Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History

Some years back I wrote what was wrong with the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational, when, no irrational number actually exists. The most simple proof is this::

Proof:: any number that exists is written as a Decimal. sqrt2 is 1.4142..... Take it any moment in its chain of digits. Then it is a rational number as 14/10 then 141/100 then 1414/1000 etc etc To be Irrational means you cannot write it as a decimal.

Now, what is the flaw in the Ancient Greek sqrt2 proof-- it boils down to "lowest term"

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.

And anyone who studied the history of Ancient Greek Math, knows, those Ancient Greeks never had a Decimal Number System, theirs was more akin to the Roman number system of IIII = 4 and V =5, C=100 etc.

So we can easily see, that not having Decimals, that a fake proof method would be sought for and found.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-25 00:06:57 UTC

Now there is a trilogy story in sqrt2, and just when you thought math could not hit a lower spot in its existence. For AP has proved that no irrationals exist, and what could be worse for any garden type variety math professor in colleges and universities to realize that for all these years, no irrationals existed. What could be worse than that?

Well the worst is yet to come-- in that no Rationals ever existed. Because, well, all Rationals were just-- pleas to divide, but not a number until the division was completed. So that 1/3 is not even a number but a division exercise that some lazy person has not found the answer.

The only numbers that exist in mathematics are Grid Numbers, those that can be written as a Decimal and can be formed by Mathematical Induction.

So, well, I had to weave my way through this. I had to prove that sqrt2 of Ancient Greek times was a fake proof, and had to use Rational number definition, even though I know Rationals are fakes also.

I have never been caught in such a compromising bad situation as that. I wanted to prove Irrationals are nonexistent and used Rationals, when, even Rationals are nonexistent.

Some Rationals do exist such as 1/2 because their division ends up as the Decimal .5. But the 1/3 is nonexistent for you cannot write it as a Decimal. It is not .3333..... but rather 1/3 is a unfinished division problem. You could say 1/3 = .3333...333(+1/3) but then, why bother when 1/3 is more clear.

Here is a perfect example in science and math, where you have layers and layers of falsihoods, and to unpack those layers of falsehoods, one has to start with the topmost fakery -- irrationals, using rationals. Then to unpack the fakery of Rationals, we do that last with citing the Grid Numbers are the only existing numbers in all of mathematics.

Is that bizarre? Not really if you consider that humans who liar a lot, that they make mountains of fake stories, layers and layers of falsehoods covering up more liaring, and so, when it is time to topple that mountain of liaring, we start at the top and topple as we go down.

Same thing happened in mathematics

topmost liaring Irrationals, all with the liaring of lowest terms

Another liaring is the anthyphairesis

next most layer of liaring is Rationals, and they are toppled by -- not finished division exercise

So, the only surprize is that it takes mathematics about 2,500 years to topple a simple liaring, because a person with a logical mind to do math comes about in only 1 in 2,500 years.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-25 02:18:47 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proof:: any number that exists is written as a Decimal. sqrt2 is 1.4142..... Take it any moment in its chain of digits. Then it is a rational number as 14/10 then 141/100 then 1414/1000 etc etc To be Irrational means you cannot write it as a decimal.
Now, what is the flaw in the Ancient Greek sqrt2 proof-- it boils down to "lowest term"
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.

Now right about here is where that worthless Swedish kook of math, Zelos Malum would bust in and holler and scream that Rationals are integers only, being so stupid in math not knowing .2 is 2/10 and .4 is 4/10 and 2/10/4/10 is 20/40 and so on and so forth. A worthless stalking creep of math needs hand walking everyone the real mathematician goes. And then in comes the flood of stalking kook brigade-- Earle Jones, Dan Christensen, Michael Moroney, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski, Alouatta to say how much everyone is a evil satan.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.

Here again, the idiot Malum and all who think like that idiot would say, .25/.5 are not integers, for the little fool is too dumb to do 25/100 / 5/10 = 250/500.

You see, the concept of LOWEST TERMS is a screwy messed up concept unless you have Infinity Borderlines. In 10 Grid the border is .1 in 100 Grid the border is .01, but in the entirety of mathematics, the hardcore border of infinity is 1*10^-604.

So, if the Ancient Greeks had had the Decimal system, would they then have curtailed their phony proof that sqrt2 was irrational? I believe so, because one of them would have marveled at the Decimal representation of numbers and said "if you can write a number as a decimal, then it is rational, automatically"

But because the Ancient Greeks thought they had a proof, when they did not. That every mathematician afterwards would accept it without ever thinking about it, whether it was indeed a proof. Such is the habits of people with little logic in their mental faculties.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
And anyone who studied the history of Ancient Greek Math, knows, those Ancient Greeks never had a Decimal Number System, theirs was more akin to the Roman number system of IIII = 4 and V =5, C=100 etc.
So we can easily see, that not having Decimals, that a fake proof method would be sought for and found.

What is the moral of this story, the grand moral theme of no irrationals exist, and no rationals exist, only Decimal Grid Numbers exist? What is the beautiful moral of this story, like an Aesop's fable that I most loved reading as a young boy. I think the moral is, that when math produces something weird and strange-- numbers not rational, that it is not going to be the final truth of the matter, that there is some ideas out of whack. We see it today in droves in physics-- black holes, dark energy, dark matter, neutron stars, quarks, and a cornucopia of kook imagination. If something is weird and not smooth with the rest of things, is likely it is fake altogether.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-25 18:01:25 UTC

Alright, in the textbook Teaching True Mathematics, our first proof we encounter is that we prove Decimals are special number system over all other number systems, and we prove it by noticing that the special sequence

etc .001, .01, .1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc etc that special sequence of what I call Scale Numbers that has only one single 1 digit and can have as many 0 digits as desired.

The proof that this Sequence favors Decimal Number System is because 2x5 = 10

In Binary number system 10 is 1010, not a scale number

In Ternary number system 10 is 101

We can go on and on with other bases, showing that only Decimals represent the Scale Sequence precisely.

Now that was a proof in Grade School. And I will teach the broad outline of what a math proof is and why it is different from other arguments, always keeping in mind that these are young teenagers.

But now for 14 year olds I am going to teach them four more proofs before they get to Algebra, those that take Algebra in High School.

Teach them these four::

1) Irrationals do not exist
2) Mistake in the Ancient Greek proof of sqrt2
3) Mistake in Anthyphairesis
4) Rationals do not exist for they were only a division problem, not an actual number itself

I do this because, we need to start teaching students of mathematics-- the falsihoods that math professors end up foisting our young students with. Teach them as young as possible the mistakes and errors of math professors so that the young students weed out the phony professor of math.

Now for the 14 year old I am going to teach them 2 Geometry proofs, maybe the 9 through 13 year olds teach the Pythagorean Theorem as a lesson.

But the other geometry proof is that 3 noncollinear points of the plane determine a unique circle-- this one because it teaches both the Existential quantifier-- perpendicular bisector and teaches Universal Quantifier-- all 3 points not collinear.

AP

Volney

2018-04-25 18:23:57 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Alright, in the textbook Teaching True Mathematics, our first proof we encounter is that we prove Decimals are special number system over all other number systems, and we prove it by noticing that the special sequence
etc .001, .01, .1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc etc that special sequence of what I call Scale Numbers that has only one single 1 digit and can have as many 0 digits as desired.
The proof that this Sequence favors Decimal Number System is because 2x5 = 10
In Binary number system 10 is 1010, not a scale number
In Ternary number system 10 is 101
We can go on and on with other bases, showing that only Decimals represent the Scale Sequence precisely.
Now that was a proof in Grade School. And I will teach the broad outline of what a math proof is and why it is different from other arguments, always keeping in mind that these are young teenagers.
But now for 14 year olds I am going to teach them four more proofs before they get to Algebra, those that take Algebra in High School.
1) Irrationals do not exist
2) Mistake in the Ancient Greek proof of sqrt2
3) Mistake in Anthyphairesis
4) Rationals do not exist for they were only a division problem, not an actual number itself
I do this because, we need to start teaching students of mathematics-- the falsihoods that math professors end up foisting our young students with.

Who is "we"??

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-05-14 03:20:43 UTC

Post by Volney
Who is "we"??

