integer.[32][33] His proof is equivalent to demonstrating that the equation x 4 y 4 = z 2 x^4 - y^4 = z^2 has no primitive solutions in integers (no pairwise coprime solutions). In turn, this proves Fermat's Last Theorem for the case n = 4, since the equation a4 + b4 = c4 can be written as c4 − b4 = (a2)2. #3-9 Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw. His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence. If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3 Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement? Here is a analog of the above flaw. If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after. You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true. Call it a DOUBLE Conditional and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. Am looking for the best example: If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS AP Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-22 06:11:59 UTC Reply Permalink Essentially that is how modern day mathematicians view Euler’s FLT exp 3– they view it as no violation of logic of Double Conditional. They are happy and content that Euler proved no solution for two odds one even and if anyone questions — what about all three even they resort to idea that such reduces to two odd one even. So that makes for a Double Conditional If, if two odds with one even, then no solution, all three even then they are two odds with one even with no solution. So what is the beef the gripe Jens Stuckelberger 2018-06-08 13:59:52 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler. Please, enlighten us, how does it feel knowing that he has all the accolades, and that he will be remembered and revered in the world of mathematics, while you are, always has been, and always will be, a nonentity that nobody will ever remember, unless it is as good example of Dunning-Kruger? Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-25 21:04:57 UTC Reply Permalink Andrew Wiles is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Wiles would correct them— 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes These last two lessons are going to be long lessons Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons: 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 a***@gmail.com 2018-05-25 21:15:47 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Wiles would correct them— 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes These last two lessons are going to be long lessons 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 ^ x | -+- <= x=h .' | . . | . | | | ' | ' . | .' y <----------+ <= x=0 . /|\ / | \ /b | \ /---+---' <= x = h / |' \ / ' | \ / ' | \ x = 0 => '-------+-------\ / a | \ 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 Hey Dummy, why don't you show why the proof above is wrong? You can't, can you? Archimedes Plutonium 2018-05-31 18:47:49 UTC Reply Permalink Just minutes ago I wrote the below to Terry Tao, who really lacks logic in order to do any mathematics. But the same or worse can be said of Andrew Wiles. Both of these gentlemen were raised in an environment of math where Logic is never taught, never encouraged, and where the only thing going on in math-- are corrupt publishing of math in journals. Both Wiles and Tao are failures of true math but experts in getting corrupt math journals to publish their worthless math nonsense-- math pollution. And this makes it difficult for future generations of "true mathematicians" to toss out that pollution that Wiles caused, that Tao caused. could not even recognize sine is a semicircle wave, not sinusoid Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Why cannot the oaf of mathematics-- Terry Tao ever cleanup the errors of Old Math? Why? Is it because he has no logical mind? For surely he ran across trigonometry in his career. He ran across the Sine function as being opposite divided by hypotenuse. Surely, he ran across the unit circle, which makes sine function for unit circle, forces 90 degrees in the unit circle to be the number 1, so that 90 degrees is forced to be a value of 1, yet Tao, lacking Logic abilities to think straight, to think clearly, just up and spuriously, arbitrarily assigns 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Ahem, ahem, Terry, if the unit circle forces 90 degrees to be 1, why spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... when 90degrees = 1, forces 180 degrees to be 2. This is the reason oafs of mathematics believe sine and cosine are sinusoid waves, because, well, the oafs have arbitrary stretched the x-axis relative to the y-axis-- a forbidden sin in mathematics or logic-- to stretch an axis arbitrarily to suit your whims. Both Sine and Cosine are Semicircle waves, not sinusoid. So, Terry, instead of polluting math with more of your silly worthless nonsense-- try of a change, in fixing and correcting Old Math. And start it, by going back to school and learning what Logic is, something you have a serious lack thereof. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 2018-06-04 17:05:08 UTC Reply Permalink I think Tao was at Princeton when Wiles offered his corrupt fakery of Fermat's Last Theorem in early 1990s, around 1993-4. For I remember a lot of posts by Tao in my threads to sci.math. But, both Wiles and Tao have a poor poor logical mind that cannot do math properly. Both lack a reasoned logical mind and amazing that they can even do a "fake proof in mathematics" and get enough dull logically impotent "others" to agree that they have some math to offer. But that is likely easy-- because-- few if any professors of mathematics even have a logic-brain-one. Most professors of mathematics run on memory and hype. Below is a case example of why Old Math is so pathetically in the weeds, because of Not a Single Logical Brain at Work. And where a High School student is smarter than Andrew Wiles in Numbers. Tao so dumb in math that he thinks 1/3 = .333.... Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test So, Terry, Terry Tao, why is it you are so very stupid in mathematics that even a High School student of math knows more about Number theory than you-- for in particular, a High School student knows that as you do division ______ 3 | 100 = 33 with remainder 1/3 written as 33+1/3 Then the High Schooler doing more and more ______ 3 | 1000 = 333 with remainder 1/3 written as 333+1/3 ______ 3 | 10000 = 3333 with remainder 1/3 written as 3333+1/3 Then, the High Schooler displays his/her flash of genius ______ 3 | 1.000 = .333 with remainder 1/3 to be written into the quotient ______ 3 | 1.0000 = .3333 with remainder 1/3 to be written into the quotient Something that Newton had already learned way way back in time for he called it the Compleat Quotient But then a imp dolt of mathematics like you Terry Tao and Princeton math department all think that 1/3 = .3333...... How stupid can you stoop to, Terry. You admit 100/3 is 33 with remainder 1/3 But you ignorantly forget the remainder in ______ 3 | 1.0000 What is your excuse Terry, that a High School student is the genius who follows Newton, and the Terry Tao the imp of mathematics? Is your excuse that you are poor in Logical Reasoning, poor in Logic, as well as the entire Math department at Princeton University, is dumber than a bright High School student who knows that if 3 divided into 100 has a remainder you cannot neglect, knows that 3 divided into 1 has a remainder you cannot neglect. I personally like to write it as what Newton did way way back in the 1600s. For