Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Vietmath War: Puppet governments
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/16/97
to
It happens frequently in wars, and all over where a revolution is
waging. Take the case of the USA in 1770, in the fight for independence
many US people fought with the British. The colonies were a house
divided. Some families had men fighting on opposing sides. So, in the
case of Vietnam it is easy to see that there springs a puppet govt in a
vacuum so to speak. Diem and Thieu and the many other puppet
governments. Why is there this human desire to be a puppet government
in the midst of a bedlam and mayhem with your life at dire risk? I
suppose it is a lust for power, no matter how fleeting or dangerous.
And in Fermat's Last theorem even if totally false, ie, there exist
Infinite Integers to solve all orders of exponents. There will spring
up Puppet proofs such as Miyaoka and now Wiles. Wiles knows deep down
that his lust for attention and desire for the limelight and spotlight
are fleeting. But in a vacuum of mayhem, there seems to always spring
these sort of puppet professors aided by their puppet presses spewing
out their puppet proofs. But what is worse and pathetic to no end, is
the duped people in mathematics that actually believes the puppet proof
is genuine.
Andrew Wiles
Jun 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/17/97
to
Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/19/97
to
In article <ao2342$397$1...@awiles.math.albany.edu>
"Andrew Wiles" <wi...@math.albany.edu> writes:
> Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
This is the kind of sentence I would expect from Mr. Wiles. Admission
that he was after all just seeking limelight and not any sort of
mathematics truth.
When you come to truth in any of the sciences, even mathematics which
is but a minor subdepartment of physics, your feelings also are
"aligned properly". Sort of the feelings you come by when in the
prescence of mature people. They may take a pause to find the correct
path to go but their maturity quickly puts them onto the correct path
and they know it and feel it in their bones.
Same thing in science or the minor science of mathematics. This
poster is perhaps not Mr. Wiles, but it may come to transpire that Mr.
Wiles concedes to the idea that Naturals = P-adic Integers long before
the numerous dwarfs of mathematics concede. That would be honorable of
Mr. Wiles, but I doubt he could do such an honourable deed, the lust
for fame is too heavy.
And perhaps even Mr. Prusiner will concede to the world that all
these years he was wrong about his prion theory and that viruses after
all were the culprits. There again , I say this is a slim chance for
when one is "deluded in science" and been given awards in that
delusion, it is like the proverbial backswimmers in the crawdaddy
traps-- easy going in, never go back.
And I wagered, not a bet, but a guess, that since both Mr. Wiles and
Mr. Prusiner were awarded the Wolf prizes for what I deem as "fake
works". That the power of science, the science of biology which has
that unbiased, impartial judge of Experimentation, something that
mathematics does not have (it is run by biased and tempermental
opinion. My wager was that Mr. Prusiner's ideas will be uncovered years
and decades and perhaps even centuries before the slothlike movement of
mathematics cleans its house.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 3, 2023, 4:44:39 AM7/3/23
to
Andrew, is that how a con-artist works and thinks, they care not for truth of the world, science truth, but center their life on limelight and spotlight. No wonder, Andrew, you cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not your stupid ellipse, nor you can ever do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for there is no limelight in it for you.
On Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
Kibo-on Andrew Wiles math failure & mentally ill says Kibo while pounding his male rectum (so he says).
On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
>"mentally ill"
> I Pound His Male Rectum
> The Delicious Rump Man
AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
From this:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
To this:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
1 1.001
Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.
For 1 the x^2 is 1.
For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
My 245th published book of science
Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
Product details
• ASIN : B0C9P5F755
• Publication date : June 27, 2023
• Language : English
• File size : 530 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 : 116 pages
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)
AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"Imp of Science"
> "always wrong"
P.S. Someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music. The gang needs jail time.
On Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
On Friday, December 3, 1993 at 7:36:50 PM UTC-6, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> In view of the speculation on the status of my work on the
Andrew, will your entire life be that of fake and con-art math, or is there some room for growth and maturity-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not your mindless ellipse. And can you comprehend a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is your math all a waste, waste of time, waste of science?