Michael Moroney writes:
8:49 PM (1 hour ago)

Post by Volney
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?

AP writes:: Who is on second, who is on third base? I just want to know, Moroney when you are going to admit that 8.88 is not 12% short of 9, and that is how I discovered the Real Proton is 840 MeV, Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. Why not admit Moroney, you are a moron in math.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-25 18:40:24 UTC

So, here is the uniqueness of Decimals-- favored over all other number systems, in that its two primes 2 and 5 are related to 10 and allow for the Scale Numbers Sequence to be the Number System.

The superiority of that Decimal system is it mirror reflects the Small Numbers automatically with the large numbers. So in 10 Grid we have the large numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and we have the mirror reflection of
small numbers .1,.2,.3 etc. The only thing that changes is the decimal point. No other Number System in the world can offer that Scale Independence.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
We can go on and on with other bases, showing that only Decimals represent the Scale Sequence precisely.
Now that was a proof in Grade School. And I will teach the broad outline of what a math proof is and why it is different from other arguments, always keeping in mind that these are young teenagers.
But now for 14 year olds I am going to teach them four more proofs before they get to Algebra, those that take Algebra in High School.

Yes, I have to catch the students somewhere in Grade School or High School so they do not have to be polluted in mind by idiots of math who can never think logically straight nor clear-- That no Irrational number exists.

For example, you want the square root of 2?

IN 10 Grid we have 1.42 x 1.42 = 2.0 and any extra stuff 2.016 that "16" is in a 100 or 1000 grid and is sigma error here

In 10 Grid sqrt5 is 2.24 x 2.24 = 5.0 and that extra stuff is not even in 10 Grid 5.0176 that "176" is in a higher grid and is Sigma Error.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
1) Irrationals do not exist
2) Mistake in the Ancient Greek proof of sqrt2
3) Mistake in Anthyphairesis
4) Rationals do not exist for they were only a division problem, not an actual number itself
I do this because, we need to start teaching students of mathematics-- the falsihoods that math professors end up foisting our young students with. Teach them as young as possible the mistakes and errors of math professors so that the young students weed out the phony professor of math.
Now for the 14 year old I am going to teach them 2 Geometry proofs, maybe the 9 through 13 year olds teach the Pythagorean Theorem as a lesson.
But the other geometry proof is that 3 noncollinear points of the plane determine a unique circle-- this one because it teaches both the Existential quantifier-- perpendicular bisector and teaches Universal Quantifier-- all 3 points not collinear.
AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-26 01:59:52 UTC

And the third proof is that the only numbers that exist in the world are Grid Decimal Numbers.

We start by reviewing the proof that Decimal Number system is superior and unique over all other number systems.

Now the Ancient Greek proofs of irrational-- lowest terms and anthyphairesis, let us count that as one proof of correcting two mistaken proofs. Then the proof that if you are a valid number, you are a decimal number.

Then the proof that No Rationals exist because they are not numbers at all but merely pleas and begging to divide one integer into another integer, and once you completed the division and have a Decimal in hand, then that is a number.

And finally, we repeat what the Grid System of Decimals is, and all numbers are Grid numbers.

Now, when I went to school in mathematics, we were taught crumby lousy idea that numbers were first positive integers, then you divide all of them into all of them yielding Rationals, then we were taught miserably that between two Rationals you do a Dedekind cut to get at Irrationals and you assemble the Rationals with Irrationals and end up with the kook idea of Reals. All of it patchwork cobbled together by professors of math that are really clowns of math, for they had not one tiny gram of Logical reasoning. You want to see a lousy house built where it is built patchwork of things lying around, or a lousy blanket sewed from pieces of other clothe, or a pair of pants or coat all sewed together from pieces hinder and yonder.

Surely the science of Precision, should never be such where its Numbers are idiotic patches cobbled together.

Algebra is the math of balance of an equation and what the equation is balancing are numbers on one side with numbers on the other side of the equal sign. So, Algebra is the manipulation of numbers in an equation, and so, here, we have to know exactly, precisely what Numbers truly are. We should not wait until College to be taught what numbers are in Calculus, but rather, we should know full well in Grade School and High School the full extent of what numbers are. In Algebra, the first lessons will be to reinforce what Numbers truly are, and we do that by tearing down and removing the trash litter of Reals, Irrationals, Rationals. What we have remaining is Grid Decimal Numbers.

Now, writing the chapter in Teaching True Math for Algebra, I must early on-- discuss that the equation to balance numbers, that unlike all other Algebra textbooks out there, unlike them. I teach that a Equation of Algebra must never have a zero on one side of the equation, never ever. That all Algebra has to have a positive number leftside of the equation and a positive number rightside of the equation. This is a major error of Old Math Algebra, for the fools, for the dirt grovelling fools of algebra were so silly and ignorant of logic that they thought a equation that equals 0 has any meaning, and that a manipulation of one side of an equation whose other side is 0 is of value. These people in math, are underwater basket weavers, not mathematicians.

All equations of Algebra have one side of the equation with a positive nonzero number, and then you manipulate the other side, for you are never allowed to have a 0 or negative number on one side of the equation. The 0 and negative numbers are just chimeras of the imagination of fools.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-26 02:52:32 UTC

Now, let us ask a question, for how much is a function that of a equation, and how much can we do function theory in algebra?

So, if we did for functions what the backward math person does in algebra by always having one side of the equation be 0 value. Then, if we did that to functions, we would have, sad to say F(x) = 0 is the x-axis, and there, in one stroke we reduced about 75% of Algebra to be a function Y= 0.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-04-27 07:23:24 UTC

In a sense the Reals of math were as dumb as the four humors of medicine— phlegm, blood, black bile, yellow bile.

Is it stir crazy or stair crazy

Naturals were okay but then the fakery— rationals, irrationals, Reals

Too crazy for even leeches to bother with

All the poor students in schools that have to be polluted by such nonsense. To be quizzed over and tested upon. Like quizzing and testing the garbage man— over trash and garbage.

Jan

2018-04-26 02:06:27 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Alright, in the textbook Teaching True Mathematics, our first proof we encounter is that we prove Decimals are special number system over all other number systems,

Total nonsense.

--
Jan

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-05-04 13:01:36 UTC

Post by Jan
Total nonsense.
--
Jan

Zelos Malum wrote:

4:33 AM (3 hours ago)

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

Zelos Malum

2018-05-07 06:29:20 UTC

Post by Jan
Total nonsense.
--
Jan

4:33 AM (3 hours ago)

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

copying and not responding is not very productive

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-09-15 06:13:56 UTC

Thanks for your response.
Have you ever considered that you might be wrong? Is that possible?
What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and
showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
Could you handle it?

If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.

Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to
define each one.
It is not that difficult. A conic section is the solution of two
simultaneous equations: One of the cone and one of the plane.
More later and thanks,
earle

Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.

So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.

Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.

FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
section, and how the proof works
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000

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

Let us analyze AP's Proof

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

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

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

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

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

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

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

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

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

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

Zelos Malum

2018-09-17 06:46:15 UTC

If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.

Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
section, and how the proof works
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

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

we point out your flaws constantly, you just ignore them.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-10-01 07:35:08 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
we point out your flaws constantly, you just ignore them.

Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing.

I on the other hand pointed out Stillwell's error of page 45 of anthyphairesis where he argues it is a proof of irrational, and I pointed out, if you stick any symbol-- it comes out as irrational, not because it is, but only because it is a symbol.

Then Stillwell's silly notion the ellipse is a conic section.

Then all of Stillwell's worthless Reals belief.

No, Malum you are a stupid waffling imp in Sweden that knows no math

Zelos Malum

2018-10-01 07:54:16 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing.

Actually, I HAVE pointed it out to you repeatedly. Remember your seven proofs of no negative numbers? I debunked all of them.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-10-22 07:33:20 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing.

Actually, I HAVE pointed it out to you repeatedly. Remember your seven proofs of no negative numbers? I debunked all of them.
Why don't you try to make an actual formal proof instead of "crossing your fingers"?