Newton would have written 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3) And this, by the way Terry, eliminates your stupid argument and Princeton's stupid argument that .9999... equals 1. So, Terry, when you going to learn real true math? Post by Archimedes Plutonium Just minutes ago I wrote the below to Terry Tao, who really lacks logic in order to do any mathematics. But the same or worse can be said of Andrew Wiles. Both of these gentlemen were raised in an environment of math where Logic is never taught, never encouraged, and where the only thing going on in math-- are corrupt publishing of math in journals. Both Wiles and Tao are failures of true math but experts in getting corrupt math journals to publish their worthless math nonsense-- math pollution. And this makes it difficult for future generations of "true mathematicians" to toss out that pollution that Wiles caused, that Tao caused. could not even recognize sine is a semicircle wave, not sinusoid Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Why cannot the oaf of mathematics-- Terry Tao ever cleanup the errors of Old Math? Why? Is it because he has no logical mind? For surely he ran across trigonometry in his career. He ran across the Sine function as being opposite divided by hypotenuse. Surely, he ran across the unit circle, which makes sine function for unit circle, forces 90 degrees in the unit circle to be the number 1, so that 90 degrees is forced to be a value of 1, yet Tao, lacking Logic abilities to think straight, to think clearly, just up and spuriously, arbitrarily assigns 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Ahem, ahem, Terry, if the unit circle forces 90 degrees to be 1, why spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... when 90degrees = 1, forces 180 degrees to be 2. This is the reason oafs of mathematics believe sine and cosine are sinusoid waves, because, well, the oafs have arbitrary stretched the x-axis relative to the y-axis-- a forbidden sin in mathematics or logic-- to stretch an axis arbitrarily to suit your whims. Both Sine and Cosine are Semicircle waves, not sinusoid. So, Terry, instead of polluting math with more of your silly worthless nonsense-- try of a change, in fixing and correcting Old Math. And start it, by going back to school and learning what Logic is, something you have a serious lack thereof. Post by Archimedes Plutonium Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 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. Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. 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 ------------------ ------------------- meh@teh.ca 2018-06-08 08:48:09 UTC Reply Permalink Post by Archimedes Plutonium Surely, he ran across the unit circle, which makes sine function for unit circle, forces 90 degrees in the unit circle to be the number 1, so that 90 degrees is forced to be a value of 1, yet Tao, lacking Logic abilities to think straight, to think clearly, just up and spuriously, arbitrarily assigns 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Ahem, ahem, Terry, if the unit circle forces 90 degrees to be 1, why spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... when 90degrees = 1, forces 180 degrees to be 2. Erm, pardon? Unit circle, so unit radius, the unit arc subtends an angle of 1 radian; this is NOT 90 degrees. Pardon my query here but I haven't visited any newsgroups for perhaps 20 years but I think I might remember Mr Plutonium from way back then...hasn't he published his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem yet? The one which uses only "high-school math" as promised? Archimedes Plutonium 2018-06-08 21:12:15 UTC Reply Permalink Post by ***@teh.ca Post by Archimedes Plutonium Surely, he ran across the unit circle, which makes sine function for unit circle, forces 90 degrees in the unit circle to be the number 1, so that 90 degrees is forced to be a value of 1, yet Tao, lacking Logic abilities to think straight, to think clearly, just up and spuriously, arbitrarily assigns 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Ahem, ahem, Terry, if the unit circle forces 90 degrees to be 1, why spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... when 90degrees = 1, forces 180 degrees to be 2. Erm, pardon? Unit circle, so unit radius, the unit arc subtends an angle of 1 radian; this is NOT 90 degrees. Pardon my query here but I haven't visited any newsgroups for perhaps 20 years but I think I might remember Mr Plutonium from way back then...hasn't he published his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem yet? The one which uses only "high-school math" as promised? My proof of FLT turned out not to be easy for High School. Easy for College mid level, not High School. For the umpteenth time below is my FLT Well the sci.math has a complete history of my adventures with Fermat's Last Theorem starting with August 1993, and developing many twists and turns. Several times I had to throw out my prior attempts. What emerged was decades later, a final true proof of FLT. It has one huge starting surprise to it. Hugely Startling Surprise. The surprise is that a class of math proofs cannot be proven until a "more general theorem that overlays the "lesser theorem tucked away inside" the more general theorem is proven FIRST" So that-- there never exists a proof of FLT until you first prove true the Generalized FLT What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is: A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2 FLT is of course A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2 Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2016 20:38:49 +0000 Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed Proof of Generalized FLT & Fermat's Last Theorem #178 Correcting Math 4th ed PROOFS of Generalized FLT & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM PROOFS of Generalized FLT & FERMAT's LAST THEOREM as corollary Editing and commentary corner: Once Generalized FLT and FLT are turned into a geometrical perspective-- condensed rectangles, then the proof is as easy as making homemade cherry pie. And the importance of proving Generalized FLT first is that FLT never has a proof until Generalized FLT is proven first. Summary of text: Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B. TEXT: I decided I needed to stiffen up the proof of Generalized FLT below. To a logical person, they often streamline their proofs and do not bother with adding some information which people not used to logic have a difficult time in seeing. For me, it is redundant to include the distributive law into the proof of Generalized FLT, but to those who do not do math but only on occasion, they would not see the logic unless I explain those very details. So below is a more stiffened up proof of Generalized FLT. Proof of the Generalized FLT conjecture that proves Fermat's Last Theorem What is Generalized FLT? Glad you asked, for it is: A^x + B^y = C^z where A,B,C,x,y,z are positive integers with x,y,z greater than 2 FLT is of course A^n + B^n = C^n where A,B,C, n are positive integers and n is greater than 2 I proved Generalized FLT and FLT (Fermat's Last Theorem) before I discovered that Logical Material Implication Table of T,F,T,T is incorrect and should be that of T,F,undefined, undefined. What this does is remove reductio ad absurdum as a mathematics proof technique as only a probability technique and no longer a deduction. It means the only valid proof method for mathematics, is