You are a failure Andrew Wiles of math, a utter low class failure. Why you are so stupid in math logic, you never even saw that Euler had no proof in exponent 3 for Euler forgot that a proof of exp 3 required him to prove all three A,B,C are not even numbers, no, Euler just was too dumb in logic same as you Andrew to realize he had to prove A,B,C were not all three even. And to put a finer point on it-- why you Andrew Wiles is a math failure, is that you are so stupid in geometry as to still think a slant cut of cone is a ellipse when it is a oval. That is probably why you could never do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for how could you when you cannot tell apart a ellipse from a oval.
Your FLT fakery of 1990s is just con-art-- not mathematics, for AP proved FLT in 1991, see below.
Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, why is this stalker arsewipe allowed to even post in sci.math or sci.physics, instead, he should be flushed down the toilet some 30 years ago.
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
> Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
>"mentally ill"
> I Pound His Male Rectum
> The Delicious Rump Man
AP wrote this for his new book: Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:20 PM, July 1, 2023
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Everytime AP goes over his science and math, some new item comes up that I can elaborate and detail more about.
In this diagram proof below, the A and B are discrete points of the Function Graph Curve with no numbers existing between A and B, and the midpoint "m" is fetched by hauling in higher Grid systems. Every number in Decimal Grid systems all the way out to infinity borderline 1*10^604 is ending in nothing but 0 digits, which insures a midpoint.
What is so fantastically different from AP's New Math proof of FTC, which Old Math could never handle, is that the derivative is actually part and parcel the same as the Function Graph Curve.
In all my proofs of FTC, I never showed the reverse of starting with a rectangular cell and then building the Function Graph Curve from the rectangle. Instead I showed just the trapezoid with the derivative inside as the right-traingle sitting atop the midpoint then swiveling-down the right-triangle to form the integral rectangle.
From this:
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
To this:
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
Now, let me start with a integral rectangle for a specific Grid System. Let me say I chose the Grid System to be 1000, then each cell along the x-axis is a width of 0.001 wide. Now how far out do I need to go to borrow to cover all midpoints? Well, for 0 to 0.001, I need 0.0005 to have a midpoint. Is that as far as I need to go? Will the 10,000 Grid System cover all midpoints?? Suppose I had 1.333, is the 10,000 Grid sufficient in borrowing? That comes to 0.6665 and so far so good.
So I have these cells all up and down the x-axis, and reaching all the way to 1000 on the y-axis. I do not even have a function yet that is going to criss-cross through all the widths resting on the x-axis. I do not know what the function is that the mathematics-god is going to give me to plot. Now the math-god hands me the function x^2 --> Y.
Alright, now I fill each empty cell.
Each cell is looking like this empty rectangle only very tall and thin as the height is 1000 and the width is 0.001.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
And I focus on the cell from 1 to 1.001. I could pick any cell, but I chose a cell to avoid a fraction only cell, a cell away from 1. For I am teaching and students have a hard time of numbers that are fractions only-- those numbers between 0 and 1. So I chose a number equal or after 1.
__m__
| |
| |
| |
---------
1 1.001
Now I apply the function that the math-god gave me. I apply x^2 --> Y.
For 1 the x^2 is 1.
For 1.001 the x^2 is 1.002001.
In other words, I had the integral rectangle before I had the function itself, and now I graph that function.
Now I draw in that cell the A = 1 and the B = 1.002001. My cell looks like this.
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
|A |
|____|
The midpoint of my cell "m" is 2 divided into 2.001 = 1.0005. I carved into the side wall of the integral rectangle to fetch a right triangle whose vertex points are A, and m, and B was where A is.
Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1,1.002001).
This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
My 245th published book of science
Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
Product details
• ASIN : B0C9P5F755
• Publication date : June 27, 2023
• Language : English
• File size : 530 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 : 116 pages
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)
AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Logic
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 8:03:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"Imp of Science"
> "always wrong"
P.S. Someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music. The gang needs jail time.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 16, 2023, 4:25:08 PM7/16/23
to
Kibo on mental illness
Andrew Wiles, Dr William Alan Day, Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"
>Re: "imp of math"
On Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
Neither Andrew Wiles nor Roger Penrose do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.
