Is Oxford's Dr.Wiles,UCLA Dr.Tao,Pittsburgh'sDr.Hales using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS by Archimedes Plutonium for improved Calculus teaching, no vomiting in exams,no nervous breakdown, no torture chamber asks Kibo Parry-Volney

Discussion:

(too old to reply)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-09-18 09:16:40 UTC

Permalink

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

Is MIT,Dr.Stanley,Dr.Stark,Dr.Strang using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS by Archimedes Plutonium for improved Calculus teaching, no vomiting in exams,no nervous breakdown, no torture chamber asks Kibo Parry-Volney

MIT math dept.
Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan

Stanford University, math dept.

Gregory Brumfiel, Daniel Bump, Emmanuel Candès, Gunnar Carlsson, Moses Charikar, Sourav Chatterjee, Tom Church, Ralph Cohen, Brian Conrad, Brian Conrey, Amir Dembo, Persi Diaconis, Yakov Eliashberg, Robert Finn, Jacob Fox, Laura Fredrickson, Søren Galatius, George Schaeffer, Or Hershkovits, David Hoffman, Eleny Ionel, Renata Kallosh, Yitzhak Katznelson, Vladimir Kazeev, Michael Kemeny, Steven Kerckhoff, Susie Kimport, Jun Li, Tai-Ping Liu, Mark Lucianovic, Jonathan Luk, Frederick Manners, Rafe Mazzeo, James R. Milgram, Maryam Mirzakhani, Stefan Mueller, Christopher Ohrt, Donald Ornstein, George Papanicolaou, Lenya Ryzhik, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Rick Sommer, Kannan Soundararajan, Tadashi Tokieda, Cheng-Chiang Tsai, Ravi Vakil, András Vasy, Akshay Venkatesh, Jan Vondrák, Brian White, Wojciech Wieczorek, Jennifer Wilson, Alex Wright, Lexing Ying, Xuwen Zhu

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

the 30 year nonstop stalker Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney

"goonclod failure of logic"

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

196-TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

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

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is 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 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 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: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 
#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)

#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages

Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)

#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
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)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 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 ‏ : ‎ 65 pages

#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

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
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 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 ‏ : ‎ 71 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



to
In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



to
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------

|\
|...\
|....... |
---------

Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



to
By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.

No-one in math education cares about students in Old Math. No-one has ever Cleaned House of Old Math, but let the rotten fetid Old Math stench increase.

AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:56 AM (10 hours ago)



to

Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.

But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.

Cavalieri 1598-1647

So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.

Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).

The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.
But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.
Cavalieri 1598-1647
So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.
Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).
The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.

There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.

The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France. ***@mail.com.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

4:06 PM (6 hours ago)






to
Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.

Yes, in the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.
So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.

So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

Yes, now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.



Archimedes Plutonium

4:36 PM (5 hours ago)






to
Let me run a scenario for you, please.

There are 7-8 billion people on Earth today.

In the past 50 years we can roughly say that 50 million people studied Calculus in school or at home.

50 million people tried and attempted to learn calculus math.

I certainly was one amoung that 50 million.

And was AP the only one in 50 million to recognize that if you take polynomials as being the Only Valid Function that the Calculus becomes the Easiest, Super Easy math, because the Power Rules apply and where the derivative is simply a subtract 1 from exponent and the integral is add 1 to exponent.

I find it extremely sad and hard to believe that only AP saw how to make Calculus Super super super easy? Surely there must have been at least 25 million of those 50 million who found the derivative and integral of polynomials a joy and pleasure to do. Surely AP was not the only person in 50 million to see the Polynomial Calculus was a pleasure, fun and even exciting, rush to class to do a derivative or integral of a polynomial-- teacher, please give me more polynomial exercises. They are better than Star Trek on TV.

This is the whole point of a Revolution in Math Calculus.

When we make the only valid function in all of math be a Polynomial, we reduce calculus to adding 1 or subtracting 1.

We do not allow creeps, goons and kooks to clutter the table of math and calculus with their horrible awful smelly functions which are not polynomials. No, we disband these kooks and tell them go home and convert your worthless crap to be a polynomial before you can stink up the halls of mathematics. Convert your kook nonsense to a polynomial then you can come and do mathematics with us.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

8:11 PM (2 hours ago)






to

As a case in point, a mere example.

We have at MIT a Dr. Gilbert Strang with his Calculus textbooks, and I bought the 1991 edition of Calculus. And my opinion of Strang's text is scatterbrained. For I often find that Gilbert in lecturing on a topic is too quick to bring in side show issues, never focusing on just one topic.

But worst of this Strang text is he has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, no geometry proof and his Limit analysis of FTC is idiot of a proof-- ie-- no proof at all, for we all analyze things in the course of a day, and none of us are so preposterous as to think we have proven something above and beyond analyzing that something.

And so, I, AP reflects back to the time of 1968, when my name was Ludwig Hansen, sitting in a geology classroom of University of Cincinnati. Learning geology from a textbook that never discusses Continental Drift and this is 1968, mind you and Wegener had given massive evidence of Continental Drift way back to 1915, some 53 years later, AP and the classroom suffering from Truth of Science by having to buy a book about static-Earth, being tested graded lectured upon fake geology.

Not much difference from students sitting in classrooms at MIT or elsewhere buying Strang's CALCULUS with no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and where any fool function is allowed to enter, thousands and thousands of fool functions, when Mathematics has only one Valid Function-- the Polynomial function. For you can only arrive at a True Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by using polynomials as functions.

So how many students every year are punished by having to learn calculus with fool functions, with no valid proof of FTC. Where the calculus classroom puts students not through a Pleasure learning session but a gauntlet torture chamber, whipping the students into nervous breakdowns and vomiting during exams.

All for what??? How much money does Dr. Strang make from his awful book Calculus?? Let me guess estimate.

The book probably costs $100 in our inflation environment. And typically a author gets 1/2 of that in royalties.

Say MIT teaches a class of 100 students in calculus per year would be 50 x 100 = $5,000. And say a estimate that around the world there are 100 schools teaching from this book of 100 students in their classroom would make Gilbert $500,000 per year in book sales of his Calculus.

Same can be said of AP back in 1968 having to learn fake geology with no Continental Drift plate tectonics, so that some so called scientists reaps a reward of 1/2 a million dollars in book sales. And that thousands of students taught lectured and tested upon fake geology.

This is one of the grand benefits of a Usenet and a Internet, that we speed up the process of throwing out Fake -Math, fake-geology and all other fake sciences. Freedom of Speech of Internet of Usenet allows for science to be Showered, Cleaned UP, bathed from its wretched stink of Old fake science. Clean Up their science.