construction proofs. My Generalized FLT and FLT are construction proofs. Another feature of the true Logic Implication operator, is that corollaries of mathematics cannot be proven as "stand alone conjectures". And that a corollary requires the over-arching- theorem attending the corollary be proven beforehand. This implies that Wiles's FLT is not true for in order to truly prove FLT, a proof of Generalized FLT had to come first. We see the relationship between a Theorem and its Corollary very easily from Generalized FLT and FLT, in that we have all these cases to worry about. The history of FLT was a case study, prove it in the case of exponent this and that, but never a proof of all of FLT, and that is because corollaries are never proven as stand alone theorems and must have their theorem (Generalized FLT) proven first. This is because Logic Implication is not T,F,T,T where false proofs hide behind those last two T, T when they should be undefined, undefined. The reason Implication must be T,F,undefined, undefined is because mathematics has 2/0 and 0/0 where division by 0 is undefined, and that Old Logic with its T,F,T,T does not allow for division by zero. Detailed Proofs Generalized FLT conjecture with its FLT corollary Both proofs of Generalized FLT and FLT are based on a fact of geometry, that you can represent a number with its cofactors as the sides of a rectangle. And to prove either Generalized FLT or FLT is a simple matter of stacking two rectangles that have equal sides, A and B to produce a third rectangle C which has a side equalling the _shared side_ of A and B. ________________________ DETAILED PROOF OF Generalized FLT ________________________ It is a constructive proof. We make the table of all the numbers possible in the Generalized FLT Conjecture as the conglomeration of exponents of 3 or larger as this set: {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .} Here we have conglomerated exp3 and exp4 and exp5 etc etc into one set. We know Generalized FLT has solutions of A+B=C in that set for here are three examples: 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 What we need to prove is that all solutions have a prime divisor in common, ie all three rectangles of A, B, C so that A+B=C, have one shared side equal to one another. Definition of Condensed-Rectangle: given any number in the set of conglomerated exponents, we construct rectangles of that number from its unit squares whose sides are cofactors of the number. For instance, rectangle of 216 units as either 12x18 units, or 9x24 units, or 6x36 units or 3x72 units, or 2x108, but never a 1x216 units. We exclude 1 times the number as a condensed rectangle. So a condensed-rectangle is one in which it is composed of cofactors of the number in question, except for 1, and the number itself for 1x216 units is not a condensed-rectangle. Now for the constructive proof that Generalized FLT solutions must have a common prime divisor. We stack Condensed-Rectangles of the number-space that Generalized FLT conjecture applies: Solution Number Space for Generalized FLT now becomes these condensed-rectangles: { 2*4, 2*8, 4*4, 3*9, 2*16, 4*8, 2*32, 4*16, 8*8,. . . } We convert each of those numbers into Condensed-Rectangle, except 1 of course, and where many numbers have several condensed rectangles so the Solution Space of Numbers increases by a large amount. If an A and B as condensed-rectangles have the same side such as 3x9 units and 9x24units wherein you stack them on their shared side of 9 and which matches another number of its condensed-rectangle such as 9x27 units, then you have a Generalized FLT solution of A+B=C. For if we were to take the 9 by 27 condensed rectangle it decomposes into 3x9 and 9x24. Now, the question is, are all A+B equal to a C, form stacked condensed rectangles that share a common side? All stackable condensed-rectangles must have one side the same for the two rectangles to stack, in the case above it is the side 9 with its common divisor of the prime 3. If any other solution to Generalized FLT had A stacked upon B without a common side between them, then the figure formed cannot be a overall new rectangle but something that looks like this: HHHHHH HHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHH That is not a condensed rectangle and all the numbers of the Solution Space, except the number 1, are condensed rectangles. That above figure is 6-sided figure. That is a 6-sided figure, yet a rectangle is only a 4 sided figure. That is not a Condensed Rectangle, represented by its cofactors. So that equality can not be achieved by any other stacking than condensed rectangles equalling condensed rectangles. Then the question is, can we have an A and B with a shared common side equal to a C that is a condensed rectangle with no common side shared with A and B? The question is, how can I be sure that all the A, B, C such that A + B = C have a common prime divisor? As if the question is asking whether the Condensed Rectangles covered the question by forbidding any equality unless there is a common shared side in A in B and in C. Well, the answer is easily enough covered for the Condensed Rectangles eliminates any possibility of A,B,C where A+B = C and not have a shared side by all three of A, B, C. It does this by the Distributive law of integers. All the numbers in the solution space of Generalized FLT have condensed rectangles, except the number 1. All the A, B, C are written as condensed rectangles of (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v). For example (9*3) + (9*24) = (9*27) which is 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 which is 27 + 216 = 243. In order for (s*t) + (r*p) = (u*v) then the s, r, u have to be equal sides. Have to be (9*t) + (9*p) = (9*v) in the example of 27 + 216 = 243. Distributive Law (9*3)/9 + (9*24)/9 = (9*27)/9 where 3 + 24 = 27 So, give me three numbers A, B, C, chosen at random from the Solution Space of Generalized FLT {1, 8, 16, 27, 32, 64, 81, 125, 128, 216, 243, 256, . .} except of course 1, and can those three chosen random A, B, C obey A + B = C? Only if they obey the Distributive Law can the A + B equal to the C when we write the A, B, C as condensed rectangles. QED _________________________________________ Detailed Proof of FLT using condensed-rectangles _________________________________________ It is a construction proof method for we show that it is impossible to construct A+B = C inside of a specific exponent. Fermat's Last Theorem FLT conjecture says there are no solutions to the equation a^y + b^y = c^y where a,b,c,y are positive integers and y is greater than 2. The number Space that governs FLT is this: exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .} exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .} exp6 ..... . . . . So in FLT we ask whether there are any triples, A,B,C in any one of those _specific exponents_ such that A+B=C. In FLT, our solution space is only one particular exponent such as 3 or 4, or 5 to hunt down and find a A,B,C to satisfy A+B=C. In the proof we use Condensed-Rectangles which is defined as a rectangle composed of unit squares of the cofactors of a number, except for 1 x number itself. So the number 27 in exp3 has Condensed Rectangles of 3x9 only. The number 125 in exp3 has condensed rectangles of 5x25 only, and the number 81 in exp4 has condensed rectangles of 3x27 and 9x9. Now in the proof of Generalized FLT solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor. 