AP: yes indeed why does not Stillwell correct his stupid gaffe error of ellipse is never a conic but a cylinder section

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-11-28 20:30:13 UTC

About vvgra-- not really here to sell books in sci.math but rather is a facade for pushing everyone off the front page of sci.math doing real math. So the crank vvgra is a pushing off the front page creep. And my guess is that he is likely to be --perhaps burse or jan or MM, or Christensen or Eastside or Franz-- the intent is not selling books but to churn sci.math

Discussion
Essentials of Human Communication 9th Edition solution manual by Joseph A. DeVito (1)
By ***@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated Nov 27

Discussion
Business Research Methods 9th Edition test bank by Zikmund (1)

If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.

Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
section, and how the proof works
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

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

Michael Moroney

2018-11-28 22:55:32 UTC

Subject: Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind

1) You don't know what a racist (or "Rascist") even is. How could anyone
be a racist if race isn't even involved or relevant?

2) John Stillwell has almost certainly never heard of the nobody named
Archimedes Plutonium.

3) John Stillwell almost certainly doesn't read, and probably never even
heard of, sci.math and Usenet. See #2. sci.math isn't and never was a
formal channel for mathematics anyway, especially since it was overrun by
ko0ks some 20-25 years ago.

4) Even if, in the unlikely event he actually did read your ellipse posts,
he's not dumb and stoopid, he'd immediately recognize it as invalid,
certainly not even close to being a valid formal mathematical proof.

5) Meanwhile, the Dandelin Spheres proof and several others, remain
valid formal mathematical proofs, never having been shown to be incorrect.

So, in conclusion, John Stillwell almost certainly never ever saw your
posts here, and even if he did, he'd know they were totally wrong.

So why do you make things worse by echo-spamming the spammers?
And why are you so full of yourself that you have to be a front page hog?

And my guess is that he is likely to be --perhaps burse or jan or MM, or
Christensen or Eastside or Franz-- the intent is not selling books but to
churn sci.math

And as usual, your guess is wrong. And you really need to quit attacking
people who try to point out or correct your mistakes. You (should) know
that if you attack me like this, I just strike back.

Discussion
Essentials of Human Communication 9th Edition solution manual by Joseph A. DeVito (1)
Discussion
Business Research Methods 9th Edition test bank by Zikmund (1)

Again, why echo-spam the spammers?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles,
Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to
acknowledge the math truth.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-12-04 02:13:24 UTC

Is Stillwell as dumb as Pete Olcott with his Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 while 10 AND 2 = 8. No wonder Stillwell never amounted to much in mathematics other than write books of what others "thought".

If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.

Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
section, and how the proof works
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

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

Michael Moroney

2018-12-04 04:52:43 UTC

Subject: Re: does Stillwell like Olcott believe 10 OR 2 = 12 as well as
the rest of the math community that embraces Boole Re: Is Stillwell a
**Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse
Is Stillwell as dumb as Pete Olcott with his Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12
while 10 AND 2 = 8. No wonder Stillwell never amounted to much in
mathematics other than write books of what others "thought".

Aww, CRAP! Plutonium failed yet again! Who is going to clean it up this
time?

Not only does the stupid dead guy George Boole keep on kicking Plutonium's
ass at logic, Plutonium doesn't even know how to play the game! Nobody
who uses Boolean logic would EVER say 10 OR 2 = 12 or 10 AND 2 = 8.
Maybe Plutonium doesn't even know the difference between Boolean OR/AND
and addition/subtraction? How dumb and stoopid is that, Al?

"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean rock-hard
stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.
Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape. Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity. Archie-poo is stooopid."

Zelos Malum

2018-04-25 05:44:31 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I am talking about his book, 3rd edition, 2010, page45 talking about Anthyphairesis
--- quoting Stillwell ---
It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is another proof that sqrt2 is irrational, incidentally.
--- end quote ---
Now the trouble with Stillwell is the trouble with 99% of math professors, they have a mind of 99% memory and 1% logic, when they should have a mind that is 50% memory and 50% logic.
Unfortunately, Stillwell never mastered logic, for if he had spent more time in study of logic, he might have realized that of course, you stick any symbol into Anthyphairesis and it will recur forever. But the instant you stick a number that ends in 0s digits, well of course it ends.
But, Stillwell with his lack of logic thinks that sqrt2 is a number and not a symbol. It is easy to fool a fool, because they see 2 in sqrt 2 and they think right away, aha, that is a number and not a symbol. But stick 1.41 into Anthyphairesis or stick 1.414 into Anthyphairesis or stick 1.4142 into Anthyphairesis and they all vanish, but stick a symbol like say 2c or say sqrt2 into Anthyphairesis and they just recur forever.
So a huge fool like Stillwell thinks he has a proof that sqrt2 is irrational because he sticks a symbol into Anthyphairesis.
But, the fool Stillwell believes that a Rational number is a number of the form x/y where x is an integer and y is an integer. Stillwell the fool believes an irrational cannot be placed in a form of x/y. So, ask the fool what is 1.4 if not 14/10, ask the Stillwell fool what is 1.41 if not 141/100, ask the fool what is 1.414 if not 1414/1000. Anyone with a gram of logic can see that the square root of 2 as written as a DECIMAL automatically obeys the definition of being a Rational Number. An irrational number, if one exists, cannot be written as a decimal number.
And if you cannot write a number as a Decimal number, it simply is not a number at all.
No wonder the Ancient Greeks found a phony and fake proof that square root of 2 is irrational-- for the Ancient Greeks never had the Decimal Number System. But that is no excuse for fools like Stillwell who keep perpetuating this fakery idea that irrational numbers exist.
So, math community-- take fake math off the shelves and stop polluting the minds of young students with your foolish nonsense.
AP

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-13 06:03:03 UTC

Why not admit a ellipse is never a conic— you cannot run or hide from the truth

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Zelos Malum

2018-08-13 08:28:58 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why not admit a ellipse is never a conic— you cannot run or hide from the truth

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Neither can you and you are worng

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-14 01:27:38 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Neither can you and you are worng

Dan Christensen wrote:

4:58 PM (3 hours ago)

Post by Zelos Malum
Re: WARNING TO ALL STUDENTS: Don't be a victim,,,
Should be "plutonium (Pu) atom" ,,,,,,

AP writes: What Dan and Malum are trying to warn students is that Stillwell cannot even admit the ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section, and his stupid history of math book still shows pictures of a ellipse being a conic when it never is a conic, it is a cylinder section.

So, warning, yes that Stillwell is toxic to math education, not even mentioning his silly daffy anthyphairesis arguement which is true only because a symbol for a number can be reduced as a number-- duh duh duh.

So, yes Dan, these men are toxic to math education, for they never can admit to error and never seem to want to correct errors-- I guess they just want to make money and fame.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-20 06:27:53 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Neither can you and you are worng
Those are some shit principles and serves no good. To be honest, all of those are more arithmetic than algebra.

AP writes: Malum, are you gay? And stalking is your means of dating? Or are you just plain insane and lonely?

AP writes and wonders, since the group of stalkers is led by Dan:: Is Dan Christensen gay? And is that the reason for his 6 year long nonstop stalking attacks, doing a study on the hypothesis that most sci.math, sci.physics stalkers are gay, who failed science and now stalking the sci.math, sci.physics due to failure and that somehow, homosexuals in science, cannot seem to focus on objectivity-- studying if Volney/Moroney 25 year stalker, Dan Christensen 6 year stalker, KON 5 year stalker, Zelos Malum 2 year stalker, Jan Bielawski 23 year stalker, Jan Burse 4 year stalker, Alouatta 2 year stalker, Eastside 2 year stalker, whether they are all gay, and whether any of them actually has a degree in math. And whether being homosexual if they are gay , means, you cannot flourish in physics or math-- that seeing sex in a "opposite image" transfers onto not seeing the world of reality of science in a true image. I cannot think of one single famous physicist who was gay, not a one. And the gay stalkers are in sci.math, not for math but for their nuts. Nuts in the head, and nuts below. Dan, is this going to be a Harvard or MIT research?

Gay stalkers is the best explanation for why Moroney, Bielawski hang around stalking AP for 25 years. Stalking to a gay would be like dating to a straight. And this would explain why the above "gang up in a pack of stalkers", regardless of their mind-numbing error filled stupid math-- like their pathetic fake proof an ellipse is a conic that the moron Moroney cobbed from a dumb German and keeps posting it. And maybe, they visit one another as a vacation, to renew their pledge to hate monger in sci.math, sci.physics. How else do you explain a grown-up that stalks for 25 years long, other than being insane or being gay.