The only valid functions in mathematics are Polynomial Functions, which in turn, makes Calculus be super super super easy. No more vomiting by students in a calculus exam. No more nervous breakdowns by students taking calculus.

AP, King of Science

Volney

2023-09-18 15:40:08 UTC

Permalink

Gnat of Math and Phlea of Physics Archimedes "always wrong" Plutonium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
My 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Why do you still keep trying to brainwash little 5 year old kids?

WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is
offering to teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He
will corrupt the minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to
be a failure of math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else
to fail as well! He teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as
atoms contain the unstable muon, water is H4O and not H2O, the ellipse
isn't a conic section, there are no negative numbers and no complex
numbers, that a sine wave isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or
parabolas (depending on his mood), plus many, many other instances of
bad math and physics.

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

One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND
2 = 12. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a
false statement that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it
is false (which it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another
similar false statement such as 10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really
confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium is taking advantage of the
fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic and elementary
arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2.
Of course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and
false (1 or 0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and
"10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't let evil Plutonium's bad logic
confuse you!

Plutonium has been targeting children as young as 5. A new attempt to
corrupt the minds of young children is to teach that the alphabet has 12
letters, 6 vowels and 6 consonants. This sounds like a great way to
keep our children from reading!

Nobody knows why Plutonium wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like
this. Perhaps Plutonium is envious of their potential success, which he
never had because he is a failure at math and science. Plutonium is not
content to be a failure at math and physics all by himself. He wants
everyone to fail as well. Some claim Plutonium is an agent of China, in
order for China to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of
Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely, however, he is an agent of
Putin and Russia, since Plutonium has previously attempted to summon
Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt
to destroy mathematics.

Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to
convince students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of
Failure. This cult is anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal
is to promote failure in math and science.

There is some evidence this Cult of Failure may be a suicide cult.
Plutonium has advocated that the "good guy" nations join into a
supernation and threaten to "flatten" the (nuclear armed) "bad guy"
nations who misbehave. The idea may to initiate an all-out nuclear
war when "bad guy" nations retaliate. Not simply is Plutonium or his
cult committing suicide but would take Planet Earth with them. As the
war in Ukraine continues, Plutonium keeps asking NATO to attack the
Russians, starting a nuclear WW3, which he feels is unavoidable. More
evidence of Plutonium's Cult of Failure being a suicide cult.

Plutonium is now encouraging resistance fighters fighting the regimes
in Russia and Iran to attack power lines in Tehran and Moscow by
carrying long vertical aluminum poles under them, presumably to short
them out, complete with a diagram. Obviously, this will not end well
for for the resistance fighter. The question is, did he do this because
he is Putin's stooge trying to kill off resistance fighters? Or is this
part of Plutonium's Suicide Cult of Failure, meaning this is merely a
suggestion how to commit suicide while failing to harm the regimes? Or
both?

But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you one of his
dangerous books. Especially now since they are available for free from
otherwise legitimate Amazon.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-09-18 19:26:52 UTC

Permalink

Volney we know Dr.Hales is always wrong on math but have you quantified how much less vomiting during Calculus exams, or how much less nervous breakdowns of our young students or how much less nightmares of graduate students after going through the Old Math torture chamber called "calculus classroom"? Is there a quantity of "less" as students learn that calculus is just add 1 to exponent or subtract 1 from exponent as the --- Only Valid Functions in Mathematics are Polynomial functions---.

Post by Volney
"always wrong"

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-09-18 20:15:32 UTC

Permalink

Dan mentalfuckdog Christensen of Logic-- with his unmitigated bullshit of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for the mental basket case Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry Volney lunatics cannot fathom that Boole and Jevons made a mistake in truth tables. Jerks like Dan Christensen do not belong in teaching academics for their spiel is brainwash propaganda.

Volney & Harvard keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

Harvard Math dept Noam Elkies (FP),Dennis Gaitsgory (FP),Robin Gottlieb (PP),Benedict Gross (FP),Joseph Harris (FP),Heisuke Hironaka (EM),Michael Hopkins (FP),Arthur Jaffe (FP),David Kazhdan (EM),Mark Kisin (FP),Peter Kronheimer (FP),Jacob Lurie (FP),Eric Maskin (FP),Barry Mazur (FP),Curtis McMullen (FP),David Mumford (EM),Martin Nowak (FP),Gerald Sacks (EM),Wilfried Schmid (FP),Yum-Tong Siu (FP),Shlomo Sternberg (EM),John Tate (EM),Cliff Taubes (FP),Hugh Woodin (FP),Horng-Tzer Yau (FP),Shing-Tung Yau (FP)

"goonclod failure of logic"

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

196-TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

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

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
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 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. 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.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 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

#10-2, My 27th published book.

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
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 unknown, undefined 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.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08M4BY4XM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 27, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 620 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 39 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #3,508,308 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #757 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,816 in Logic & Language Philosophy
◦ #5,961 in Philosophy of Logic & Language

#10-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.

Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)

#10-6, 172nd published book

Occam's Razor Extended to be a part of Physics and Math// Logic science
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: Logic needs to have Occam's Razor fully incorporated into logic itself, and to amplify and extend Occam's Razor to be a actual part of Physics science. This book clarifies what Occam's Razor is, and where it is found in physics. AP uses Occam's Razor many times in his research. In a very real sense of common languages and philosophy and Logic, that Occam's Razor is to language what angular momentum is to physics.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of New Scientist, Dec18-31, 2021 of the article "Razor sharp" explaining what Occam's Razor is.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09SDMZ4XH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 11, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 918 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #3,978,181 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #631 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #2,411 in Logic & Language Philosophy
◦ #7,964 in Philosophy of Logic & Language

#10-7, 169th published book

Mathematics Consistency// Logic science Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: I decided to place this book that talks all about mathematics into my logic section of books because Old Math was dumb and stupid about logic, where math professors for the most part never studied formal logic. They were arrogant to think they needed no training in logic. And it shows quite spectacularly in the mistakes made in Old Math, quite laughable even with their idea that the slant cut in single cone was a ellipse, yet a single cone has but one axis of symmetry, meaning by logic, it is impossible for the slant cut in single cone to be an ellipse, rather instead, it is a oval. This is just one example of where math professors are stupid in logic and then arrive at mistaken ideas. And in all my math education in college, not once did I hear a lecture on the logic of the mathematics studied. And the proofs of Old Math, not once did I see mathematicians arrange their proofs in a logical format, just off the cuff spiel of what they thought should be a proof.

