Archimedes Plutonium
2024-02-04 21:51:46 UTC
My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
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.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#12-3, My 24th published book
World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Product details
• ASIN : B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date : March 20, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 60 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-4, My 28th published book
World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Product details
ASIN : B07PZ2Y5RV
Publication date : March 23, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1183 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 34 pages
Lending : Enabled
#12-5, My 6th published book
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
Preface: Truthful 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.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
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).
Product details
• ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date : March 12, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-6, 19th published book
World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.
Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.
Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PS98K5H
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1990 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 113 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-7, My 20th published book
World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PMZQNNT
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1382 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 61 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-8, My 21st published book
World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PN1CPRP
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1534 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 28 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-9, My 15th published book
World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 15th published book of science.
Preface: Much has changed in the general ideas of Logical Math Proofs, since 1991, when I first wrote a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. And by 2023, as I revise this book, I need to incorporate those changes. Even my outlook on what Primes are in mathematics, as a vague and incoherent set.
Many in math would be surprised to hear me say that Primes of mathematics is a vague incoherent set. But from 1991 when I first penned a Old Math proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes, so much has changed about what is a valid math proof and what are these curious numbers we call Primes. This book is my history of my encounter and battling of a very old conjecture-- the infinitude of twin primes.
Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
Product details
ASIN : B07PMY1YWB
Publication date : March 15, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1664 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
Print length : 38 pages
#12-10, 16th published book
World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 16th published book of science.
Preface: AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
Cover: Is an Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PS6MR48
• Publication date : March 15, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1743 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 44 pages
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
#38 in Number Theory (Books)
#7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#12-11, My 25th published book.
Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was January 2024. This is AP's 25th published book of science.
Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that a Riemann Hypothesis ever is borne out of a fake number system and just languished, languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake conjectures, and creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven-- simply because the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Number System. Quantum Physics proved in year 1900 with Planck that physics is discrete, not a continuum. But Old Math was too stupid of a community to follow physics example, and thus Old Math went deeper and deeper into the pit of dark falsehood with their Reals and ever more continuity and continuum.
Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis. There never exists a Riemann Hypothesis when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) My history behind the Riemann Hypothesis disproof.
2) By 2011, I realized the Zeta functions were never equal in the Riemann Hypothesis.
3) True numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, a discovery by me in 2013.
4) True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and are discrete, not continuous for they have holes of empty space between one and the next number.
5) Old Math never well-defined Series equality, especially for Euler Zeta and Riemann Zeta.
6) My first disproof of Riemann Hypothesis as seen in 2016.
7) Subtraction Fallacy of Zetas.
8) By late 2023, I found a better explanation of the Subtraction Paradox with years of a calendar.
9) Was the Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, also fake conjectures and proofs?
10) Is there a Geometry disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis-- yes quite simple and easy!
11) Ongoing commentary and reflection back.
12) The Summary of Riemann Hypothesis and its Disproof.
Product details
ASIN : B07PVDS1RC
Publication date : March 20, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1492 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 80 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-12, My 152nd published book.
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.
So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science". That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.
Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.
If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.
Product details
• ASIN : B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date : October 21, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 853 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 91 pages
#12-13, My 207th published book.
Building the Axioms of Mathematics, thereby the Rational Numbers are proven fake// Math proofs
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
Preface: In this, my 207th published book of science, I detail what the first three axioms (postulates) of mathematics Algebra-Numbers must be. And by doing so, I discover that Time is an essential ingredient in mathematics for the first axiom of Algebra-Numbers is the creation of Counting Numbers which is not a concept of quantity but a concept of Ordered Sequence, which is Time. And Time-- an Ordered-Sequence comes way before Quantity. Of course, in this book I prove the Rationals of Old Math are fake numbers,--- what I mean by fake, is that they are not primal numbers but derivations, derivates of primal numbers -- the Decimal Grid Numbers. Old Math Rationals are simply a division exercise unfinished by a lazy person. And since Rationals are fake numbers, secondary numbers means the Reals of Old Math are fake numbers since the Reals are built from Rationals.
I have written a remarkable book here. I started out with the intent of proving that Rational Numbers were not the true numbers of mathematics, but a unfinished division exercise, by lazy persons doing math. A proof came in my work. But what I discovered that is so remarkable, is that the Axioms of Numbers require a Order Sequence first, and only secondly does Quantity pop-out and enter the picture. This Order-Sequence is of course Time in physics.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Google search hits on "Euclid postulates axioms".
Product details
• ASIN : B0BGH88WFT
• Publication date : September 25, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 563 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 34 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-14, My 160th published book.
