Discussion:
2-AP's 144th book//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
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-12 20:47:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Michael Moroney
2020-11-12 20:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Subject: AP's 144th book//Revised Modern Euclidean Geometry with Quantized Angle,
Preface: This book started in October 2020 while researching the parallelepiped. For
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, the
ellipse isn't a conic section, that there are no negative numbers, 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 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!

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.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he 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 he is
an agent of China, in order for them to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is
a minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin
and Russia, because he has previously attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017
"to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise legitimate
Amazon.
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-12 21:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Kibo Parry Moroney shits in face Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Nicholas Thompson, then, 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, Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, MIT math dept.
"Ammo: Uncured Shit pile"
Re: Kibo Parry Moroney stalks "AnalButtfuckManure Attacks" Dartmouth's Philip J. Hanlon, Stanford's Marc Tessier-Lavigne with his 10 OR 6 = 16; his ellipse a conic when it never was; his proton to electron at 938 to 0.5 MeV when in truth..
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.
Quoting Wikipedia—

In the early 1990s, as public awareness grew of the Internet and Usenet, Parry received publicity, including a cover story in Wired magazine..
--- end quote ---

Wired (magazine) editor in chief, Nicholas Thompson
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-13 00:32:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A tentative Table of Contents:

Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Old Math Geometry totally revised, for Space is Discrete, not a Continuum.

2) Some history on my research and ideas of Revised Euclidean Geometry.

3) Physics had known that Space was Discrete and Quantized starting 1900 with Planck and then Quantum Physics by 1930.

4) Mathematics community had nothing but worthless ignorants with their continuum while Physics had true Space.

5) The 20th century math morons who pushed math into a cesspool nightmare with their phony math of continuum-- Cohen, Appel & Haken, Conway, Wiles, Tao, Hales, Stillwell.

6) A important proof in New Geometry-- Every triangle has at least one irrational number value parameter of its 6 parameters= 3 sides + 3 angles.

AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-13 04:17:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Old Math Geometry totally revised, for Space is Discrete, not a Continuum.

2) Some history on my research and ideas of Revised Euclidean Geometry.

3) Physics had known that Space was Discrete and Quantized starting 1900 with Planck and then Quantum Physics by 1930.

4) Mathematics community had nothing but worthless ignorants with their continuum while Physics had a true picture of Space.

5) The 20th century math morons who pushed math into a cesspool nightmare with their phony math of continuum-- Cohen, Appel & Haken, Conway, Wiles, Tao, Hales, Stillwell.

6) The lack of logical minds in math in 20th century who chased continuum when they should have chased a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

7) Mind rot of logic with Boole, Jevons, Cantor, Cohen, Godel which prevented math from focusing on Calculus geometry proof.

8) A important proof in New Geometry-- Every triangle has at least one irrational number value parameter of its 6 parameters= 3 sides + 3 angles.


AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-13 04:31:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Old Math Geometry totally revised, for Space is Discrete, not a Continuum.

2) Some history on my research and ideas of Revised Euclidean Geometry.

3) Physics had known that Space was Discrete and Quantized starting 1900 with Planck and then Quantum Physics by 1930.

4) Mathematics community had nothing but worthless ignorants with their continuum while Physics had a true picture of Space.

5) The 20th century math morons who pushed math into a cesspool nightmare with their phony math of continuum-- Cohen, Appel & Haken, Conway, Wiles, Tao, Hales, Stillwell.

6) Mind rot of logic with Boole, Jevons, Cantor, Cohen, Godel which prevented math from focusing on Calculus geometry proof.

7) The lack of logical minds in math in 20th century who chased continuum when they should have chased a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

8) Mathematics in the 20th & 21st century would remain dumb, dead and worthless until a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was discovered.

9) A important proof in New Geometry-- Every triangle has at least one irrational number value parameter of its 6 parameters= 3 sides + 3 angles.

AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-13 20:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is my first published book where I spend a lot of time on Table of Contents first before filling in the text itself. This is going to be important for the series TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS.


Tentative
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) Old Math Geometry totally revised, for Space is Discrete, not a Continuum.

2) Newton & Leibniz discover a crude form of Calculus circa 1670, but neither is able to give geometry proof of Calculus.