It is even hard to tell if math professors know what Consistency means and how it is tested. For most have never taken formal logic, most have never read up on Logic. Is it arrogance? Is it stupidity? Probably a mix of the two.

So this book is a detailed attempt to teach the mathematics community what is Consistency and a look at the Consistency of Mathematics itself. This is AP's 169th published book of science and I deal with 4 major tests of Mathematics consistency (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) polynomials as only valid functions (3) Oresme mess-up of Harmonic series (4) mess-up of dimensions.

Cover Picture: Sometimes a picture is so important that it needs to be the cover picture of several books. This cover picture is another iphone photograph of my handwritten proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, where the rectangle under the graph function is the integral and the hypotenuse of right-triangle when lifted up from its hinge forms the derivative. The Calculus geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is the topmost important test of Consistency of all of Mathematics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09RHSJRKY
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 29, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 964 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 63 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-8, 188th published book

Practice in converting statements of Language into formulas and equations of science, math and logic// Logic science

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface:
My 188th book of science// Practice in turning statements of language into formulas and equations of math and logic.

This book is a potpourri of topics all under one umbrella of a Language translated into a math, logic or physics formula or equation. This is about the conversion of language to formulas or equations. An exercise we did in High School algebra where we read sentences of language and had to convert to math formulas or equations. Not an easy task but valuable for a clear logical mind. I would not see such homework until I took Logic in College, 2 years of logic and translating or converting sentences of language into formulas or equations of logic.

Cover Picture: After assembling the topics of discussion I wondered what particular topic was the stand out topic. And I finally decided the Gigantic Dragonflies of Devonian with its math table, which is the perfect best example to teach when teaching parametric equations in 1st year college. So I took a iphone photograph of my Dragonfly table of my 104th book of science (picture inset of my cover to that book). This is my 188th book of science.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0B2FF45ZH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 25, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 390 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 103 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-9, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

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

#10-10, 199th published book

The Pattern most-often found in the Counterintuitive Paradox-Riddle // Logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (format Amazon-Kindle edition)

Preface: There is a pattern to most paradoxes, an underlying pattern that makes the riddle counterintuitive. This book examines several paradoxes-- Monty Hall problem, Hotel problem, Special Relativity of Physics and why a fast speedy traveler ages slower. I also go into biology paradoxes and see that the pattern is there also. So this book examines various counterintuitive riddles, paradoxes and pinpoints the reason they are so counterintuitive, thereby, making them easier to understand.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search on the Monty Hall problem.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0B9QL6WXQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 14, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 421 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 31 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-11, 231st published book

All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was May 2023. And this is AP's 231st published book of science.

Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter". For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.

When you combine All Existence.... or Everything that Exists.... combine that with All Matter is only one single atom of 1 of 118 possible chemical elements, then you end up with the Universe itself is one single atom of 1 of 118 single possible chemical elements. Plutonium atom fits all the special numbers of physics and math.

This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.

A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.

Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM   by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BY778BJK
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 944 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 44 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-09-23 04:44:13 UTC

Permalink

Jan Burse,Kibo Parry (Moroney-Volney)Dan Christensen extreme failures of Logic-- with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for the mental basket case Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry Volney lunatics cannot fathom that Boole and Jevons made a mistake in truth tables. Jerks like Dan Christensen do not belong in teaching academics for their spiel is brainwash propaganda.

Volney & Harvard keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

Harvard Math dept Noam Elkies (FP),Dennis Gaitsgory (FP),Robin Gottlieb (PP),Benedict Gross (FP),Joseph Harris (FP),Heisuke Hironaka (EM),Michael Hopkins (FP),Arthur Jaffe (FP),David Kazhdan (EM),Mark Kisin (FP),Peter Kronheimer (FP),Jacob Lurie (FP),Eric Maskin (FP),Barry Mazur (FP),Curtis McMullen (FP),David Mumford (EM),Martin Nowak (FP),Gerald Sacks (EM),Wilfried Schmid (FP),Yum-Tong Siu (FP),Shlomo Sternberg (EM),John Tate (EM),Cliff Taubes (FP),Hugh Woodin (FP),Horng-Tzer Yau (FP),Shing-Tung Yau (FP)

"goonclod failure of logic"

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

196-TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

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

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
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 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. 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.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 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

#10-2, My 27th published book.

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
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 unknown, undefined 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.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08M4BY4XM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 27, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 620 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 39 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #3,508,308 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #757 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,816 in Logic & Language Philosophy
◦ #5,961 in Philosophy of Logic & Language

#10-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.

Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)

#10-6, 172nd published book

Occam's Razor Extended to be a part of Physics and Math// Logic science
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: Logic needs to have Occam's Razor fully incorporated into logic itself, and to amplify and extend Occam's Razor to be a actual part of Physics science. This book clarifies what Occam's Razor is, and where it is found in physics. AP uses Occam's Razor many times in his research. In a very real sense of common languages and philosophy and Logic, that Occam's Razor is to language what angular momentum is to physics.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of New Scientist, Dec18-31, 2021 of the article "Razor sharp" explaining what Occam's Razor is.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09SDMZ4XH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 11, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 918 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #3,978,181 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #631 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #2,411 in Logic & Language Philosophy
◦ #7,964 in Philosophy of Logic & Language

#10-7, 169th published book

Mathematics Consistency// Logic science Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: I decided to place this book that talks all about mathematics into my logic section of books because Old Math was dumb and stupid about logic, where math professors for the most part never studied formal logic. They were arrogant to think they needed no training in logic. And it shows quite spectacularly in the mistakes made in Old Math, quite laughable even with their idea that the slant cut in single cone was a ellipse, yet a single cone has but one axis of symmetry, meaning by logic, it is impossible for the slant cut in single cone to be an ellipse, rather instead, it is a oval. This is just one example of where math professors are stupid in logic and then arrive at mistaken ideas. And in all my math education in college, not once did I hear a lecture on the logic of the mathematics studied. And the proofs of Old Math, not once did I see mathematicians arrange their proofs in a logical format, just off the cuff spiel of what they thought should be a proof.

It is even hard to tell if math professors know what Consistency means and how it is tested. For most have never taken formal logic, most have never read up on Logic. Is it arrogance? Is it stupidity? Probably a mix of the two.