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 Here in FLT, we need not even worry about exponents because all solutions to Generalized FLT encompass exponents so that if these were FLT solutions: 2^? + 2^? = 2^? with prime divisor 2 3^? + 6^? = 3^? with prime divisor 3 7^? + 7^? = 14^? with prime divisor 7 So in that construction of a solution to FLT there is a common divisor and so now we divide the equation by the common divisor, and we get this: 1^y + 1^y = 1^y 1^z + 2^z = 1^z 1^w + 1^w = 2^w And those are impossible constructions. So the proof of FLT requires Generalized FLT be proven first in order to display that a Generalized FLT proof cannot co-exist unless FLT has no solutions. QED Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON 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. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium 2018-06-19 21:10:32 UTC Reply Permalink 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 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 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 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 Archimedes Plutonium 2018-06-24 16:42:47 UTC Reply Permalink Re: 19/06/2018 #2 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif Borderline between Finite and Infinity In early 1990s, Plutonium was trying to make sense of "what are numbers", and infinity, so in that decade of 1990s, he tried to make sense of numbers yet with infinity and explored p-adics, but by 2009, Plutonium realized that to make sense of infinity, requires a borderline between Finite and Infinity, and once he discovered where this borderline was, Plutonium dropped the Adics. An integer in Plutonium's philosophical view includes objects which have a decimal expansion which never ends. Just as the real number 1/3 can be represented as: 1 3 = 0.33333... {\displaystyle {1 \over 3}=0.33333...} the infinite integer whose decimal expansion consists solely of 3s is a valid integer in Plutonium's view: x = . . .33333 {\displaystyle x=...33333\,} This type of number resembles the p-adic integers, but it is different because it is not considered as a convergent sequence, but as a philosophically primitive element of the mathematical universe, an integer. Addition and multiplication are defined digit by digit. Plutonium has two classes of numbers: real numbers which are infinite to the right of the decimal point and finite to the left, and adic integers which are infinite to the left and finite to the right. The two may not be added together. It is a theorem of Peano Arithmetic that there do not exist integers x,y,z with: x 3 + y 3 = z 3 {\displaystyle x^{3}+y^{3}=z^{3}\,} but Plutonium claims that this is not a property of adic-integers. Since he believes that the adic-integers are the true integers, he concludes that Fermat's last theorem is false.[8] Plutonium often states that the set of all integers is uncountable, which in standard mathematical language is an oxymoron. By this statement he usually means that the set of all adic-integers cannot be ordered into a list in the usual way. His proof for this claim is to apply Cantor's diagonal argument. He also sometimes states that there is a direct one-to-one map from the real numbers to the integers, which consists of taking all the digits behind the decimal point and putting them in front.[9] [10] Adics were only a fleeting stepping stone for Plutonium. To find what the true numbers of mathematics are. And by 2018, Plutonium rejects Adics except to discuss varieties of infinite numbers. In the 1990s, Plutonium admired these Adic numbers, but around 2009, Plutonium researched into a Infinity borderline, a natural border between Finite Numbers and Infinite Numbers. And soon thereafter Plutonium would no longer admire the Adic numbers for they were just a stepping stone to finding what True Numbers really were. The Adics to Plutonium, after the infinity borderline was found, the adics are fictional-infinite-numbers. Once, AP found the infinity borderline with Finite numbers and so, most of P-adics is dismissed by AP, just a little sliver of Adics is remaining in Logic for AP. Since the 1990s, AP discovered the Infinity borderline to be 1*10^604 and that changes most all of mathematics. Almost everything in mathematics, that came before, is changed with a concept of a borderline between finite and infinite. Here is a small list of corrections AP found in Mathematics and Logic and is endeavoring to complete a Textbook on mathematics by 2019, titled TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for ages 8 to 26. Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic. The 4 connectors of Logic are: 1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one 2) And (conjunction) 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction) 4) Implication New Logic EQUAL/NOT table: T = T = T T = not F = T F = not T = T F = F = T Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table. Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors. Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram T T T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square While addition is and with a Space like this T T T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition. Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition. New Logic AND T & T = T T & F = T F & T = T F & F = F AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true. The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false. New Logic OR(exclusive) T or T = F T or F = T F or T = T F or F = F OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction. OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses. New Logic IMPLIES (Material Conditional) IF/THEN MOVES INTO T -> T = T T -> F = F F -> T = U probability outcome F -> F = U probability outcome A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined. Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF. To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this: One Table be 4 of the same One Table be 3 of the same One Table be 2 of the same And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable. So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND. Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy as what Boole was. But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic. 1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF. Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true. 1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT 1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary 1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is merely probability-truth, not guaranteed 1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place. 1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess, and likely wrong. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value. (2nd Error) 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. (3rd Error) A proper Coordinate System is needed, not one in which you have a continuum, rather, one in which you have Discrete Mathematics Grid Systems were discovered by me, AP, discovered or invented in May of 2013 as I was doing my first edition of a Calculus textbook on the sci.math Internet, and in order to do Calculus, for I needed empty space between consecutive points in Geometry in order to have a integral and derivative. You cannot have a Calculus and have a geometry of a continuum. This meant, I needed to have a Grid System of equally spaced points and empty space between those points, empty space between two consecutive points. You, the reader, will discover for yourself, that the only way you can have equally spaced points with empty space between points is the decimal number system. There is only ONE Number System that can do a Grid System. Only the Decimal System can mirror reflect small numbers from large numbers and reflect large numbers from small numbers. Let me diagram what a Grid System is and the reader should automatically understand the Grid System. Integer Grid 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11, 12, etc etc 10 Grid .