Do not get me wrong-- Gays are excellent in social skills, in people management, excellent in art and music. But in objectivity of science, they seem put off. So, is that why Moroney and Bielawski and Christensen, just can never ever ever stop their stalking misbehavior.

Zelos Malum

2018-08-20 09:15:44 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Malum, are you gay? And stalking is your means of dating? Or are you just plain insane and lonely?

Complete non-sequitors, pointing out where you are an idiot has nothign to do with this.

Peter Percival

2018-08-20 09:17:01 UTC

[...] I cannot think of one single famous physicist who was gay, not a one.

This
https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=dYZ6W4jhHrHgkgXm0Ku4Aw&q=physicists+who+were+homosexuals&oq=physicists+who+were+homosexuals&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2095.24498.0.24889.37.32.0.5.5.0.229.2759.24j5j1.30.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..2.31.2314...0j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.0.ZpgC8WN1WoE
may yield useful data.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-21 00:22:15 UTC

Thanks but sorry Peter i make no exceptions to my rule of visiting websites for security reasons.

Is it about Turing? Whom i say was not a physicist.

I need a big time physicist like Dirac or Faraday or Maxwell or even Newton.

The speculation i have is that when a mind is configured to be attracted to same sex— such a mind is not configured to see the reality of science properly. If your internal makeup is attracted to what it should not be attracted to— then that same make-up is not equipped to do hard science like physics.

I doubt there was a big scientist who was gay in all of human history.

AP

Jan

2018-08-21 06:43:35 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Why not admit a ellipse is never a conic—

Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres
So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?

--
Jan

b***@gmail.com

2018-08-20 06:30:59 UTC

Which wheelchair is better for gay AP brain farto?

|_ |_
|_| -or- |#|
* * * *

# = rainbow flag

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-23 05:28:45 UTC

Same old delusional,,,

AP writes: when is Stillwell ever going to correct his books on math history for the Ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder. Or does Stillwell never fix his mistakes?

Zelos Malum

2018-08-23 05:40:28 UTC

Same old delusional,,,

AP writes: when is Stillwell ever going to correct his books on math history for the Ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder. Or does Stillwell never fix his mistakes?

you sure never fix your mistakes.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-24 06:17:55 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
you sure never fix your mistakes.

On Thursday, August 24, 2018
Michael Moroney writes:

12:54 AM (less than a minute ago)

Post by Zelos Malum
You really aren't very smart, are you

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

Michael Moroney

2018-08-24 06:27:27 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: Moroney says "not very smart" for Stillwell cannot tell the
difference between a ellipse and a oval, can Stillwell tell the difference
between a rhombus and a square?

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

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

Some preliminaries:

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

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

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

Proof:

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

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

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

qed

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-25 22:14:31 UTC

Is Stillwell such a idiotic fool of mathematics, that he already states in his books that the ellipse is a conic, but, is Stillwell a supreme idiot of math that he would include the below travesty as justification?

I don't think Stillwell would stoop that low, unless, of course, Stillwell is writing comic math books

Post by Michael Moroney
You want to see the proof the ellipse is a conic section again? Sure!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-11-01 14:27:09 UTC

Does Stillwell also deny Global Warming, I mean, if you are so very stupid as to not recognize a cone cannot furnish a ellipse cut, but rather the ellipse comes only from the cylinder, then of course, Stillwell would be a numbskull of mathematics and Moroney has every right and reason to talk about Stillwell as a grown up baby.

Math Failure
You want to see the proof the ellipse is a conic section again? Sure!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-06-28 17:39:46 UTC

Post by Michael Moroney

You want to see the proof the ellipse is a conic section again? Sure!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.
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
Math Minnow

AP writes: you can say that again about Dr. Stillwell, a math minnow

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 65 pages
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 82 pages

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

v***@gmail.com

2019-06-28 18:08:49 UTC

At this new crank I have just discovered...

"The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction)"

3 OR 2 is a meaningless statement. In Boolean Algebra, there is 0 or 1. Representing false and true. It refers to logical statements, not of quantities. That is, "I will go to the mall and buy shoes" would be true if I went to the mall, and bought shoes. If I didn't buy shoes, then someone might say I was lying. Though, the natural language breaks from the formal one at times.

I mean, if you want to say OR should be exclusive OR then by all means go ahead, it won't affect the Boolean Algebra representation though except by name.

Michael Moroney

2019-06-28 19:35:52 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com
At this new crank I have just discovered...
"The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND"
and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic
ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local
village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either
3 or 2 (subtraction)"
3 OR 2 is a meaningless statement. In Boolean Algebra, there is 0 or 1.
Representing false and true. It refers to logical statements, not of quantities.
That is, "I will go to the mall and buy shoes" would be true if I went to the
mall, and bought shoes. If I didn't buy shoes, then someone might say I was
lying. Though, the natural language breaks from the formal one at times.

For strict Boolean logic that is 100% correct.

There are also the computer bitwise logical and/or/xor/not functions, which take a
fundamental unit of the computer (32 bits for a 32 bit machine, 64 bit for 64 bit
machine etc.) and do a single operation of 32/64/whatever Boolean operations all at
once. The programmer may be interested in one, some or all of the bits/results but
there may be only one or a few ways to do the function.

If you represent the operands and resulting bitfields as integers, you can get
meaningful statements such as 3 | 5 = 7 (3 or 5 = 7) because usually 3 is
representted as binary 00000011 and 5 as 00000101 (as unsigned 8 bit numbers) so:

00000011 3
00000101 5
--------
00000111 7

you do 8 simultaneous "OR" operations vertically and the result of 00000111 is a
representation of 7.

Mr. Plutonium is quite confused here. In addition to bizarre "truth" tables,
he seems to think that locical "AND" is the same as plus/sum (as if asking
someone "what is 2 and 2?") so his claim "3 AND 2 = 5" is confusion with 3 + 2 = 5
while using the computer bitwise logic I just described, 3 & 2 = 2.

00000011 3
00000010 2
--------
00000010 2

I have no idea what he thinks "OR" is supposed to mean.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-25 22:21:03 UTC

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-08-27 06:31:35 UTC

AP writes:: Stillwell does not know the difference between a ellipse and oval, otherwise he would acknowledge a ellipse is only a cylinder section, never a conic section. Can Stillwell tell the difference between a circle and a ellipse?

BTW how can the following proof that the ellipse is a conic section be
gay? More importantly, can you show us how it is wrong? No? Not today?
Not ever?
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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-09-07 01:11:07 UTC

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton,Per Martin-Lof says Zelos Malum "math cranks?" --cannot correct their mistake ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic for the oval is the conic

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 Zelos Malum wrote:
4:02 AM (15 hours ago)

Post by Zelos Malum
Crankery
Try to use these henceforth

Stockholm University
Math logic
Per Martin-Lof , Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton*, Pavel Kurasov
Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad
Samuel Lundqvist, Annemarie Luger , Erik Palmgren
Torbjorn Tambour

Rector: Astrid Soderbergh Widding

Carl XVI Gustaf

University Gothenburg
Bernt Wennberg
Aila Sarkka

/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Stockholm?
And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse.

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

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

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

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

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

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

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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-10-12 12:54:14 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Zelos Malum stalked:
5:30 AM (2 hours ago)

Post by Zelos Malum
This alone shows you what a crank you are.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-11-22 19:16:09 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Re: University of Guelph-- is this your spammer vvgra wanting to supply your school with conics? Chancellor Martha Billes, (please see AP proof below)

About the spammer vvgra
***@gmail.com spams

Nov 15

Post by Zelos Malum
solution manual for Supply Chain Management

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 20:26:00 -0800 (PST)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.96.186.45 Fergus Canada
Subject: Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage 8th
Edition test bank by Noe
From: ***@gmail.com

Is that your problem, Univ Guelph, you have no supply chain of conics??