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
Product details
• ASIN : B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN : B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date : December 2, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1155 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 70 pages
• Lending : Enabled
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Psychology of why math professors cannot admit truth of conic-sections that the slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse-- because admission of the truth implies those math professors were cackling idiot-failures in geometry. So they run and hide.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
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.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#12-3, My 24th published book
World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
Product details
• ASIN : B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date : March 20, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 60 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-4, My 28th published book
World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
Product details
ASIN : B07PZ2Y5RV
Publication date : March 23, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1183 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 34 pages
Lending : Enabled
#12-5, My 6th published book
World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
Preface: Truthful 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.
Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
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).
Product details
• ASIN : B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date : March 12, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-6, 19th published book
World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.
Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.
Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PS98K5H
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1990 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 113 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-7, My 20th published book
World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PMZQNNT
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1382 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 61 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-8, My 21st published book
World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PN1CPRP
• Publication date : March 16, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1534 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 28 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-9, My 15th published book
World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 15th published book of science.
Preface: Much has changed in the general ideas of Logical Math Proofs, since 1991, when I first wrote a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. And by 2023, as I revise this book, I need to incorporate those changes. Even my outlook on what Primes are in mathematics, as a vague and incoherent set.
Many in math would be surprised to hear me say that Primes of mathematics is a vague incoherent set. But from 1991 when I first penned a Old Math proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes, so much has changed about what is a valid math proof and what are these curious numbers we call Primes. This book is my history of my encounter and battling of a very old conjecture-- the infinitude of twin primes.
Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
Product details
ASIN : B07PMY1YWB
Publication date : March 15, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1664 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
Print length : 38 pages
#12-10, 16th published book
World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 16th published book of science.
Preface: AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
Cover: Is an Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PS6MR48
• Publication date : March 15, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1743 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 44 pages
• Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
#38 in Number Theory (Books)
#7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
#12-11, My 25th published book.
Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was January 2024. This is AP's 25th published book of science.
Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that a Riemann Hypothesis ever is borne out of a fake number system and just languished, languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake conjectures, and creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven-- simply because the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Number System. Quantum Physics proved in year 1900 with Planck that physics is discrete, not a continuum. But Old Math was too stupid of a community to follow physics example, and thus Old Math went deeper and deeper into the pit of dark falsehood with their Reals and ever more continuity and continuum.
Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis. There never exists a Riemann Hypothesis when the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers.
--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------
1) My history behind the Riemann Hypothesis disproof.
2) By 2011, I realized the Zeta functions were never equal in the Riemann Hypothesis.
3) True numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, a discovery by me in 2013.
4) True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and are discrete, not continuous for they have holes of empty space between one and the next number.
5) Old Math never well-defined Series equality, especially for Euler Zeta and Riemann Zeta.
6) My first disproof of Riemann Hypothesis as seen in 2016.
7) Subtraction Fallacy of Zetas.
8) By late 2023, I found a better explanation of the Subtraction Paradox with years of a calendar.
9) Was the Prime Number Theorem and Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, also fake conjectures and proofs?
10) Is there a Geometry disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis-- yes quite simple and easy!
11) Ongoing commentary and reflection back.
12) The Summary of Riemann Hypothesis and its Disproof.
Product details
ASIN : B07PVDS1RC
Publication date : March 20, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1492 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 80 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
#12-12, My 152nd published book.
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.
Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.
So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science". That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.
Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.
If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.
Product details
• ASIN : B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date : October 21, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 853 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 91 pages
#12-13, My 207th published book.
Building the Axioms of Mathematics, thereby the Rational Numbers are proven fake// Math proofs
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
Preface: In this, my 207th published book of science, I detail what the first three axioms (postulates) of mathematics Algebra-Numbers must be. And by doing so, I discover that Time is an essential ingredient in mathematics for the first axiom of Algebra-Numbers is the creation of Counting Numbers which is not a concept of quantity but a concept of Ordered Sequence, which is Time. And Time-- an Ordered-Sequence comes way before Quantity. Of course, in this book I prove the Rationals of Old Math are fake numbers,--- what I mean by fake, is that they are not primal numbers but derivations, derivates of primal numbers -- the Decimal Grid Numbers. Old Math Rationals are simply a division exercise unfinished by a lazy person. And since Rationals are fake numbers, secondary numbers means the Reals of Old Math are fake numbers since the Reals are built from Rationals.
I have written a remarkable book here. I started out with the intent of proving that Rational Numbers were not the true numbers of mathematics, but a unfinished division exercise, by lazy persons doing math. A proof came in my work. But what I discovered that is so remarkable, is that the Axioms of Numbers require a Order Sequence first, and only secondly does Quantity pop-out and enter the picture. This Order-Sequence is of course Time in physics.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Google search hits on "Euclid postulates axioms".
Product details
• ASIN : B0BGH88WFT
• Publication date : September 25, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 563 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 34 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-14, My 160th published book.
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
Product details
• ASIN : B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN : B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date : December 2, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1155 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 70 pages
• Lending : Enabled
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.
PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Psychology of why math professors cannot admit truth of conic-sections that the slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse-- because admission of the truth implies those math professors were cackling idiot-failures in geometry. So they run and hide.