So this book is a detailed attempt to teach the mathematics community what is Consistency and a look at the Consistency of Mathematics itself. This is AP's 169th published book of science and I deal with 4 major tests of Mathematics consistency (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) polynomials as only valid functions (3) Oresme mess-up of Harmonic series (4) mess-up of dimensions.

Cover Picture: Sometimes a picture is so important that it needs to be the cover picture of several books. This cover picture is another iphone photograph of my handwritten proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, where the rectangle under the graph function is the integral and the hypotenuse of right-triangle when lifted up from its hinge forms the derivative. The Calculus geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is the topmost important test of Consistency of all of Mathematics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09RHSJRKY
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 29, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 964 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 63 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-8, 188th published book

Practice in converting statements of Language into formulas and equations of science, math and logic// Logic science

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface:
My 188th book of science// Practice in turning statements of language into formulas and equations of math and logic.

This book is a potpourri of topics all under one umbrella of a Language translated into a math, logic or physics formula or equation. This is about the conversion of language to formulas or equations. An exercise we did in High School algebra where we read sentences of language and had to convert to math formulas or equations. Not an easy task but valuable for a clear logical mind. I would not see such homework until I took Logic in College, 2 years of logic and translating or converting sentences of language into formulas or equations of logic.

Cover Picture: After assembling the topics of discussion I wondered what particular topic was the stand out topic. And I finally decided the Gigantic Dragonflies of Devonian with its math table, which is the perfect best example to teach when teaching parametric equations in 1st year college. So I took a iphone photograph of my Dragonfly table of my 104th book of science (picture inset of my cover to that book). This is my 188th book of science.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0B2FF45ZH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 25, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 390 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 103 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-9, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

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

#10-10, 199th published book

The Pattern most-often found in the Counterintuitive Paradox-Riddle // Logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (format Amazon-Kindle edition)

Preface: There is a pattern to most paradoxes, an underlying pattern that makes the riddle counterintuitive. This book examines several paradoxes-- Monty Hall problem, Hotel problem, Special Relativity of Physics and why a fast speedy traveler ages slower. I also go into biology paradoxes and see that the pattern is there also. So this book examines various counterintuitive riddles, paradoxes and pinpoints the reason they are so counterintuitive, thereby, making them easier to understand.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search on the Monty Hall problem.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0B9QL6WXQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 14, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 421 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 31 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#10-11, 231st published book

All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was May 2023. And this is AP's 231st published book of science.

Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter". For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.

When you combine All Existence.... or Everything that Exists.... combine that with All Matter is only one single atom of 1 of 118 possible chemical elements, then you end up with the Universe itself is one single atom of 1 of 118 single possible chemical elements. Plutonium atom fits all the special numbers of physics and math.

This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.

A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.

Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM   by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BY778BJK
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 944 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 44 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

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

Dan Christensen

2023-09-23 04:53:54 UTC

Permalink

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

... Dan Christensen...

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Water is really H4O, not H2O." ********** NEW **********
--July 27, 2023

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

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

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Updated version (repetition removed):

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-09-30 05:11:48 UTC

Permalink

Andrew Wiles, Terry Tao

Gnat of Math and Phlea of Physics"always wrong"

Why Volney?? Because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse? Or because they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?? Or because they are so stupid and slipshod in Water Electrolysis, they forget to weigh the masses of hydrogen and oxygen, only look at volume???

Volney photos ETH physics-chemistry classes as propaganda chambers. Without TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS by AP; students are taught propaganda of Atoms stick & ball subatomic particle, no job or function, actually no reason to exist

AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, we use logic in science-- stands to reason subatomic particles are not silly balls that sit around do nothing. No. We look to the laws of electricity and magnetism-- especially Faraday law and see that a bar magnet thrust through a coil produces electricity. Thus, we are smart and say-- the proton is a coil, a torus coil, and the muon is the electron is a bar magnet thrusting through the proton torus producing electricity.

Compare that with the idiotic Old Physics, Old Chemistry-- with their sticks and balls as proton, neutron, electron flying around outside a clump of balls they call a nucleus, doing nothing but flying around and drinking lemonade on a beach listening to rock and roll music.

In New Physics we respect the intelligence of young students and do not indoctrinate them with dumb silly ideas of stick and ball do nothing subatomic particles.

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

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

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

#2-1, My 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
◦ ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
◦ Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
◦ Language ‏ : ‎ English
◦ File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
◦ Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
◦ Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
◦ Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
◦ Print length ‏ : ‎ 124 pages
◦ Best Sellers Rank: #293,315 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #401 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,236 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, My 151st published book of science.

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1048 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 404 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-8, 202nd published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Permanent Colony on Europa// graduate school college
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)

Preface: Crisis emergency times call for textbooks to reflect the times. The Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase as measured by NASA in the decade of 2010 to 2020 as showing a 0.005% Solar Radiation yearly increase threatens all life on Earth with extinction and oblivion. This crisis calls for "All Hands On Deck" to solve the problem. And to solve that problem we need all scientists in the work effort of getting Europa, the satellite of Jupiter to be our second home. I see no textbook for college graduate school as appropriate, unless it is a book addressing the crisis itself. Just the opposite of Nero was fiddling while Rome burned; we want All Hands on Deck, to save as much life on Earth as possible.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search for Europa with Webb telescope. These are exciting times in that the Webb telescope maybe able to pinpoint life on Europa.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BC5T9JBH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 801 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 45 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-9, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 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

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-01 20:00:34 UTC

Permalink

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS--most beloved math textbook for it can be taught The Calculus in High School or in Europe-- Form 3 classrooms, since calculus is as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

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

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is 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 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 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: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 
#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)

#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages

Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)

#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
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)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 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 ‏ : ‎ 65 pages

#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

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
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 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 ‏ : ‎ 71 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.
But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.
Cavalieri 1598-1647
So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.
Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).
The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.

There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.

The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France. ***@mail.com.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.
So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

Volney

2023-10-01 22:20:32 UTC

Permalink

🐔 of Math and 🦃 of Physics Archimedes "goonclod failure of logic"

Why do you keep trying to brainwash poor little 5 year old kids?

WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is
offering to teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He
will corrupt the minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to
be a failure of math and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else
to fail as well! He teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as
atoms contain the unstable muon, water is H4O and not H2O, the ellipse
isn't a conic section, there are no negative numbers and no complex
numbers, that a sine wave isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or
parabolas (depending on his mood), plus many, many other instances of
bad math and physics.

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

One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND
2 = 12. His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a
false statement that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it
is false (which it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another
similar false statement such as 10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really
confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium is taking advantage of the
fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic and elementary
arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2.
Of course in pure Boolean logic the only possible values are true and
false (1 or 0), so in pure Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and
"10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't let evil Plutonium's bad logic
confuse you!