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, . . , 9.9, 10.0 with math induction element being .1 100 Grid .01, .02, .03, .04, . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 with math induction element being .01 Only Decimal Number System can do a Grid, because only Decimal Numbers can mirror reflect the small number, the fraction and the large numbers-- whole numbers, and have a math induction element that builds all the numbers in a specific Grid. Old Math Professors are corrupt in mathematics, for they never change their mistakes, for they never even acknowledge their mistakes, and they keep preaching fake math. They do this because they rather make money selling books of fake math, rather than spend the time to correct fake math. Professors of math are like any other greedy lazy person, get the most money from doing the least amount of work. Old math professors teach that all number systems deliver the same value of any number, and they teach that decimal is no better than binary or ternary etc. True math says that is false; true math says that Decimal System is the only system that delivers true value of numbers and is superior in allowing a Grid System, and all other number systems are junk. So, here in physics, it matters whether your physics answers of math come from a computer using binary. Archimedes Plutonium (4th Error) Borderline between finite and infinity Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity. This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities. The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline. There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a borderline exists between them. I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in macroinfinity is 1*10^604. The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row. 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000 Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity. Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion. If a physicists or other science goes to math for information and knowledge of infinity, well, what they see from mathematics by 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what. (5th Error) 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 2018-06-26 21:41:56 UTC Reply Permalink Re: 19/06/2018 #3 of Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif (6th Error) Irrationals do not exist, for all numbers are Rationals by Archimedes Plutonium Simple one line proof:: any number that can be represented as a Decimal is a number that has a integer numerator and integer denominator (in this case powers of 10), hence no irrationals exist. Many Errors of what Numbers exist. Why no Irrationals exist-- lowest terms, anthyphairesis Now you would think that Physics never needs to know the difference between rational number and irrational number. But you be surprised to know that when no irrational number exists, the numbers 3.14…. and 2.71 as two separate numbers being rational only, is the closest that mathematics can come to two related numbers, 22/7 with 19/7, matching the Atom Totality of 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 subshells occupied. Here is a concept unknown to mathematicians about pi and "e", the concept of simultaneous relatedness. When we see no irrational exists, then pi and "e" are connected fully. Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers-- as easy as Decimal Number representation-- they have a denominator power of 10 by Archimedes Plutonium Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers Old Math, and their "Lowest Terms Error" although don't tell them-- proved that 1/2 is irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed Alright, let me get started on the proof that 1/2 is irrational number using the invalid method of Ancient Greeks that sqrt2 is irrational, only because, the method is invalid. Earlier I showed how a definition of Lowest Term for p/q needed to be extended to include a number in Rationals in decimal representation. So, what is the Lowest Term for 1/2 in 10 Grid, for it would be .1/.2 and then the next lowest is .2/.4, etc etc. So, let us run through a proof that 1/2 is a Irrational number using the proof method of Ancient Greeks. Proof:: Suppose 1/2 is Rational. And now, put 1/2 in Lowest terms and it is thus, in lowest terms. But now, taking 2 and dividing it into 1 __________ 2| 1.00000.... = .50000..... and then dividing 2 by 2 _________ 2|2.00000..... = 1.0000..... And now, we have 1/2 in Lowest terms as .5/1. But now, hold on a minute, let us divide .5 by 2, then 1 by 2, giving us .25 and .5 respectively. Since we can never get a Lowest Term for the Rational number 1/2, means a contradiction, hence 1/2 is irrational. So, of course the above is flawed and flawed in the same way the method was used to prove sqrt2 is irrational, when truly sqrt2 is rational. What went wrong? What went wrong is a bad definition-- Lowest Terms. The proof that sqrt2 is Rational, simply involves observation for that In 10 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.42 X 1.42 = 2.0 (oh, you question the 2.0164, you question the "164", well in 10 Grid, the only digits that exist are the ten place value and that is 2.0. In 100 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.415 X 1.415 In 1000 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.4143 X 1.4143 and on and on. Sqrt2 and all sqrt root numbers are Rationals. Even pi and 2.71.... are rational numbers. Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:06:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > That is the only one proof in all of mathematics-- an argument based on a definition of Lowest Terms. > > Apparently there is a second proof of sqrt2 irrational. A far more challenging proof to see if phony. > Apparently there was a second proof, but whether it was known by Euclid, by Archimedes, I rather doubt it. It is seen in Stillwell's Mathematics and Its History, 3rd ed. 2010, page 45. In the same book, page 12 is the Lowest Terms phony proof. > > Now looking at that alleged proof on page 45, it says and I quote. > > " We notice that the rectangle remaining after step 2, with sides sqrt2-1 and 2-sqrt2 = sqrt2(sqrt2-1), is the same shape as the original, though the long side is now vertical instead of horizontal. It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is another proof that sqrt2 is irrational, incidentally." > > Does Stillwell expect readers to "read his mind". Why would a recurrence ever make Stillwell think that was a proof of sqrt2 is not able to be P/Q where P and Q are Counting Numbers. Why? Is it because two rational sides would cancel out in a square further down the line? And, if so, then the reason this proof is nonrecurring is only because, well, you use a symbol of sqrt2 that cannot commingle with actual numbers. If you call a number a symbol, call it S, call it Y, obviously you cannot get rid of it. > > Now this one is going to be challenging for me to