> >
> > 2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
> >
> > People list
> > Academic Faculty
> > Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
> > Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
> > Prof. Ruth Baker
> > Prof. Paul Neville Balister
> > Dr Murad Banaji
> > Prof. Christopher Beem
> > Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
> > Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
> > Prof. Chris Breward
> > Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
> > Prof. Francis Brown
> > Prof. Helen Byrne
> > Prof. José A. Carrillo
> > Prof. Alvaro Cartea
> > Prof. Coralia Cartis
> > Prof. S. Jon Chapman
> > Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
> > Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
> > Prof. Samuel Cohen
> > Prof. Rama Cont
> > Prof. Andrew Dancer
> > Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
> > Prof. Paul J. Dellar
> > Prof. Christopher Douglas
> > Prof. Cornelia Drutu
> > Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
> > Dr Richard Earl
> > Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
> > Prof. Radek Erban
> > Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
> > Prof. Doyne Farmer
> > Prof. Patrick Farrell
> > Prof. Victor Flynn
> > Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
> > Prof. Mike Giles
> > Dr Kathryn Gillow
> > Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
> > Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
> > Prof. Ian Griffiths
> > Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
> > Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
> > Prof. Ben Hambly
> > Prof. Heather Harrington
> > Prof. Raphael Hauser
> > Prof. Andre Henriques
> > Prof. Ian Hewitt
> > Dr Christopher Hollings
> > Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
> > Prof. Peter Howell
> > Prof. Sam Howison
> > Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
> > Prof. Hanqing Jin
> > Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
> > Prof. Andras Juhasz
> > Prof. Jon Keating FRS
> > Prof. Peter Keevash
> > Prof. Dawid Kielak
> > Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
> > Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
> > Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
> > Prof. Jan Kristensen
> > Prof. Marc Lackenby
> > Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
> > Prof. Alan Lauder
> > Prof. Jason D Lotay
> > Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
> > Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
> > Prof. Lionel J Mason
> > Prof. James Maynard
> > Prof. Kevin McGerty
> > Prof. Mark Mezei
> > Prof. Andrea Mondino
> > Prof. Michael Monoyios
> > Prof. Irene Moroz
> > Prof. Derek Moulton
> > Prof. Andreas Münch
> > Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
> > Prof. Vidit Nanda
> > Dr James Newton
> > Prof. Luc Nguyen
> > Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
> > Prof. Harald Oberhauser
> > Prof. Jan Obloj
> > Prof. James Oliver
> > Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
> > Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
> > Prof. Zhongmin Qian
> > Prof. Christoph Reisinger
> > Prof. Oliver Riordan
> > Prof. Alexander Ritter
> > Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
> > Prof. Melanie Rupflin
> > Prof. Tom Sanders
> > Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
> > Prof. Alex Scott
> > Prof. Justin Sirignano
> > Prof. James Sparks
> > Prof. Endre Suli FRS
> > Prof. Jared Tanner
> > Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
> > Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
> > Dr Christoph Uhlemann
> > Prof. Dominic Vella
> > Dr Christopher Voyce
> > Prof. Qian Wang
> > Prof. Sarah Waters
> > Prof. Andrew Wathen
> > Prof. Stuart Andrew White
> > Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
> > Dr Catherine Wilkins
> >
> > Emeritus
> > Dr David John Acheson
> > Prof. John E Allen
> > Dr David Allwright
> > Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
> > Prof. Charles Batty
> > Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
> > Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
> > Prof. Michael Collins
> > Dr Peter Collins
> > Dr William Alan Day
> > Dr Janet Dyson
> > Dr David Edwards
> > Dr Karin Erdmann
> > Dr Chris L. Farmer
> > Prof. Andrew Fowler
> > Prof. Ian Grant FRS
> > Dr Keith Hannabuss
> > Prof. Richard G Haydon
> > Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
> > Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
> > Prof. Andrew Hodges
> > Prof. Ioan James FRS
> > Dr Glenys Luke
> > Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
> > Prof. Colin McDiarmid
> > Prof. Bill Morton
> > Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
> > Dr John Norbury
> > Dr Hilary Ockendon
> > Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
> > Prof. Colin Please
> > Prof. Hilary Priestley
> > Dr Christopher Prior
> > Prof. Subir Sarkar
> > Prof. Dan Segal
> > Dr Graeme Segal FRS
> > Prof. Gregory Seregin
> > Prof. Ian Sobey
> > Dr Brian Steer
> > Dr Brian Stewart
> > Prof. David Stirzaker
> > Sir Martin Taylor FRS
> > Prof. Paul Tod
> > Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
> > Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
> > Prof. Dominic Welsh
> > Prof. J S Wilson
> > Prof. Nick Woodhouse
> > Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
> > Prof. Boris Zilber
> > > P.S. AP suspects that someone in the Kibo gang of stalkers has again hacked and disabled AP's music sound, for it was 5 minutes into a reply of Kibo, that my sound went off. The gang needs jail time.