The math dept of Univ of Guelph-- some of its professors are Ayesha Ali, Dan Ashlock, Jeremy Balka, Larry Banks, Monica Cojocaru, Gerarda Darlington, Lorna Deeth, Matthew Demers, Tony Desmond, Hermann Eberl, Zeny Feng, Marcus Garvie, Steve Gismondi, Julie Horrocks, Peter Kim, David Kribs, Herb Kunze, Anna Lawniczak, Kim Levere, Khurram Nadeem, Rajesh Pereira, William R. Smith, Gary Umphrey, Allan Willms, Bei Zeng

Chancellor Martha Billes

Martha, is the reason none of your math professors knows the ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, is it because none have a supply chain of conics on hand?

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

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

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

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

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

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

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

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-12-29 01:45:23 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

AP writes: I would not be so hard on John Stillwell, even though he has written a history of math book that is more aptly titled "Fake Mathematics and its History"

For John Stillwell spends much of his time foisting incredibly dumb and fake mathematics. Such as his Anthyphairesis, but worst of all his notion that the ellipse is a conic when it never was, all because John has a pinhead grasp of mathematics.

John Stillwell, just admit the ellipse was never a conic, that you made a big mistake on the conic and that you see that a High School student with a cone and Mason jar lid, that the section is a Oval in the cone never an ellipse. So come clean Stillwell and stop being a bozo numbskull.

And John Stillwell admit that 3 OR 2 = 5 is no hypocrisy you want to be teaching college students.

Post by Zelos Malum
Chattering Math Failure

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

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

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

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

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-01-22 20:07:16 UTC

How many pills do you take each day?

AP writes: I do not think the number of pills relates to the inability of John Stillwell to comprehend that the ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, for a slant cut of the cone has only 1 axis of symmetry

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

2019-01-22 20:11:29 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
the ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section

Some conic sections ARE ellipses. Need to see my proof again, Archie?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
for a slant cut of the cone has only 1 axis of symmetry

My proof shows that this is not so.

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-02-16 21:48:20 UTC

<snipped guff>
Meanwhile, back in reality, did you know that plutonium is a
radioactive substance, that its constituent atoms decay into daughter
products, that plutonium is not eternal but must continually be formed
in stars or the cosmos will run out of it?
Did you know that using plutonium to power nuclear reactors is
actually the second quickest method of reducing its radioactivity, the
first of course being making a big noise with it? Nuclear reactors are
the greenest, most cuddly bunny friendly way of generating power.
Did you know that the cosmos is at least ten gigayears old? That the
half-life of plutonium is a quarter of a million years? That the
universe is at least 40,000 half-lives of plutonium old?
Did you know that this would make the cosmos two to the power of
forty thousand times more likely to have decayed than to exist were
the cosmos a plutonium nucleus?
That means the cosmos is roughly ten to the 12,000 times more likely
to have decayed by now than it is to still be a plutonium nucleus.
That means the cosmos can *NOT* be a plutonium nucleus. By now it
should be *lead*.
Sort of like your brain.
J.

AP writes: John Stillwell, no wonder you are never going to learn true math when you cannot even concentrate that the Ellipse is never a conic and your idiotic believe in Boole logic that 3 OR 2 = 5, when any small kid knows it is 3 AND 2 = 5

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-02-19 01:37:51 UTC

You are aware you are a crank, right?

AP writes: no, I do not think Stillwell will ever admit that a ellipse is never a conic. I think he is so stupid of math that he will never read nor understand nor comprehend that a ellipse cannot come out of a conic. What the English and Australians would call "blithering stupid in math"

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

Let us analyze AP's Proof

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

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

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

Michael Moroney

2019-02-19 04:46:46 UTC

You are aware you are a crank, right?

AP writes: no, I do not think

Cranks are always the last to realize that they are cranks.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by

You need to see that wonderful ellipse proof again? Here it is!
Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

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

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

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

Proof:

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

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

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

qed

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-03-08 17:22:38 UTC

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?
You really should learn absic anythign before talking.

AP writes, worse yet on page 29 of that 3rd edition, Stillwell shows a ellipse as a conic section, was he borne yesterday, for the oval is that cut, never the ellipse.

Mike Hart

2019-03-08 18:50:24 UTC

MH tells AP to buy a wooden cone with sections done (Apollonius Cone) and check it out by himself, given he can't get through a proof of certain cone sections being ellipses.

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-04-06 01:16:40 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

AP writes: you can say that again about the picture of a ellipse as a conic in Stillwell's math history. I mean, can the guy even think with reasoning-- for the oval is the slant cut

Post by Zelos Malum
That at 52,000 half-lives it is bloody unlikely that the "Atom
Banality" cosmos would even exist? And at however many trillions of
half-lives of impossible Pu-231 it has endured through, it is
*extremely* unlikely that it would, even were such an unlikely atom to
ever be built?
In short, how stupid are you?
Can't you read Wikipedia?
J.

AP writes: not for one minute do I believe the above is Dr. Stillwell, for although he falls to pieces on the ellipse, he at least can think with some reasoning on physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-04-24 18:44:30 UTC

Earle Jones wrote:
1:28 PM (9 minutes ago)

When you plant the trees, the roots go down, not up.

earle

AP writes: Yes, I agree that all of Stillwell's math books are worth the trash pile because like Earle Jones, neither can admit the truth of mathematics that an ellipse is never a conic, and these two jokers hop skip and jump to the insane tune of 2 OR 3 = 5 with 2 AND 3 = 1.

Both would benefit by reading AP's two Kindle books:

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00    Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles  $5.00 to buy

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

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

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

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

Length: 60 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $1.99

File Size: 761 KB
Print Length: 60 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00    Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles  $3.00 to buy

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-05-08 05:25:23 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?
You havent even fucking defiend what "uniqueness" means

AP writes: I was not aware Dr. Stillwell had shortcomings of "uniqueness". I do know he does not know a ellipse from an oval, for sure.

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00    Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles  $3.00 to buy

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-06-02 19:16:54 UTC

Stillwell blind to mathematics Re: Why is John Stillwell such a numbskull on Irrational numbers-- his book Mathematics and its History

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Stillwell cannot even do a geometry proof of FTC nor see that a ellipse is never a conic *And, Stillwell flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

... screws up everything
Can anybody see what he did? ....

If you mean on page 29 of Stillwell's Mathematics and its History, 3rd edition, 2010, then yes of course John Stillwell is a major screw-up in mathematics, perhaps blind in both eyes to math for even a High School student can demonstrate a ellipse is never a conic.

On Sunday, June 2, 2019 at 10:34:45 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)

Post by Zelos Malum
What's sin(45)? What's cos(45)? If you can't do it, what use is
your trig?

AP writes: Yes Stillwell flunked math for he can never provide a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, nor worse, he must have some eye problem for a High School student can demonstrate with paper cone and Kerr or Mason lid that the slant cut in cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse.

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00    Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles  $5.00 to buy

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00    Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles  $3.00 to buy

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

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-07-02 23:23:36 UTC

AP writes: why does not the imp of math history, Dr. Stillwell just recall all his stupid history of math books, get them off the market as trash math that teaches ellipse is a conic when it never was. Or does Dr. Stillwell just want to be a stupid idiot of Math History

But it was observed more than once that you too, don't have a proper logic, sure

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

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

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

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

Babbling kO0k

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

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

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

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

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

Fired from my first real programming job.
Am I in the wrong field?

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

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

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 363 pages

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

Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow

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

Autistic

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

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

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

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

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

Only if you failed Calculus would you think that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

Michael Moroney

2019-07-03 02:01:40 UTC

AutisticPlutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
We know Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney are

"We"? You still think your diseased cats have opinions on Dan and me? And
your diseased cats are *still* asking you for food? Feed them! (and take them to
the vet!) They are not meowing because they are agreeing with you, they are hungry!

x-no-archive: yes

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-07-05 20:51:13 UTC

Excerpt from my latest book:

Now, do I have enough numbers data to tell me the length of the Carbon atom Lewis Arm?

slowly coming into focus Re: length of the carbon atom's Lewis Arm

This is slowly coming into focus in my mind. Since the metallic bond is a surface area kissing contact, I suspect I need a area of the metal bond of iridium and once I have that area I transfer that area onto the carbon to carbon bond to tell me how long and wide the Lewis Arm is so that the area for the Lewis Arm Structure is the same area for equal force of bonding of plates of Parallel Capacitors.