show it is phony. But it is easy if we demand sqrt2 be written as a number, not some abstract symbol. Once we demand that a number in decimal representation or in fractions be forced upon rather than a "just a symbol sqrt2", then the phoniness of the proof is immediately apparent. Because, that forcing demands sqrt2 be written as 1.42 = 142/100 in 10 Grid or written as 1.415 = 1415/1000 in 100 Grid, etc. Writing sqrt2 in a number, then it behaves like all other Rationals, for it is a rational. > > You see, the rub on sqrt2 that Old Math installed is the same mistake they made with 1/3. They want 1/3 be .33333....., when, if called to be logical, 1/3 is .3333...33(+1/3) what Newton called the Compleat Quotient. > nice proof that no irrationals exist, simple fact that all numbers are Decimal represented and thus a denominator of power of 10 Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed Now, here is a Commonsense proof that No Irrationals exist. It is not formal, it is not flowery or pilfered with abstractions. It is a proof that an old grandma or grandpa would understand and recognize, even if starting to slow to think in old age. It is a proof that young kids would be proud of owning. For it is a proof that since 3000 years ago, humanity has thought there was something known as "irrational number" and only now, today, realizes that there are no irrational numbers. That irrational numbers was the grand fake of fakeries. Theorem Statement:: Rational numbers exist, but Irrationals do not exist. Proof Statement:: Once we are able to have a Decimal Number system we can build all the numbers via Grids and using a math-induction element and adding that element successively to build the numbers. They are all Decimal numbers, meaning that their place-value is established. So that say for instance .003, or 3.14159..... are all rational numbers because, depending on what place value you want to talk about, it is 3/1000 or 314159/100000. In other words, writing a number in Decimal Representation alone, proves the number is a Rational for the denominator is always a power of 10. And since decimal numbers is ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, means that all numbers are a Rational. QED Now, there is one possible exception to this rule or proof. The imaginary number of square root of -1. Is it even a number? I am going to say it is not a number, because all numbers have to come from Math induction on a induction element, be it 1 for Counting Numbers, be it .1 for 10 Grid, or .01 for 100 Grid, etc etc. So where does that leave us with sqrt -1. I suggest that i is not a number but an angle, a symbol for an angle. What angle is it? Not 90 degree for that is +1. I suggest i = sqrt-1 is the angle 180 degrees that lies in 2nd and 3rd quadrants. Archimedes Plutonium (7th Error) Completing a Division correctly such as 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3) By Archimedes Plutonium Newton, way back in the 1600s called it "Compleat Quotient", but that was some 400 years ago, and do you mean to tell me, that in 400 years time no-one had a good enough logical mind since Newton, that everyone since Newton was a failure of Logic when it comes to division? Everyone gets this much ______ 3| 10000 = 3333+1/3 and then, everyone falls to pieces, into some pit of stupidity on this ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333(+1/3) Perhaps every math professor thinks 1/3 = .33333….. and they scold students who say ______ 3| 10000 = 3333 but they reward students who say ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333…. They fall to pieces, because they want and wish to ignore the remainder. They do not forget the remainder for left of the decimal point but when they reach right of the decimal point they fall all to pieces in a logic quagmire. ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333….. and forget about any remainder So that truly, 1/3 is not even a number, but a division asking the person doing the division, asking what Grid System am I in? For, 1/3 is not even a number but a division process and it depends on where the person doing the dividing wants to stop and thus include the (+1/3) ending suffix. 1/3 = .33333..33(+1/3) Where we always realize a remainder in division must always be tacked on. Now the above is important in that it eliminates the obnoxious idea put forth by half=brains in math that 1 = .9999…. The number 1 never equals .9999…. but it does equal .9999..99(+9/9). So, half brains of math, time to run for the hills. Explaining why most modern mathematicians are logically brain-dead-- simply because in modern day times, students are not forced to take logic-- to learn how to think straight and think clearly. If I had my way. Every Freshmen at College is required to take Introduction to Logic, for, it is only commonsense that Colleges and Universities do see that thinking straight and thinking clearly is top priority. And, if I had my way, the science majors all have to take a second year of logic called Symbolic Logic, because every day as a -- scientist -- the most important tool is logic -- Archimedes Plutonium (8th Error) Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal By Archimedes Plutonium Now one of the functions most often used in physics and science are the trigonometric functions. But, have the mathematicians made any mistakes with them? One would think not, since trig has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Trouble is, in math, when you do not have a logical mind, you miss errors. Here is a huge huge error of Trigonometry, only because, mathematicians rarely have a logical mind. It involves the shape of sine and cosine. Now, do not get me wrong, not all sine and cosine functions are semicircle shape. All sine and cosine start out as semicircle in the unit circle, but as soon as you change frequency or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine are ellipse waves. They come to math, and physics, but they come without Logic, barren of logic, deplete of logic, never any logic in their tools of the trade. They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse. Good so far. They know of the unit circle with hypotenuse as 1. Good again. They then blunder, so pitifully, so badly, so poorly, and so early on. I mean even a child can understand the first few steps. And they blunder badly for they spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Why? Why assign 180 degrees as 3.14... when you already defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse with unit circle forcing 180 degrees to be 2, since 90 degrees is 1 of unit circle. You see what happens when you do science without logic-- you become a village idiot fool. Now, here is a huge huge big lesson to learn. It is big, and most professors of mathematics never learned it, for if they had learned it, they would not make this mistake in trigonometry of a "Sinusoid shape wave". The lesson is simple and easy, but no math professor ever learned it-- You never have unequal axes in doing mathematics. Your x,y,z axes always are the same. Your axes are always the same. You never have one axis different from another, or, you are not doing mathematics. All axes must be the same. Sure, in commercials they have pie charts and they have bar diagrams where one axis is numbers and the other is candy bars or something else. That is not mathematics. And in Trigonometry, if your x axis is angles, and your y axis is numbers, you are NOT doing mathematics. To do Mathematics-- axes