Plutonium has been targeting children as young as 5. A new attempt to
corrupt the minds of young children is to teach that the alphabet has 12
letters, 6 vowels and 6 consonants. This sounds like a great way to
keep our children from reading!

Nobody knows why Plutonium wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like
this. Perhaps Plutonium is envious of their potential success, which he
never had because he is a failure at math and science. Plutonium is not
content to be a failure at math and physics all by himself. He wants
everyone to fail as well. Some claim Plutonium is an agent of China, in
order for China to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is a minion of
Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely, however, he is an agent of
Putin and Russia, since Plutonium has previously attempted to summon
Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt
to destroy mathematics.

Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to
convince students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of
Failure. This cult is anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal
is to promote failure in math and science.

There is some evidence this Cult of Failure may be a suicide cult.
Plutonium has advocated that the "good guy" nations join into a
supernation and threaten to "flatten" the (nuclear armed) "bad guy"
nations who misbehave. The idea may to initiate an all-out nuclear
war when "bad guy" nations retaliate. Not simply is Plutonium or his
cult committing suicide but would take Planet Earth with them. As the
war in Ukraine continues, Plutonium keeps asking NATO to attack the
Russians, starting a nuclear WW3, which he feels is unavoidable. More
evidence of Plutonium's Cult of Failure being a suicide cult.

Plutonium is now encouraging resistance fighters fighting the regimes
in Russia and Iran to attack power lines in Tehran and Moscow by
carrying long vertical aluminum poles under them, presumably to short
them out, complete with a diagram. Obviously, this will not end well
for for the resistance fighter. The question is, did he do this because
he is Putin's stooge trying to kill off resistance fighters? Or is this
part of Plutonium's Suicide Cult of Failure, meaning this is merely a
suggestion how to commit suicide while failing to harm the regimes? Or
both?

But the point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you one of his
dangerous books. Especially now since they are available for free from
otherwise legitimate Amazon.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-06 06:44:58 UTC

Permalink

Oxford Uni,John Goodenough

Gnat of Math and Phlea of Physics "always wrong"

On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 10:40:21 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: the above and below
Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal,

Volney, why cannot Oxford Uni finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
Willard Libby (chem), Julian Schwinger (physics), Paul Boyer (chem), Andrea Ghez, James Fraser Stoddart (chem), Louis Ignarro (physio-medic)

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

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

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry Moroney Volney failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."

--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993
Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.

Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers. Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.

My 250th published book.

TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-12 20:53:01 UTC

Permalink

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal,

Mostowski Collapse
, …

8
unread,
Ping John Gabriel - New Calculoose challenge
Failures Wiles,Tao,Gabriel with their never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus I
3:44 PM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
Fritz Feldhase
51
unread,
I, and I alone solved the tangent line and area problem rigorously, not Newton, not Leibniz, not Cauchy or any of your moronic math professors or teachers.
3:41 PM

John Gabriel's profile photo
John Gabriel
, …

168
I am the victim, not any of you cunts!
2_Dr.Betsy Jonck,Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Ronnie Maartens,Dr.Carminda Mennen,Dr.
3:40 PM


John Gabriel's profile photo
John Gabriel
, …
Fritz Feldhase
39
unread,
CRAP-axioms are not facts. They are beliefs.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:04:08 PM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote: > On Thursday, 12
3:34 PM

Buck Futter's profile photo
Buck Futter
, …

16
Re: Dan Christensen turning Univ Western Ontario into a gay-pick-up-bar as he tries to turn sci.math into a gay pick up bar. Where is Linda Hasenfratz when you need her the most?? Dan's filthy 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.
2:46 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
bassam karzeddin
96
Bad news for math cranks and trolls
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 9:28:50 PM UTC+3, Dan Christensen wrote: > On Tuesday, October 10
2:37 PM


NewAge Prophet's profile photo
NewAge Prophet
, …

29
Re: John Gabriel said, repost my 15 threads everyday and you can cornhole me every night, while I sing Eram semper recta
2:27 PM


Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal,

Volney, why cannot Oxford Uni finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
Willard Libby (chem), Julian Schwinger (physics), Paul Boyer (chem), Andrea Ghez, James Fraser Stoddart (chem), Louis Ignarro (physio-medic)

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

My 250th published book.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-14 20:29:04 UTC

Permalink

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

I doubt the two math cranks Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao will ever understand mathematics for they continue to refuse to admit to even the most simple truths of mathematics-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
bassam karzeddin
102
unread,
Bad news for math cranks and trolls
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 12:35:42 AM UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote: > On Friday, October
11:46 AM


Old Math is in a world of hurt for it does not even have the correct numbers of mathematics. Old Math was arrogant and ignorant starting year 1900 when Quantum Mechanics in physics took off and it means the world is discrete and not continuous. Yet the foolish bozos of Old Math stuck with their continuous Reals and even had the idiotic notion of going further out on the limb of madness with Cohen's continuum hypothesis, while Quantum Mechanics gave us a new age in physics with their discrete world. One would think the idiots of Old Math would finally look at physics and pay attention and learn something. No. They never did. And so today in October of 2023 we still have idiots of math teaching calculus with never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Number System is the true numbers of math for they are discrete, and they make calculus, a billion, perhaps a trillion times easier to study , to learn to understand. In fact, we TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, teaches calculus to 13 and 14 year olds. Because calculus is as easy as add or subtract 1 from the exponent.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Terence Tao, John Stillwell with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graphed function. This is why only a polynomial can be a valid function of math, for the polynomial is a function of the straightline Y --> mx + b. All the other so called functions have no straightline-- they are curves of continuum and cannot give a proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

The proof of FTC needs a empty space Discrete Geometry from one point to the next point so as to allow for the construction of a midpoint between point A to point B and thus to hinge up from A at the midpoint and to determine the next point B in the derivative. This is why Calculus is so enormously a tool for physics, as point A predicts point B.

Discrete Geometry is required for the proof of FTC and that requires the true numbers of mathematics be Decimal Grid Numbers, for they cannot be the continuum idiocy of Reals and Complex.

To make a half circle function in True Math, we have to go out to something like 10^6 Grid to make the points close enough together for the function visual to start looking like a half circle. But still there are holes in between one point and the next point to allow the existence of calculus.