AP writes: no use in asking Dr. Stillwell, for he is still in caveman thinking on the ellipse is a conic when the slant cut of a cone is never an ellipse but rather a oval. Dr. Stillwell is error filled math.

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

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

Length: 69 pages

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

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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Michael Moroney

2019-07-06 00:18:07 UTC

kibo-- boar hog with tits Re: kibo Parry Moroney, booted out of sci.physics-- kibo is useless

Archimedes Plutonium made a wonderful discovery when he discovered the existence
of the prehistoric California Desert Walrus. This rare creature is unknown to
science, as only the tusks have been discovered. However Plutonium discovered
that since there were no fish for the California Desert Walrus to feed on, it
depended on other prey. It was the local apex predator, preying on the local
tigers. The California Desert Walrus would deliver a lethal blow to the tiger by
biting it in the mouth. The California Desert Walrus's tusks would break off and
jam the tiger's mouth open. The California Desert Walrus followed its prey around
until it died of exhaustion from its mouth being pried open, then the California
Desert Walrus would feast on the body of the tiger. The tusks grew back the next
day.

Stupid scientists thought the tiger skeletons with California Desert Walrus tusks
jamming its mouth open were actually the mythical Saber Tooth Tiger. How silly that
they didn't discover the hunting techniques of the California Desert Walrus, jamming
the mouths of its prey open with its tusks!

x-no-archive: yes

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-17 16:11:55 UTC

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

David Petry & kibo Parry Moroney seem to think that some people like Dr. Stillwell are Oval -Ellipse blind

Math Minnow
Mathematical truth: what should be true, but shouldn't be provable (1)
By David Petry 1 post 2 views updated Aug 20
Mathematics abstraction vs make-believe
By David Petry 58 posts 228 views updated 1:23 AM
Difference between applied mathemtics and pure mathematics (6)
By David Petry 26 posts 91 views updated 10:19 AM
Is the reason Dr. Tao cannot admit ellipse is never a conic, his IQ is less than 30 from AP (so suggests Petry)

It's been said that if there's a gap of roughly 30 IQ points or more between two people, then any kind of communication between them beyond "would you like fries with that? Yes, please" is virtually impossible. I'm thinking that might explain a lot of what's going on in this newsgroup.

AP writes: So David Petry is suggesting that Dr.Tao is deficient of 30 IQ points versus AP and is the reason Dr. Tao cannot understand the ellipse is never a conic even with the simple High School proof AP wrote in his book (see below). I suppose on the bright side, with a 30 point discrepancy, that Dr. Tao is able to tie his shoe laces because a cone and oval are not involved.
Is the reason Dr. Tao cannot tell the difference between ellipse and oval-- he has a 30 minus IQ ?? AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My IQ is above 160

Really? What do you base that on? What tests have you taken?
It's my guess that a lot of the "cranks" in this newsgroup would score quite high on an IQ test. I'll go ahead and name names here. I think Ross Finlayson, James S. Harris, Pete Olcott, John Gabriel, and maybe others who don't come to mind at the moment, would score higher than most of the non-cranks here. Even AP, I suspect, has an above average IQ. I wonder if any research has been done on this phenomenon. I didn't find anything with google, though I didn't look particularly hard.
Does anyone want to speculate on why this may be the case? Or do you all doubt it?

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-23 04:25:35 UTC

1) Drink piss.
2) Eat poop.
3) Shut up.
4) Idiot.

I would think that Dr. Stillwell has a moral crisis, much like many people have a midlife crisis. For there is Dr. Stillwell with a idiotic math textbook showing the ellipse to be a conic, when it never was. And this correction has been published by AP in sci.math and in Kindle book of a proof the Ellipse is never a conic.

But that proof has been around since 2016, yet there is the flaky idiot Dr. Stillwell still teaching the ellipse is a conic, and never even budging to remove that failed idea out of his books. Perhaps Stillwell wants to be a Math Comic Writer, not a math truth writer.

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

David Petry & kibo Parry Moroney seem to think that some people like Dr. Stillwell are Oval -Ellipse blind

My IQ is above 160

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-23 19:17:30 UTC

1 post
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

1 post
Re: Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

1 post
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

4 posts
Re: How safe are Canadian students from NOT being cornholed by Dan Christensen and his 12 Angry Men
By Alex. Last updated 10/21/19

1 new
2 posts
Re: Archimedes "I ate my own brain!" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

1 post
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

1 post
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

2 posts
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

1 post
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19

2 posts
Re: Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/20/19

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-24 17:51:39 UTC

Tapeworm of Math and Planaria of Physics

AP writes: I do not think Dr. Stillwell is a tapeworm of math for he runs and hides away from ELLIPSE is never a conic but always a cylinder cut. What I do know is that kibo Parry Moroney is a insane shithead stalker of 27 years.

Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
1 post
Re: Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
1 post
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
4 posts
Re: How safe are Canadian students from NOT being cornholed by Dan Christensen and his 12 Angry Men
By Alex. Last updated 10/21/19
1 new
2 posts
Re: Archimedes "I ate my own brain!" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
1 post
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
1 post
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
2 posts
Re: Archimedes "wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
1 post
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/21/19
2 posts
Re: Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
By Michael Moroney. Last updated 10/20/19

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-25 05:07:03 UTC

Tapeworm of Math and Planaria of Physics

AP writes: I do not think Dr. Stillwell is a tapeworm of math, just because he is too feeble to place a Kerr or Mason jar lid inside a paper cone and see for himself the oval is the slant cut. No, not a tapeworm but just a academic fool

Tapeworm of Math and Planaria of Physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-07-09 04:19:22 UTC

Imp of Physics and Gnat of Math

AP writes: hush, Stillwell knows a lot more than you will ever, he is just blind to the ellipse is not a conic and every one of the topics listed below. How much of Stillwell's history of math remains once you apply the below? Perhaps his 600 page book is reduced to the size of my textbook 363 pages.

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

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length: 363 pages

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

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

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

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-08-01 16:53:24 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

solution manual for Company Accounting: Australia-New Zealand Edition 5th Edition (1)
By tomato hello 1 post 0 views updated 6:37 AM

AP writes: I am pretty sure no spamming solution manual or spamming book has a proof that ellipse is never a conic, for that is the oval

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-08-07 06:49:53 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?
has certainly lost his marbles. Whereas the two above are at least able to slightly comprehend what is being said

AP writes: Yes, but can any of these three gentlemen even comprehend that a ellipse is never a conic or are they all three as dumb as dirt.

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

Length: 21 pages

Eram semper recta

2019-08-07 12:24:20 UTC

Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

Why do you keep replying to this lunatic AP? Oh, I see ... he reminds you of yourself?

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-18 06:23:30 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?

AP: yes, one of Stillwell's worst garbage is his brown nosing Wiles, I guess Wiles published some of Stillwell in return expecting reviews in his book

Post by Zelos Malum
Pointing out that you are an idiot is nto stalking
So you worked on 10-adic rationals, big fucking whoop?

AP: I do not recall Stillwell doing adics

Post by Zelos Malum
And that is a limitation of function which is stupid. Like you.

AP: to be fair, Stillwell published an Old Math history, something your dumb mind could never do, Malum.

Post by Zelos Malum
THey are rigorously defined, you are just too stupid to get anything.

AP: well Stillwell still thinks an ellipse is a conic, and that is stupid.

Post by Zelos Malum
This is just crap from you.
Rest is you using this crap

AP writes: Malum just came out of a Old Math classroom, and that is why he talks like that

Michael Moroney

2019-09-18 16:56:30 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Pointing out that you are an idiot is nto stalking

Howo could the truth be stalking?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP: well Stillwell still thinks an ellipse is a conic, and that is stupid.

Oh you need it explained to you (again) why the ellipse is a conic section?
Maybe thos excellent proof can help you!

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

x-no-archive: yes

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-25 23:27:09 UTC

Autistic
Tapeworm of Math and Planaria of Physics
Math Failure

AP writes: Shame that Dr. Stillwell is so dumb in geometry that he still thinks a ellipse is a conic. When even the oaf kibo Parry Moroney, a village idiot of Boston, as he sticks a Kerr or Mason lid inside a paper cone, even that village idiot sees it is a oval, never the ellipse.