are always the same. If you had had just a gram of Logical intelligence could see that the unit circle forces sine to define 180 degrees as being a diameter of 2. Thus making the sine graph and cosine graph to be a SEMICIRCLE Wave graph. -- Archimedes Plutonium SECOND PROOF THAT SINE AND COSINE ARE SEMICIRCLE WAVES:: This proof has a hands on experiment involved. Take a close look at a screen door spring, and verify it is wound up circles per wind. EXPERIMENT:: make a 2nd dimension graph of semicircle wave. Cut out the semicircles but leaving them in one piece so you can bend and fold. Now, fold the sheet of cut out semicircles to begin to approach a spring of circle windings. Now, do the same with the idiotic Old Math's sinusoid shape wave. Can you form a spring, without vertices, a vertex at each joint and which those joints are physics vulnerable to cracking and breaking apart. Theorem Statement:: A spring in mathematics is a winding of semicircle waves and is the sine function and cosine function wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension. Proof Statement:: Only a semicircle wave can be wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension and be free of vertices, (weak spots). Only a circle is free of vertices when attaching half waves. Archimedes Plutonium (9th Error) CONIC SECTION IS OVAL, never an ellipse; proofs below Conics = oval, 4 Experiments 4th experiment Re: -World's first proofs that the Conic section is an Oval, never an ellipse// yes, Apollonius and Dandelin were wrong by Archimedes Plutonium 1st EXPERIMENT:: Fold paper into cone and cylinder, (I prefer the waxy cover of a magazine). Try to make both about the same size, so the perspective is even. Now tape the cone and cylinder so they do not come undone in the scissor or paper cutter phase. A paper cutter is best but dangerous, so be careful, be very careful with paper cutter. Make the same angle of cut in each. and the best way of insuring that is to temporary staple the two together so the angle is the same. Once cut, remove the staples. Now we inspect the finished product. Hold each in turn on a sheet of paper and with a pencil trace out the figure on the flat piece of paper. Notice the cylinder gives an ellipse with 2 Axes of Symmetry, while the conic gives a oval because it has just one, yes 1 axis of symmetry. > > > > That was my first experiment. > Easy and fast experiment, and gets the person able to make more cones and cylinders in a rush. Only fault I have of this experiment is that it leaves a scissors mark-- a vertex so to speak. But it is fast and easy. The proof is in the comparison. Now the cut should be at a steep enough angle. If you cut straight across, both will be circles, so make a steep cut. 2nd EXPERIMENT:: get a Kerr or Mason canning lid and repeat the above production of a cone and cylinder out of stiff waxy paper (magazine covers). Try to make the cone and cylinder about the same size as the lid. Now either observe with the lid inside the cone and cylinder, or, punch two holes in the cone and cylinder and fasten the lid inside. What you want to observe is how much area and where the area is added to make a section. So that in the cylinder, there is equal amount of area to add upwards as to add downwards of the lid, but in the cone, the area upwards added is small, while the area added downwards is huge new area. Thus the cylinder had two axes of symmetry and is an ellipse, while cone is 1 axis of symmetry and is an oval. > This experiment is the best for it immediately shows you the asymmetry of an axis, where the upward needs little area to fill in any gap and the downward needs an entire "crescent shaped area add-on to the circle lid. 3rd EXPERIMENT:: Basically this is a repeat of the Dandelin fake proof, only we use a cylinder. Some tennis balls or ping pong balls come in see through plastic cylinder containers. And here you need just two balls in the container and you cut out some cardboard in the shape of ellipse that fits inside the container. You will be cutting many different sizes of these ellipses and estimating their foci. Now you insert these ellipse and watch to see the balls come in contact with the foci. Now, you build several cones in which the ellipses should fit snugly. Trouble is, well, there is never a cone that any ellipse can fit inside, for only an oval fits inside the cones. > > This experiment is cumbersome and takes much precision and good materials. It is just a repeat of the Dandelin work on this topic, and one can easily see how the Dandelin fake proof is constructed-- he starts off with assuming the figure is an ellipse. Which tells us, he never had a good-working-model if any at all. For you cannot stuff a ellipse inside a cone. You can stuff a ellipse inside a cylinder. So this suggests the entire Dandelin nonsense was all worked out in the head and never in hands on actual reality. So, in this experiment, we give a proof that Dandelin was utterly wrong and that it is a cylinder that you can stuff a ellipse sandwiched by two identical spheres-- one upper and one lower. The only amazing part of the Dandelin story is how an utterly fake proof could have survived from 1822, and not until 2017 is it thoroughly revealed as ignorant nonsense. One would think in math, there is no chance such a hideously flawed proof could even be published in a math journal, and if anything is learned from Dandelin, is that the math journal publishing system is a whole entire garbage network. A network that is corrupt and fans fakery. 4th EXPERIMENT:: this is a new one. And I have it resting on my coffee table at the moment and looking at it. It comes from a toy kit of plastic see through geometry figures, cost me about$5. And what I have is a square pyramid and a cone of about the same size. Both see through. And what I did was rest the square pyramid apex on top of the cone apex, so the cone is inside the square pyramid. Now I wish I had a rectangular box to fit a cylinder inside the box. But this toy kit did not have that, but no worries for the imagination can easily picture a cylinder inside a rectangular box. Now the experiment is real simple in that we imagine a Planar Cut into the rectangular box with cylinder inside and the cut will make a rectangle from the box and a ellipse from the cylinder. Now with the cut of the square pyramid that contains a cone inside, the square pyramid is a trapezoid section while the cone is a oval section. If the cut were parallel to the base, the square pyramid yields a square and the cone yields a circle. This experiment proves to all the dunces, the many dunces who think a conic section is an ellipse, that it cannot be an ellipse, for obviously, a cone is not the same as a cylinder. > >
Now this 4th Experiment is a delicious fascinating experiment, for it reveals to us another proof that the conic section is a oval. For the square-pyramid section is a Isosceles Trapezoid, and what is so great about that, is we can take a cone and place inside of the cone a square pyramid and then place a second square pyramid over the cone, so the cone is sandwiched in between two square pyramids.
Now the square pyramids are tangent to the cone at 4 line segments, 8 altogether for the two, and what is so intriguing about the tangents is that it allows us to quickly develop a analytic geometry that the cone section must be a oval in order for the two square pyramids to be both isosceles trapezoids as sections.
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