On a downward slope function, we have a different graphics than the usual upward slope function. For the upward slope requires the midpoint in the empty space to predict the next point of the thin rectangle that occupies that empty space (see the graphics below and in my books TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS). In a downward slope function graph we still have those thin rectangles occupy the empty space for integral but we do not need to construct the midpoint, we simply shave away a right triangle that reveals-- predicts point B starting from point A on the other side.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:

From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B

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

To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.

My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is 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 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 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: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 
#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)

#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages

Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)

#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
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)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 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 ‏ : ‎ 65 pages

#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

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
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 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 ‏ : ‎ 71 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.

There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.

The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.

We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|

Yes, now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

Let me run a scenario for you, please.

There are 7-8 billion people on Earth today.

In the past 50 years we can roughly say that 50 million people studied Calculus in school or at home.

50 million people tried and attempted to learn calculus math.

I certainly was one among that 50 million.

And was AP the only one in 50 million to recognize that if you take polynomials as being the Only Valid Function that the Calculus becomes the Easiest, Super Easy math, because the Power Rules apply and where the derivative is simply a subtract 1 from exponent and the integral is add 1 to exponent.

I find it extremely sad and hard to believe that only AP saw how to make Calculus Super super super easy? Surely there must have been at least 25 million of those 50 million who found the derivative and integral of polynomials a joy and pleasure to do. Surely AP was not the only person in 50 million to see the Polynomial Calculus was a pleasure, fun and even exciting, rush to class to do a derivative or integral of a polynomial-- teacher, please give me more polynomial exercises. They are better than Star Trek on TV.

This is the whole point of a Revolution in Math Calculus.

When we make the only valid function in all of math be a Polynomial, we reduce calculus to adding 1 or subtracting 1.

We do not allow creeps, goons and kooks to clutter the table of math and calculus with their horrible awful smelly functions which are not polynomials. No, we disband these kooks and tell them go home and convert your worthless crap to be a polynomial before you can stink up the halls of mathematics. Convert your kook nonsense to a polynomial then you can come and do mathematics with us.

AP, King of Science

As a case in point, a mere example.

We have at MIT a Dr. Gilbert Strang with his Calculus textbooks, and I bought the 1991 edition of Calculus. And my opinion of Strang's text is scatterbrained. For I often find that Gilbert in lecturing on a topic is too quick to bring in side show issues, never focusing on just one topic.

But worst of this Strang text is he has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, no geometry proof and his Limit analysis of FTC is idiot of a proof-- ie-- no proof at all, for we all analyze things in the course of a day, and none of us are so preposterous as to think we have proven something above and beyond analyzing that something.

And so, I, AP reflects back to the time of 1968, when my name was Ludwig Hansen, sitting in a geology classroom of University of Cincinnati. Learning geology from a textbook that never discusses Continental Drift and this is 1968, mind you and Wegener had given massive evidence of Continental Drift way back to 1915, some 53 years later, AP and the classroom suffering from Truth of Science by having to buy a book about static-Earth, being tested graded lectured upon fake geology.

Not much difference from students sitting in classrooms at MIT or elsewhere buying Strang's CALCULUS with no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and where any fool function is allowed to enter, thousands and thousands of fool functions, when Mathematics has only one Valid Function-- the Polynomial function. For you can only arrive at a True Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by using polynomials as functions.

So how many students every year are punished by having to learn calculus with fool functions, with no valid proof of FTC. Where the calculus classroom puts students not through a Pleasure learning session but a gauntlet torture chamber, whipping the students into nervous breakdowns and vomiting during exams.

All for what??? How much money does Dr. Strang make from his awful book Calculus?? Let me guess estimate.

The book probably costs $100 in our inflation environment. And typically a author gets 1/2 of that in royalties.

Say MIT teaches a class of 100 students in calculus per year would be 50 x 100 = $5,000. And say a estimate that around the world there are 100 schools teaching from this book of 100 students in their classroom would make Gilbert $500,000 per year in book sales of his Calculus.

Same can be said of AP back in 1968 having to learn fake geology with no Continental Drift plate tectonics, so that some so called scientists reaps a reward of 1/2 a million dollars in book sales. And that thousands of students taught lectured and tested upon fake geology.

This is one of the grand benefits of a Usenet and a Internet, that we speed up the process of throwing out Fake -Math, fake-geology and all other fake sciences. Freedom of Speech of Internet of Usenet allows for science to be Showered, Cleaned UP, bathed from its wretched stink of Old fake science. Clean Up their science.

The only valid functions in mathematics are Polynomial Functions, which in turn, makes Calculus be super super super easy. No more vomiting by students in a calculus exam. No more nervous breakdowns by students taking calculus.

AP

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graph

#5-1, My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)

#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is 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 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)

#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 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: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 
#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)

#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages

Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)

#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
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)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 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 ‏ : ‎ 65 pages

#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

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
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 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 ‏ : ‎ 71 pages

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-20 14:21:50 UTC

Permalink

Volney is MIT dumbest of dumb when it comes to Water Electrolysis of weighing the mass of hydrogen and oxygen to prove Water is really H4O not H2O. I mean with Gilbert Strang scatterbrain calculus cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse for the fool Gilbert knows slant cut of cylinder is truly an ellipse but the moron cannot even admit cone is oval in slant cut.

Volney, at least Texas A&M prepares for Water Electrolysis weighing of the hydrogen and oxygen, while MIT sits in lounges sipping coffee and Danish rolls.

Volney physics failures..Texas A&M,Dr.Artem Abanov,Dr.Tom Adair,Dr.Girish Agarwal,Dr.Glenn Agnolet,Dr.Alexey Akimov,Dr.Roland Allen,NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem,Purdue Univ_France Cordova, Unable to do Water Electrolysis

Volney physics failures..MIT_Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem),NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky, Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh, Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee

President: Sally Kornbluth
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry Moroney Volney failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself. And paid to spew hatred.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

My 250th published book.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-22 20:47:04 UTC

Permalink

AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, we use logic in science-- stands to reason subatomic particles are not silly balls that sit around do nothing. No. We look to the laws of electricity and magnetism-- especially Faraday law and see that a bar magnet thrust through a coil produces electricity. Thus, we are smart and say-- the proton is a coil, a torus coil, and the muon is the electron is a bar magnet thrusting through the proton torus producing electricity.

Compare that with the idiotic Old Physics, Old Chemistry-- with their sticks and balls as proton, neutron, electron flying around outside a clump of balls they call a nucleus, doing nothing but flying around and drinking lemonade on a beach listening to rock and roll music.