Michael Moroney

2019-10-25 23:33:07 UTC

AP writes: Shame that Dr. Hales is so dumb in geometry that he still thinks
a ellipse is a conic.

Oh you still need to see the ellipse proof yet again. OK.

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

Some preliminaries:

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

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

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

Proof:

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

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

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

qed

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-26 16:54:06 UTC

Autistic
Sea Hag of Math and Goon of Physics

Dr. Stillwell is so dumb in geometry that he still thinks a ellipse is a conic. When even the oaf kibo Parry Moroney, a village idiot of Boston, as he sticks a Kerr or Mason lid inside a paper cone, even that village idiot can see it is a oval.

This must be what convinced Dr. Stillwell the ellipse is a conic proof for he never complains about it. And most of everything else Dr. Stillwell does in math is modeled on this ineptitude of his.

Tapeworm of Math and Planaria of Physics
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

If you believe in the above then this is a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the right triangle:

C

A B

Proof:

AB^2

BC^2

CA^2

Hence A^2 + B^2 = C^2

qed

AP writes: What the above is -- is rambling incoherent steps and proof by--"I say it is a proof". Sort of garbage math that fills Dr. Stillwell's math history books such as his stupid claim of a proof of irrationals via anthyphairesis. Because Dr. Stillwell is such a dumb stupid cad of mathematics that he will never realize that is not a proof of irrational-- only a argument that whenever you stick a "nonnumber" like sqrt2 into a equation, of course you cannot dismiss the nonnumber just as you cannot dismiss "ten blades of grass" in a math equation.

I would demand my tuition money back at whatever college the fruitcake Dr. Stillwell is teaching at, with shenanigans like this going on, and inept incompetents like Dr. Stillwell.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-27 06:22:11 UTC

ever told us what psychiatric drugs he has been prescribed?

AP writes: Well, David Petry, Dr.Stillwell lives near you in California, why not just ask him yourself.

And while your at it, ask him why is he so feeble in math intelligence to not experiment hands on by putting a Kerr lid inside a paper cone and proving it is a oval, never the ellipse

Dr. Stillwell is so dumb in geometry that he still thinks a ellipse is a conic. When even the oaf kibo Parry Moroney, a village idiot of Boston, as he sticks a Kerr or Mason lid inside a paper cone, even that village idiot can see it is a oval.
This must be what convinced Dr. Stillwell the ellipse is a conic proof for he never complains about it. And most of everything else Dr. Stillwell does in math is modeled on this ineptitude of his.

If you believe in the above then this is a proof of the Pythagorean theorem.
C
A B
AB^2
BC^2
CA^2
Hence A^2 + B^2 = C^2
qed
AP writes: What the above is -- is rambling incoherent steps and proof by--"I say it is a proof". Sort of garbage math that fills Dr. Stillwell's math history books such as his stupid claim of a proof of irrationals via anthyphairesis. Because Dr. Stillwell is such a dumb stupid cad of mathematics that he will never realize that is not a proof of irrational-- only a argument that whenever you stick a "nonnumber" like sqrt2 into a equation, of course you cannot dismiss the nonnumber just as you cannot dismiss "ten blades of grass" in a math equation.
I would demand my tuition money back at whatever college the fruitcake Dr. Stillwell is teaching at, with shenanigans like this going on, and inept incompetents like Dr. Stillwell.
AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-29 05:34:11 UTC

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

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

AP writes: Dr. Stillwell, is your ellipse 12% short of a math brain just like kibo Parry Moroney's arithmetic?

Dr. Stillwell must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Stillwell is
silent// but does Stillwell also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

Ellipse proof? Did you say ellipse proof?? (btw it's Franz's proof, not
mine)
Here you go!
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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-29 20:40:30 UTC

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
AP writes: Dr. Stillwell, is your ellipse 12% short of a math brain just like kibo Parry Moroney's arithmetic?
Dr. Stillwell must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Stillwell is
silent// but does Stillwell also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-30 15:32:16 UTC

Screwfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
AP writes: Dr. Stillwell, is your ellipse 12% short of a math brain just like kibo Parry Moroney's arithmetic?
Dr. Stillwell must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Stillwell is
silent// but does Stillwell also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-11-03 18:03:58 UTC

14- What is thrown out as fakery or irrelevant in New Math-- we throw out all Old Math calculus textbooks //Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

List of Topics that is Fake Math or Irrelevant Minutiae

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

1) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.

2) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. The Smallest set of numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.

3) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers)

4) Reals thrown out completely (ditto)

5) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely

6) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.

7) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space)

8) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept

9) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math.

10) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area

11) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast

12) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes then ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture puts such a logical misfit as a figurehead of logic

13) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time

14) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.

15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.

16) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.

17) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials

18) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum

19) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum

20) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum

21) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth

22) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity

23) Vector Calculus, Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions

24) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum

25) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.

This list is ongoing, and is the preface of Teaching True Mathematics for Sophomore College year. To show students what math to avoid as a total fake and waste of time.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet

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

Botfly of Math and Jigger Flea of Physics
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
AP writes: Dr. Stillwell, is your ellipse 12% short of a math brain just like kibo Parry Moroney's arithmetic?
Dr. Stillwell must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Stillwell is
silent// but does Stillwell also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

Zelos Malum

2019-10-29 06:30:20 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP: yes, one of Stillwell's worst garbage is his brown nosing Wiles, I guess Wiles published some of Stillwell in return expecting reviews in his book

AP; you're the one making garbage.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP: I do not recall Stillwell doing adics

Do you even know what 10-adic numbers are?

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: Malum just came out of a Old Math classroom, and that is why he talks like that

Better comming out of an old classroom than NO classroom, like you. You have never studied mathematics.

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-07 05:46:28 UTC

Post by Zelos Malum
Foolish nonsense? You mean like the garbage you come with constantly?
considering you don't even know mathematics, don't fuckign try to teach any!

AP writes: that is not a nice thing to say about Dr. Stillwell, even though he still thinks a ellipse is a conic when it never was, and he believes that 10 OR 4 = 14, or else he would have spoken up by now. But it is sad that Dr. Stillwell keeps polluting the minds of youngsters in math with these falsehoods.

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages

Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-08 23:59:47 UTC

You're going to give up soon. You don't know algebra.

AP writes: yes, Dr. Stillwell should give up mathematics, for to this day he preaches the ellipse is a conic when it never was, it is a cylinder section as seen in AP's Kindle published proof.

But just as bad, Dr. Stillwell believes in the bozo logic of 10 OR 4 = 14, and how can any proof given by Stillwell be valid with someone who has an invalid Logic going in.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-14 18:13:49 UTC

sad that they make him feel dumb?

AP writes: not only is Dr. Stillwell dumb dumb dumb in math, but worse is Malum with a big stupid mouth.

Both can benefit from reading AP's math books starting with conics and ellipse

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

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

Length: 21 pages

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

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019 I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
Length: 74 pages

File Size: 1445 KB
Print Length: 74 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M

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

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages

Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

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

#1 New Releasein General Geometry

Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is the one textbook that carries every person through all his/her math education, 5 year old to senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this one.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 1 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 2 carries the Freshperson in College for their math education.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that Old Math is filled with error, mistakes and just sheer irrelevant nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best way forward is throw out all of Old Math and start anew. Originally I thought I could start with 8 year olds, but saw the TV show "Odd Squad" with their negative numbers and had to drop down to 5 year olds, so they do not get polluted and brainwashed with fake math.