(10th Error)
Fixing the huge math error of gravity in Old Physics
By Archimedes Plutonium
Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this.
Circle  x^2 + y^2 = 1
Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
Parabola x^2 - y = 1
Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2
They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets orbit in closed loops.
Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math error. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why? I believe even if they caught the huge math error would have been helpless to try to correct for it overturns the whole entire program of Old Physics on their gravity. Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew not that Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism. So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2.
It spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General Relativity.
What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA + jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle or a ellipse.
And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this textbook of Atom Totality, 8th edition.
Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F = (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid Body Rotation and V proportional to R, proportional to 1/R and to 1/R^2 and all in between.
-- Archimedes Plutonium
AP
Jan
2018-07-04 22:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Just minutes ago I wrote the below to Terry Tao, who really lacks logic in order to do any mathematics.
Like you would know. HAHAHAHAHA!

--
Jan
a***@gmail.com
2018-05-31 21:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
Now there is an idiot loose in South Dakota...
b***@gmail.com
2018-06-24 17:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
But can you tell us what is wrong with the proof that the
ellipse is a conic section? Can you AP brain farto?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
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.
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.
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
2018-07-04 22:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Con artist fakes of math can easily con artist a fake math proof. Especially when they sit behind the helm of the journal publishing their fakery.

But they can never con artist fake Physics truths--

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

Experimental Proofs and Definitions

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron =
105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000

Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.

Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.

And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.

In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry
Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV,
Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000

definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

- hide quoted text -
Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.

Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."

And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.

You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.

The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.

So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re:
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000

new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- hide quoted text -
Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.
Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."
And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.
You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.
The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.
So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.
Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7

--- quoting ---

Chemical reactions

In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction.

--- end quoting Feynman ---

I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms".

But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV.

In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton.

So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist.

Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof.

But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom.

So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons.

And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged.

So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-17 22:06:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
#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.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AP
Jan
2018-07-18 04:01:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to
Like you would know.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-20 17:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
#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.
Loading...