3) Newton discovers white light broken into a spectrum of colors in a prism, which will become the beginning of the quantized angle discovered by AP in 2020.

4) Cauchy and Weierstrass circa 1820 ruins calculus with their nonsense "limit analysis".

5) Starting 1850s mind-rot of logic with Boole, Jevons, Cantor, Cohen, Godel which prevented math from focusing on Calculus geometry proof.

6) By 1860s Maxwell unifies electricity to magnetism, and if mathematics had not been so screwed-up, Maxwell could have unified electricity-magnetism to gravity.

7) The Electromagnetic Spectrum was fully realized with the Maxwell Equations of 1860s.

8) Physics had known that Space was Discrete and Quantized starting 1900 with Planck and then Quantum Physics by 1930.

9) Math was going nowhere from 1900 onwards until a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was established... nowhere.

10) From 1930 onwards mathematics community had nothing but worthless ignorants with their continuum focus and their stupid limit analysis, while Physics had a true picture of Space.

10) The 20th century math morons who pushed math into a cesspool nightmare with their phony math of continuum-- Cohen, Appel & Haken, Conway, Wiles, Tao, Hales, Stillwell. So very dumb, they could not even understand a ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder section.

11) Why the lack of logical minds in math in 20th century who chased continuum when they should have chased a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

12) Mathematics in the 20th & 21st century would remain dumb, dead and worthless until a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was discovered.

13) Some history on my research and ideas of Revised Euclidean Geometry.

14) A important proof in New Geometry-- Every triangle has at least one irrational number value parameter of its 6 parameters= 3 sides + 3 angles.


AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-13 23:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After Newton and Leibniz discovered Calculus circa 1670 there really was no math to do except find a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and how that would affect in large part all of mathematics, for it changes all the axioms and it causes there to be a collection of numbers, not the crazy insane Reals to be the true numbers of mathematics.

So, once calculus was discovered in 1670, the only and main job of mathematicians was to do a Geometry proof of FTC. And everything in math from 1670 to 1990s was worthless twaddle even verging on insane crazy.

All of mathematics, today, would have been better off if no mathematician existed from Newton and Leibniz to AP. Every mathematician in between Newton & Leibniz to AP, was a cesspool garbage math contribution that would have to be thrown out.

11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

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

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

Length: 29 pages

Product details
File Size: 1225 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: 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)
Archimedes Plutonium
2020-11-14 19:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Table-Chart of Angles and in between rational angles are the irrational angles 

90    84    78.5   73   68   63   59   55    51   48   slope 1, 45 degree rt-triangle 10by10 

                                                                      / 42degree, 10by9, dy/dx=.9,tan(42degree)= .90 

                                                            / 39degree, 10by8, dy/dx=.8, tan(39degree)= .80 

                                                  / 35degree, 10by7, dy/dx=.7, tan(35degree)= .70 

                                           /  31degree, 10by6, dy/dx=.6, tan(31degree)= .60 
                     
                                   /    27degree, 10by5, dy/dx=.5, tan(27degree)= .50 

                             /    22degree, 10by4, dy/dx=.4, tan(22degree)= .40 

                    /        17degree, 10by3, dy/dx=.3, tan(17degree)= .30 
                 / 
                   11.5degree, 10by2, dy/dx=.2, tan(11.5degree) = .20 
         / 
                    6degree, 10by1, dy/dx=.1, tan(6degree) = .10 
   / 
0  .1   .2   .3   .4   .5   .6   .7   .8    .9    1.0 



Table-Chart of Angles and in between rational angles are the irrational angles 

90    84    78.5   73   68   63   59   55    51   48   slope 1, 45 degree rt-triangle 10by10 

                                                                      / infrared_9 wavelength 

                                                            /  infrared_10 wavelength 

                                                  / red wavelength

                                           /  orange wavelength 
                     
                                   /    yellow wavelength

                             /    green wavelength

                    /        blue wavelength 
                 / 
                   indigo wavelength
         / 
                   violet wavelength
   / 
0  .1   .2   .3   .4   .5   .6   .7   .8    .9    1.0 


Actually, I do not know if I have this backwards, whether the red wavelength should be on bottom and violet near the 45degree.

Perhaps in the end, it does not matter.