Length: 370 pages

File Size: 1996 KB
Print Length: 370 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

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

This is volume 2, series 2 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson of age 18-19. This is 1st year college calculus math. It is the continuation of volume 1 for ages 5 through 18 years old. The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism. The end goal of this textbook is to teach all math, physics, chemistry, biology and hard sciences the mathematics they need to continue in science. This textbook at the end teaches students the mathematics of electricity and magnetism. In Old Math, they devoted about 1/3 of their textbook content to reach the Maxwell Equations at the end, but sadly, no Old Math textbook was ever able to cover the Maxwell Equations with any comprehension, and left the students with headaches, nightmares and nervous breakdowns of the mathematics needed to do electricity and magnetism. This textbook resolves all those problems. And this textbook asks the students and parents of students to equip their daughter or son with a tool kit of instruments to do electricity and magnetism.
Cover Picture is my EM instruments to gain numbers for the laws of EM theory: a multimeter, galvanometer attached to a coil with a strong bar magnet inside. Three electromagnets and a transformer to step down 120 volts to 12 volts to run the electromagnets. A case of iron powder to measure the strength of magnets and a battery case. I urge students who can afford these instruments to use them as you take this course in calculus.
Length: 132 pages

Product details
File Size: 1316 KB
Print Length: 132 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD

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

#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages

Product details
File Size: 1028 KB
Print Length: 54 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #163,693 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#548 in Calculus (Books)
#55 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 

Dan Christensen

2018-04-25 13:30:44 UTC

I am talking about...

Math failure Archie Pu scored 0/4 on this easy little math test (answers given here):

Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.

1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? (0.707 from calculator)

2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 (False)

3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is (False)

4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is (True)

0/4. What a numbskull!

Dan

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-04-03 15:51:46 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
Math failure

Do i hear cheers from student

Were you ever able to obtain a value for the sine of 45 degrees in your goofy trig system,

AP writes: well, first Dr. Stillwell has to admit the true truth tables of logic, for he is still a education parasite with his AND as TFFF when it truly is TTTF, leading to the absurd 3 OR 2 = 5 for Stillwell, I mean, how does the guy even get out of the bed each day and face mathematics with his 3 OR 2 = 5. Before he corrects his other mistakes-- ellipse was never a conic, and a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-04-10 20:23:51 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
Math failure

Discussion
1st-ever photo of a black hole to be revealed (Live news conference now)
By Dan Christensen 2 posts 8 views updated 9:05 AM

Discussion
Financial Management: Theory and Practice 14th Edition solution manual (1)
By tomato hello 1 post 2 views updated 8:02 AM

Discussion
test bank for Elementary Linear Algebra: Applications Version, 11th Edition by Howard Anton (1)
By ***@gmail.com 1 post 2 views updated

AP writes: apparently the education of Dan Christensen was reading spam solution manuals and believing news reports by con-artist scientists

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-05-31 22:30:42 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
Math failure

AP writes: we know Dr. Stillwell is a math failure with his ellipse.

***@gmail.com wrote:
5:13 PM (4 minutes ago) 31May2019

Post by Dan Christensen
That's not right
Here's what to do,

AP writes: Eastside indicates it is hopeless for Dr. Stillwell to ever learn to fix Trigonometry because Dr. Stillwell still cannot admit ellipse is never a conic, a AP discovery of 2016 and here it is 3 years later and Dr. Stillwell still polluting the mind of young students that a ellipse is a conic when the slant cut is truly a OVAL, not the ellipse.

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-07-23 19:29:36 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? (0.707 from calculator)
2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 (False)
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is (False)
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is (True)
0/4. What a numbskull!
Dan

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

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

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

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

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-10-21 03:06:00 UTC

Jan

2018-04-25 17:58:41 UTC

You are totally delusional. Also, cut that idiotic habit of yours of calling
people names, this is not how adults do math and science.

--
Jan

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-11-02 15:10:26 UTC

Post by Jan
You are totally delusional. Also, cut that idiotic habit of yours of calling
people names, this is not how adults do math and science.
--
Jan
Screwfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics

AP writes: yes Kibo moron Parry, stop calling people a blowfly

AP writes: Just because Jan Burse stalks and is a math failure does not mean all Swiss stalk and are math failures. We learn this in Logic but Burse failed that also with his 10 OR 4 = 14

Kibo Parry Moroney is a worse failure than Jan Burse, for at least Burse knows 8.88 is not 12% short of 9.00 for Kibo is a worthless math clown stalking sci.math for 27 years

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-06-20 06:31:45 UTC

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

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

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

Loading Image...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-07-06 19:15:47 UTC

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

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

The 4 connectors of Logic are:

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

New Logic

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

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

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

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

T T

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

While addition is and with a Space like this

T T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-07-17 16:47:06 UTC

#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.

Archimedes Plutonium

2018-07-21 04:01:32 UTC

#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, they seem to never be able to fix math of mistakes, only pollute math further, 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.

Here is a proof that Decimal Number system is superior to all other number systems--

#2-11 LESSON:
On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 12:53:24 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
discovering why the Decimal Number System is superior over all other number base systems

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2018 23:10:32 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: proof at last, why Decimals are the superior base Re: discovering why
the Decimal Number System is superior over all other number base systems
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 06:10:32 +0000

proof at last, why Decimals are the superior base Re: discovering why the Decimal Number System is superior over all other number base systems

Let me go to bed with perhaps the best answer for why Decimals are superior and the only valid Number System for all of math. And binary and other base systems are just mediocre local use systems, not general for all of mathematics.

I am so glad I am the first mathematician to discover the Array Proof of mathematics, where we simply get right to the "heart of the matter" and shuck aside all the teasing and leading up to what makes a proof work. We waste no time in building up the answer, we go directly to the heart.

Scale Numbers

Perfect Numbers are those which have only 1s and 0s, and only one 1 is allowed.
.
.
.
10000
1000
100
10
1
.1
.01
.001
.0001
.00001
.
.
.
0

Alright, only the Decimal Base Number system is built from a "natural in house scale number" There is no number system built on 0 or 1, they are lacking substance. So, the first number in all the Counting Numbers that is a scale number for a number system is 10. And once you have 10 as a number system, then you no longer need say a base 100 system or a 1000 base system because base 10 absorbs all other scale numbers.

Now here I need to define prime number. A prime number is a Counting Number that can be divided only by itself and 1. The first 10 prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, . . .

All other number systems are artificial and have a local use, not general enough. For example, base 2, we call 2 = 10 not because it has a 5 prime in 2, but only artificially do we call 2=10 and only artificially we call 4 = 100.

In ternary base, we call 3=10 only artificially for 3 has no 5 nor 2 in it.

Same goes for every other base except 10 (and its derivatives-- 100, 1000 etc)

Only in base 10, in decimals does the primes 2 and 5 which compose all Scale numbers appear naturally.

So, that is the proof that Decimals are the Superior base, because Decimals are a Scale-Numbers base.

Well, now I can go to bed and sleep sound, and that was not hard after all. Just a little recognition of basic facts.

Alright, it is now 7 April, and let me write out that proof for 13 year olds. Since this is the first proof in this textbook. And what is a proof in Math? Well, a proof is simply a fancy well thought out argument that shows the truth of a beginning statement.

Statement: Decimal Number System is special and the only number system good enough to handle all of mathematics, and other number systems are not good enough, not general enough.

Proof:: Every Number System Base has a 10 number in it. For binary it is 2, where 2 = 10, for ternary it is 3 where 3 = 10, etc etc. But one Number System has it where 10 actually equals 10, and is the decimal system, because in decimals, 2 x 5 = 10. And 10 is the first Scale-Number after 1. The large Scale Numbers are 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc etc. So, why are Decimals the only good enough Number System to do all of mathematics and the other systems fail? Because every Number System has a "10" number, and only Decimals have it where 10 actually equals 10 = 2x5. QED

Now the symbol "QED" simply means end of proof, and is a Latin abbreviation for quod erat demonstrandum, meaning-- what was to be demonstrated.

So the above is the very first proof the Grade School math takes up.

Why is Decimal System special? Because 10 actually equals 10= 2x5

Why does all of Mathematics have to be based on Decimals and any other number system is just a fly by local use? Because only in Decimals does 10 actually equal 10 = 2x5.

Alright, here, teacher, not much exercise or homework, just a study of many terms and what they mean--

1) proof
2) statement
3) QED
4) prime
5) scale-number
6) decimal number system
7) binary number system
8) ternary number system

Go over these concepts until you feel the students get it.

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

b***@gmail.com

2018-07-17 19:07:41 UTC

Will your wheelchair have decimal
or hexadecimal wheels?

This one:

|__
|__|
o o

Or this one:

|__
|__|
* *

Michael Moroney

2018-12-01 08:06:58 UTC