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >"always wrong"
Andrew Wiles, Dr William Alan Day, Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"mentally ill"
>Re: "imp of math"
On Tuesday, June 17, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Andrew Wiles wrote:
> Why don't you try other ways to gain your own limelight and spotlight...
Neither Andrew Wiles nor Roger Penrose do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof, but that Roger Penrose cannot even tell apart a ellipse from Oval, for the slant cut of Cone is a Oval.
> >
> > 2-Kibo, is Andrew Wiles always wrong as you continually rant? Sure, Andrew cannot tell what a Oval is from ellipse and cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone a valid proof, not the idiotic nonsense of a limit hornswaggle, but surely Andrew can at least tie his shoes without getting that wrong, surely.
> >
> > People list
> > Academic Faculty
> > Prof. Luis Fernando Alday FRS
> > Prof. Konstantin Ardakov
> > Prof. Ruth Baker
> > Prof. Paul Neville Balister
> > Dr Murad Banaji
> > Prof. Christopher Beem
> > Prof. Dmitry Belyaev
> > Prof. Emmanuel Breuillard
> > Prof. Chris Breward
> > Prof. Martin Bridson FRS
> > Prof. Francis Brown
> > Prof. Helen Byrne
> > Prof. José A. Carrillo
> > Prof. Alvaro Cartea
> > Prof. Coralia Cartis
> > Prof. S. Jon Chapman
> > Prof. Gui-Qiang G. Chen
> > Prof. Dan Ciubotaru
> > Prof. Samuel Cohen
> > Prof. Rama Cont
> > Prof. Andrew Dancer
> > Prof. Xenia de la Ossa
> > Prof. Paul J. Dellar
> > Prof. Christopher Douglas
> > Prof. Cornelia Drutu
> > Prof. Marcus Du Sautoy FRS
> > Dr Richard Earl
> > Prof. Artur Ekert FRS
> > Prof. Radek Erban
> > Prof. Alison M Etheridge FRS
> > Prof. Doyne Farmer
> > Prof. Patrick Farrell
> > Prof. Victor Flynn
> > Prof. Eamonn Gaffney
> > Prof. Mike Giles
> > Dr Kathryn Gillow
> > Prof. Alain Goriely FRS
> > Prof. Ben J. Green FRS
> > Prof. Ian Griffiths
> > Prof. Peter Grindrod CBE
> > Prof. Massimiliano Gubinelli
> > Prof. Ben Hambly
> > Prof. Heather Harrington
> > Prof. Raphael Hauser
> > Prof. Andre Henriques
> > Prof. Ian Hewitt
> > Dr Christopher Hollings
> > Prof. Blanka Nora Horvath
> > Prof. Peter Howell
> > Prof. Sam Howison
> > Prof. Ehud Hrushovski FRS
> > Prof. Hanqing Jin
> > Prof. Dominic Joyce FRS
> > Prof. Andras Juhasz
> > Prof. Jon Keating FRS
> > Prof. Peter Keevash
> > Prof. Dawid Kielak
> > Prof. Frances Kirwan FRS
> > Prof. Jochen Koenigsmann
> > Prof. Yakov Kremnitzer
> > Prof. Jan Kristensen
> > Prof. Marc Lackenby
> > Prof. Renaud Lambiotte
> > Prof. Alan Lauder
> > Prof. Jason D Lotay
> > Prof. Terry Lyons FLSW FRSE FRS
> > Prof. Philip K. Maini FRS FMedSci FRSB
> > Prof. Lionel J Mason
> > Prof. James Maynard
> > Prof. Kevin McGerty
> > Prof. Mark Mezei
> > Prof. Andrea Mondino
> > Prof. Michael Monoyios
> > Prof. Irene Moroz
> > Prof. Derek Moulton
> > Prof. Andreas Münch
> > Prof. Yuji Nakatsukasa
> > Prof. Vidit Nanda
> > Dr James Newton
> > Prof. Luc Nguyen
> > Prof. Nikolay Nikolov
> > Prof. Harald Oberhauser
> > Prof. Jan Obloj
> > Prof. James Oliver