Now, the picture above is the 1by1 unit square of angles, but suppose we do the full 10 decimal Grid, and we ask for what angle is a dy/dx that is near 1 degree. We have 6 degrees covered as dy/dx of 0.1 of 1block high with 10 blocks long. For check it out that tan(6degrees) is 0.10. But, in 10 Grid System do we have a angle of 1 degrees existing? That would be a dy/dx such that it equals 0.0175. Where do we get a number like that? So we go to x= 10 and y =0.1 and have .1/10 = .01 and that is the very best we can do in 10 Grid. If we borrowed from 1000 Grid we could use x=1000 and y =17.5 or even the peg hole of x=100, y= 1.75 or the peg hole of x=10, y= 0.175.

And in my previous writings I restricted myself to only the 1by1 unit square of 10 Grid, but what happens when I ask for all angles in 10 Grid?, well, there will be more than just 10 up to 45degrees and another 10 from 45degrees to 90degrees. So we see the 10 Grid as 100 peg holes on x-axis, another 100 peg holes on y-axis and the entire Grid not counting (0,0) as having 100X100 = 10000 peg holes. So, can we say the entire 10 Grid has 10000 distinct angles? No, of course not for the angle 45degrees has several peg holes all being 45degrees. So the total number of distinct angles in 10 Grid are going to be far less than 10000.

AP
Mostowski Collapse
2020-11-21 21:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Table-Chart of Angles and in between rational angles are the irrational angles
90 84 78.5 73 68 63 59 55 51 48 slope 1, 45 degree rt-triangle 10by10
/ 42degree, 10by9, dy/dx=.9,tan(42degree)= .90
/ 39degree, 10by8, dy/dx=.8, tan(39degree)= .80
/ 35degree, 10by7, dy/dx=.7, tan(35degree)= .70
/ 31degree, 10by6, dy/dx=.6, tan(31degree)= .60
/ 27degree, 10by5, dy/dx=.5, tan(27degree)= .50
/ 22degree, 10by4, dy/dx=.4, tan(22degree)= .40
/ 17degree, 10by3, dy/dx=.3, tan(17degree)= .30
/
11.5degree, 10by2, dy/dx=.2, tan(11.5degree) = .20
/
6degree, 10by1, dy/dx=.1, tan(6degree) = .10
/
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Table-Chart of Angles and in between rational angles are the irrational angles
90 84 78.5 73 68 63 59 55 51 48 slope 1, 45 degree rt-triangle 10by10
/ infrared_9 wavelength
/ infrared_10 wavelength
/ red wavelength
/ orange wavelength
/ yellow wavelength
/ green wavelength
/ blue wavelength
/
indigo wavelength
/
violet wavelength
/
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
Actually, I do not know if I have this backwards, whether the red wavelength should be on bottom and violet near the 45degree.
Perhaps in the end, it does not matter.
Now, the picture above is the 1by1 unit square of angles, but suppose we do the full 10 decimal Grid, and we ask for what angle is a dy/dx that is near 1 degree. We have 6 degrees covered as dy/dx of 0.1 of 1block high with 10 blocks long. For check it out that tan(6degrees) is 0.10. But, in 10 Grid System do we have a angle of 1 degrees existing? That would be a dy/dx such that it equals 0.0175. Where do we get a number like that? So we go to x= 10 and y =0.1 and have .1/10 = .01 and that is the very best we can do in 10 Grid. If we borrowed from 1000 Grid we could use x=1000 and y =17.5 or even the peg hole of x=100, y= 1.75 or the peg hole of x=10, y= 0.175.
And in my previous writings I restricted myself to only the 1by1 unit square of 10 Grid, but what happens when I ask for all angles in 10 Grid?, well, there will be more than just 10 up to 45degrees and another 10 from 45degrees to 90degrees. So we see the 10 Grid as 100 peg holes on x-axis, another 100 peg holes on y-axis and the entire Grid not counting (0,0) as having 100X100 = 10000 peg holes. So, can we say the entire 10 Grid has 10000 distinct angles? No, of course not for the angle 45degrees has several peg holes all being 45degrees. So the total number of distinct angles in 10 Grid are going to be far less than 10000.
AP
King of Science
Loading...