In New Physics we respect the intelligence of young students and do not indoctrinate them with dumb silly ideas of stick and ball do nothing subatomic particles.

Volney photos Harvard physics-chemistry classes as propaganda chambers. Without TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS by AP; students are taught propaganda of Atoms stick & ball subatomic particle, no job or function, actually no reason to exist

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin, Dr. Elias Corey (chem), Dr. Walter Gilbert (chem), Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.Martin Karplus (chem)

#2-1, My 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
◦ ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
◦ Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
◦ Language ‏ : ‎ English
◦ File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
◦ Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
◦ Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
◦ Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
◦ Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
◦ Print length ‏ : ‎ 124 pages
◦ Best Sellers Rank: #293,315 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #401 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,236 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, My 151st published book of science.

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1048 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 404 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-8, 202nd published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Permanent Colony on Europa// graduate school college
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)

Preface: Crisis emergency times call for textbooks to reflect the times. The Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase as measured by NASA in the decade of 2010 to 2020 as showing a 0.005% Solar Radiation yearly increase threatens all life on Earth with extinction and oblivion. This crisis calls for "All Hands On Deck" to solve the problem. And to solve that problem we need all scientists in the work effort of getting Europa, the satellite of Jupiter to be our second home. I see no textbook for college graduate school as appropriate, unless it is a book addressing the crisis itself. Just the opposite of Nero was fiddling while Rome burned; we want All Hands on Deck, to save as much life on Earth as possible.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search for Europa with Webb telescope. These are exciting times in that the Webb telescope maybe able to pinpoint life on Europa.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BC5T9JBH
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 801 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 45 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-9, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 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

Why Volney?? Because they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse? Or because they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?? Or because they are so stupid and slipshod in Water Electrolysis, they forget to weigh the masses of hydrogen and oxygen, only look at volume???

Volney photos David Goodstein, Barry Barish, Caltech, physics class as propaganda chambers. Without TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS by AP; students are taught propaganda of Atoms stick & ball subatomic particle, no job or function, actually no reason to exist

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

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
   ____
.-' `-.
.' ::\ ::|:: /:: `.
/ ::\::|::/:: \
;   _ _   ;
| ( O ) |
; - -    ;
\ ::/::|::\::    /
   `. ::/ ::|:: \:: .'
   `-   _____ .-'

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 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

2024-01-01 07:34:45 UTC

Permalink

NARRATOR: The idea that dinosaurs lived in cold darkness challenges previous assumptions about dinosaur biology and the traditional view that they were giant cold-blooded animals, like today’s reptiles, relying on ambient temperature to warm their bodies.

AP:: Narrator, the idea of a college student majoring in a science and not taking Logic to learn how to think clearly and think straight, challenges the general public as to whether these are scientists at all.

GREGORY ERICKSON: What we don’t find in the Prince Creek Formation is evidence for cold-blooded animals, such as crocodiles and turtles, lizards, amphibians. It’s almost like they were physiologically limited. What we do find up there are birds and mammals and dinosaurs. That alone suggested that they were warm-blooded.

AP:: What was found in Antarctica and Australia which were near the South Pole in Cretaceous time, the same time as Alaska is boatloads and boatloads of plant fossils that are definitely tropical plants. Meaning what?? Meaning the Moon had not yet arrived for Earth so the day was as long as the year, astronomically and that 1/2 of Earth was drenched in constant hot sunshine permanently. Gregory, why can you not include what was happening at the South Pole along with your spiel of Alaska?

NARRATOR: Even if they weren’t cold-blooded, how did herbivores like Ugrunaaluk find enough food? Without sunlight, many trees shed their leaves. During these winter months, food for the plant eaters would have withered or died.

AP:: Exactly Narrator, enough talk of animal fossils, start talking about plant fossils at the time of these dinosaurs.

KAREN CHIN: If we think about those Alaskan ecosystems, we have to address the fact where did they get their food?

NARRATOR: Karen Chin is one of the world’s leading experts in dinosaur dung. She’s been investigating hadrosaur diet, by studying the fossilized remains of their feces, known as “coprolite.” At 100-times magnification, even the individual fossilized cells of the dinosaur’s last meal are visible. Investigating coprolites from non-polar dinosaurs, living in southern Utah and Montana, Karen finds something intriguing.

KAREN CHIN: We can see chunks of intact wood. And that’s where you see all of the cells are almost glued together. They’re glued together with lignin. But then, you can also see all of these loose cells, all over the place, in no particular order, scattered all around. And that indicates rotting wood. To breakdown lignin, it requires oxygen, so that can’t happen in an animal’s gut. It has to happen outside, where there’s access to oxygen. So, we know that the wood was degraded, decomposed, before it was ingested by the dinosaur. I was quite surprised. Why were they eating so much wood?

NARRATOR: The incredible new evidence suggests the southern hadrosaurs could diversify their diets, feeding on rotting wood to survive.

KAREN CHIN: Where are you going to get protein if you’re an herbivore? You can go to a rotting log, where there’s lots of creepy crawlers, like beetles and millipedes and pill bugs.

NARRATOR: It raises the tantalizing possibility that this could have been a winter food source for Alaskan dinosaurs, as well.

KAREN CHIN: Herbivorous dinosaurs like Ugrunaaluk might also have been feeding on rotting wood during the four months of the year, or so, when they had the polar winter.

AP:: Karen, why not look up the literature of plant fossils near the South Pole during the Cretaceous. They were abundant tropical plants on Antarctica an Australia near the south pole. And putting 2 plus 2 together-- the Alaska was full of tropical plants when these dinosaurs lived there, because the Moon had not yet arrived.

NARRATOR: With the arrival of winter, darkness is one problem for the Alaskan dinosaurs; they also face much colder temperatures. What in their physiology allowed them to remain in Alaska, shielding them from the elements?

AP:: Narrator, when going to college to earn a degree in science, why not take formal logic to uncover the darkness of the mind that has no logical marbles.

RILEY BLACK: So, for a long time, the image of a traditional classic dinosaur was of a very scaly, very reptilian, almost a monstrous sort of creature. But lately, dinosaurs have been getting softer, they’ve been getting fuzzier. Dare I say it? They’re getting cute. There is a early Tyrannosaur that lived about 125-million years ago, named Yutyrannus, covered almost head to tail in fluffy feathers. And this was not a small animal; this animal’s about 30 feet long.

NARRATOR: Intriguingly, Yutyrannus lived in a part of China, during the early Cretaceous, that had a cool climate, similar to Alaska 70-million years ago.