> > Prof. Panagiotis Papazoglou
> > Prof. Jonathan Pila FRS
> > Prof. Zhongmin Qian
> > Prof. Christoph Reisinger
> > Prof. Oliver Riordan
> > Prof. Alexander Ritter
> > Prof. Damian Charles Rössler
> > Prof. Melanie Rupflin
> > Prof. Tom Sanders
> > Prof. Sakura Schafer-Nameki
> > Prof. Alex Scott
> > Prof. Justin Sirignano
> > Prof. James Sparks
> > Prof. Endre Suli FRS
> > Prof. Jared Tanner
> > Prof. Ulrike Tillmann FRS
> > Prof. Nick Trefethen FRS
> > Dr Christoph Uhlemann
> > Prof. Dominic Vella
> > Dr Christopher Voyce
> > Prof. Qian Wang
> > Prof. Sarah Waters
> > Prof. Andrew Wathen
> > Prof. Stuart Andrew White
> > Prof. Sir Andrew Wiles FRS
> > Dr Catherine Wilkins
> >
> > Emeritus
> > Dr David John Acheson
> > Prof. John E Allen
> > Dr David Allwright
> > Prof. Sir John Ball FRS
> > Prof. Charles Batty
> > Prof. Bryan Birch FRS
> > Prof. Philip Candelas FRS
> > Prof. Michael Collins
> > Dr Peter Collins
> > Dr William Alan Day
> > Dr Janet Dyson
> > Dr David Edwards
> > Dr Karin Erdmann
> > Dr Chris L. Farmer
> > Prof. Andrew Fowler
> > Prof. Ian Grant FRS
> > Dr Keith Hannabuss
> > Prof. Richard G Haydon
> > Prof. Roger Heath-Brown FRS
> > Prof. Nigel Hitchin FRS
> > Prof. Andrew Hodges
> > Prof. Ioan James FRS
> > Dr Glenys Luke
> > Prof. Ursula Martin CBE FREng FRSE FBCS FIET FIMA
> > Prof. Colin McDiarmid
> > Prof. Bill Morton
> > Prof. James D. Murray FRS, FRSE, FRSB
> > Dr John Norbury
> > Dr Hilary Ockendon
> > Prof. John R. Ockendon FRS
> > Prof. Colin Please
> > Prof. Hilary Priestley
> > Dr Christopher Prior
> > Prof. Subir Sarkar
> > Prof. Dan Segal
> > Dr Graeme Segal FRS
> > Prof. Gregory Seregin
> > Prof. Ian Sobey
> > Dr Brian Steer
> > Dr Brian Stewart
> > Prof. David Stirzaker
> > Sir Martin Taylor FRS
> > Prof. Paul Tod
> > Dr Tsou Sheung Tsun
> > Dr Graham Vincent-Smith
> > Prof. Dominic Welsh
> > Prof. J S Wilson
> > Prof. Nick Woodhouse
> > Prof. J.D. Maitland Wright
> > Prof. Boris Zilber
> > >
> > > On Saturday, July 8, 2023 at 3:26:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > >"always wrong"
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 17, 2023, 3:19:49 AM7/17/23
to
2-Kibo on mental illness
2-Andrew Wiles, Prof. Martin Bridson FRS,Dr William Alan Day, Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
2-Andrew Wiles, Prof. Martin Bridson FRS,Dr William Alan Day, Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only idiots would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 17, 2023, 2:59:15 PM7/17/23
to
.Kibo on mental illness
.Andrew Wiles,Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only fools would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
.Andrew Wiles,Dr Janet Dyson,Dr David Edwards. For only fools would think a slant cut of cylinder and cone both produce a ellipse, only a mindless math idiot would think that, such as Andrew Wiles and Roger Penrose. Because a cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, a cylinder and ellipse have 2 axes of symmetry. These are not teachers of math, but goonclods of math propaganda.
0 new messages