2020-11-12 20:47:48 UTC
Revised Modern Euclidean Geometry with Quantized Angle, Irrational number values, and Triangle Integration Theory// Math Research series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: This book started in October 2020 while researching the parallelepiped. For I realized from the Parallelepiped research that Old Math Geometry needed the quantized angle since it already had the quantized length. Geometry Space is composed of Rational true existing numbers of Decimal Grid Numbers and in between those true existing decimal grid numbers are irrational numbers that form empty space. This book is a revision of Old Math Geometry for it no longer is acceptable geometry, mostly fake geometry for it omits the quantized length and quantized angle. Old Math Geometry is mostly fakery since it does not contain what Quantum Mechanics Physics had started by 1900 with Max Planck and finished with Quantum Physics by 1930, and the culmination of Quantum Physics with Quantum Electrodynamics by 1960s. By year 2020 as I write this book, the mathematics community in geometry has been a wastrel laggard behind by at least 120 years, and this is another sad reflection on the increasing stupidity of the entire mathematics community for the proof that ellipse is always a cylinder section, never a conic section was given by AP in 2016 with two books written and published on the proof ellipse is a cylinder section and the slant cut in a cone is a oval, never an ellipse. So the mathematics community is virtually logically brain dead as to recognizing mistakes and wanting to ever fix mistakes. Mathematics community has no leadership, only stupid idiots of math chasing after fame and fortune but never the truth of math, e.g. Andrew Wiles with his silly Fermat's Last Theorem, Thomas Hales with his silly Kepler Packing Problem, Terence Tao with his silly sequences of counting numbers when he never even has the logic ability to define what the hell is "infinity at the start", and John Stillwell who writes books on the "history of fake math and how it pulls the wool over the eyes of its readers" showing pictures of ellipses as conics when it never was. Or the MIT math professor Gilbert Strang who wrote a Calculus textbook in 1991, and has not one marble of logic intelligence to write a book on calculus for he defines complex numbers on page 360 and never defines what the hell are the numbers he uses all along. It is no wonder that logical failures like this write Calculus textbooks and why no-one in the mathematics community even recognizes the fact that they must produce a GEOMETRY proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their mindless idiotic "limit analysis" is just a joke, not a proof.