AP:: Riley, there really is no substitute for taking formal logic in college to help think straight and think clearly-- dinosaurs could not survive Alaska winters. They could thrive in Alaska if the Sun shone constantly for the Moon had not arrived yet.

STEVE BRUSATTE: Most dinosaurs had simple features that looked like hair. Our hair keeps us warm. That’s what hair does in mammals. And for many dinosaurs, they had these simple feathers, probably to keep their bodies warm. If dinosaurs that were living in an area of similar temperatures, earlier in the Cretaceous, had all of these thick coats of feathers, then probably a lot of the Alaskan dinosaurs did, too.

NARRATOR: In addition to feathers, Alaskan dinosaurs may have had other adaptations for surviving colder temperatures.

AP:: Without formal logic training in college, a scientist becomes ever more a clown of science. Failing to read what Antarctica fossils were, and failing to look for plant fossils in Alaska, and failing to think outside the box-- the Moon was not yet arrived causing the Poles to be hot as the tropics.

AP:: University of Cincinnati in 1968-72 required all want to be lawyers to take formal logic, to help them argue in court better. Why does no college require scientists in training to take formal logic, so they can avoid making fools of themselves years later??

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
12:14 AM (1 hour ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
,,,,,,,,continued,,,,,,,

PAT DRUCKENMILLER: One of the interesting groups of dinosaurs that we have represented in our fauna, in the Prince Creek Formation, are Thescelosaurids.

NARRATOR: Thescelosaurids are dwarfs, in a land of Alaskan giants. The smaller of two Arctic species is just centimeters?? tall at the hip. Small creatures lose heat more rapidly, and they freeze a lot faster. So, how did these small dinos survive the cold?

A clue can be found in their Montana cousins.

AP:: Not really, the only big clue is what plant fossils are found in Alaska during the Cretaceous to prove the climate was hot because Earth stared directly into the Sun permanently until the Moon arrived. And the plant fossils of Alaska during Cretaceous was the cyclads-- a tropical plant. Cycads lived from 200 to 65 million years ago native to the tropics. And when you have 1/2 Earth in constant sunlight, the cycads thrived. Good food for large herbivores.

PAT DRUCKENMILLER: Some species of Thescelosaurus were found, actually, preserved in a burrow.

RILEY BLACK: Up until about 20 years ago, that’s not something that we thought dinosaurs did.

PAT DRUCKENMILLER: That raises the exciting possibility that perhaps these species of Thescelosaurus, in Alaska, might also have been capable of burrowing and potentially over-wintering, by hibernating.

AP:: Why not mention all the cycad fossils found in Alaska?

NARRATOR: Feathers and the ability to burrow aren’t the only adaptations that may have helped polar dinosaurs survive the cold temperatures.

AP:: Did they have electric heating in their burrows??

PAT DRUCKENMILLER: We’re finding a very exciting number of bones from Troodontids in the bone bed layer we excavated this winter. And because they’re so rare, every single bone that we find is providing another new piece of the puzzle in understanding what this animal was.

NARRATOR: Troodontids were lightweight, fast-moving and agile predators, with eyes set towards the front, a common adaptation in predators, giving them binocular vision, to triangulate small, scurrying prey.

GREGORY ERICKSON: They’re raptors, so to speak, and had giant sickle claws on their second toe, and clawed hands and menacing teeth. In many ways, this was a roadrunner from Hell.

NARRATOR: But the Alaskan Troodontid has one noticeable aspect that sets it apart.

GREGORY ERICKSON: So, I’m looking at a adult Troodon tooth from the Prince Creek Formation and this is a monster. It’s a big one. This tooth is probably 50 percent longer than we see in Troodon Formosus, which is a species found down in Montana. That suggests this is a different species or the same species got larger, up here.

NARRATOR: Troodontids that lived elsewhere stood meters?? at the hip, but the Alaskan Troodontid was twice as tall. Why would living in a harsher environment lead to a larger size?

AP:: Alright within the space of 1 hour show, it is mentioned that large size is good for cold weather and then elsewhere in this transcript the reverse is spoken of-- a smaller size than animals further south. Can you understand that contradictory narrative does not make science. And how important it is to have Logic in science.

GREGORY ERICKSON: It’s been shown with some mammals and few other birds and a few other creatures that they get larger when they live closer to the poles. It’s a thermal advantage to be bigger in a cold environment. You’re less likely to cool down, so to speak.

NARRATOR: So far, from the Prince Creek Formation alone, scientists have identified at least 13 unique species of dinosaurs, specially adapted to life in the Arctic. But among all the species found there one is of particular interest to the team. It’s an animal that was originally thought to have evolved to be smaller, not larger like the Troodontid. That animal came to light in 2014, when another team of scientists working at the Prince Creek Formation announced the discovery of Nanuqsaurus, the Arctic’s apex predator.

STEVE BRUSATTE: Ultimately, what this comes down to is this: T. rex, the most iconic dinosaur of all, how do you take that type of animal and move it into the Arctic? What does it become?

AP:: So here we have the contradiction-- you say one animal became larger in the cold but now you argue that Nanuqsaurus went smaller in Alaska. A course in Logic would have kept you away from contradictions.

AP:: Why oh why, cannot this batch of paleontologists look up the plant finds in Alaska in Cretaceous and come to the simple conclusion-- it never was cold in Alaska in the Cretaceous but rather, as hot as the tropics are today. For the Moon had not arrived to make the day be 24 hours and the year be 365 days.

AP

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. If you, the reader, is wondering why AP posts this to a thread which is off topic in sci.math or sci.physics, is because some stalkers track AP, such as kibo, dan, jan who have been paid to stalk for 3 decades and when they see AP trying to post to his own thread that is on-topic they throw a impossible reCAPTcha suppression and repression at me that only wastes my time. From what AP can make out-- Google is not the only one using reCAPTcha, apparently the US govt rents out reCAPTcha. So if you see a AP post in a thread off topic, is because kooks of reCAPTcha are making it impossible for AP to post to the on-topic thread.

Read all of AP's post in peace and quiet in his newsgroup-- what sci.physics and sci.math should look like when govt spammers are not allowed in a newsgroup to wreck the newsgroup. Govt spammers have their agenda of drag net spam, and then their agenda of spy message codes, such as the "i sick, i cry" baloney, which only ends up ruining the newsgroups and why Google decided to close shop having fought govt bureaucrat mind sets for 30 years, and time to close shop.

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.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

2024-01-12 03:28:34 UTC

Permalink

#12-1, 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 (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. 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 Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.

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.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1489 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 77 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.