Univ Maryland Tim Sweeney on where Dr. Fefferman is and whether he stopped making calculus classrooms as torture chambers-- too dumb to know that polynomials are the only valid function of math thus making calculus supereasy with add or subtract 1
Archimedes Plutonium
X (symbol) X X-TimSweeneyEpic 4likes, 4 years ago Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? 9:56 PM- Oct 22, 2019
Born
April 18, 1949 (age 75)
Alma mater
University of Maryland, College Park
Princeton University
Awards
- Alan T. Waterman Award (1976)
- Fields Medal (1978)
- Bergman Prize (1992)
Bôcher Memorial Prize (2008) - Wolf Prize (2017)
- BBVA Foundation Frontiers of Knowledge Award (2021)
Scientific career
Fields
Mathematics
Institutions
Princeton University,
University of Chicago
Doctoral advisor
Elias Stein
Doctoral students
Matei Machedon
Luis A. Seco
Univ Maryland Tim Sweeney on where Dr. Fefferman is and whether he stopped making calculus classrooms as torture chambers-- too dumb to know that polynomials are the only valid function of math thus making calculus supereasy with add or subtract 1
Why Dr.Wiles, Wolfgang Mueckenheim fail math-- conic sections, calculus. Are they playing slots and not enough math study??
Kibo Parry Volney, if Dr. Tao had studied under TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, would he have had more commonsense to know slant cut of cylinder is ellipse, but not cone for its asymmetry makes the slant cut a Oval, not ellipse.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:21:58 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> The punishment will continue until morale improves.
>
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.
Only Math textbooks with the true numbers of mathematics-- Decimal Grid Numbers, not the insane silly Reals & Complex with their crank crackpot imaginary b.s.
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. A cylinder slant cut is ellipse, never cone.
Kibo Parry Volney, if you had studied under TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, probably today would understand what a correct percentage was instead of your failureship. And likely Dr. Wiles if not blind in his eyes had studied under TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, would know slant cut of cylinder is truly a ellipse but not of cone for that slant cut is a oval.
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)
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.
>
>
> 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.
>
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.
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
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.
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)).
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 3:00:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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
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.
> 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.
>
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 /----|
> > / |
> > | |
> > |____|
> >
>
> 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.
>
>
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
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
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
In office
February 19, 2018 – July 10, 2020
President
Donald Trump
Preceded by
Position established
Succeeded by
Heidi Shyu
11th Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
In office
April 13, 2005 – January 20, 2009
President
George W. Bush
Deputy
Shana Dale
Preceded by
Sean O'Keefe
Succeeded by
Charles Bolden
Personal details
Born
November 1, 1949 (age 74)
Aberdeen, Maryland, U.S.
Education
Caltech
Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Thomas Phillips,
Dr.John Schwarz, Dr.Barry Simon, Dr.Kip Thorne, Dr.Petr Vogel,
Dr.Rochus Vogt, Dr.Ward Whaling, Dr.Michael E. Brown, Dr.Felix Boehm, Dr.Steven Frautschi, can they ever, ever simply weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in water electrolysis, instead of looking at volume???
Dr.Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.
Volney Physics failures..CalTech_Dr.David Goodstein,Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer NSF Dr.Panchanathan,Alejandro Adem, Purdue Univ_France Cordova,
Physics failures..Rensselaer,Dr.Esther A. Wertz,Dr.Heidi Jo Newberg,Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Charles Martin,Dr.Joseph Darryl Michael,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.
And they even know that a weighing balance of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance has been around since the 1960s, what are they waiting for???
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.
Re: 2-Looking for a concordance of Dr. Richard Feynmann talking about AP-- on suffering of fools
by Volney 3:57 PM, 17Oct2023
Stalkers Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney with his sidekick Dan Christensen.
Volney
3
Dan Christensen using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS at Univ Western Ontario instead of the fake Old Math calculus with its thousands of rules and memorization of trig functions. New Math has 1 rule-- Power Rule
9:03 PM
,
Volney
3
WM using AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Gottingen & Uni Berlin for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
9:01 PM
182b-Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:52 PM
,
Volney
2
Volney uses TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS to teach 13-14 year olds CALCULUS, those heading for Berkeley,Caltech, Stanford, for AP reduced Calculus to its most simple form-- add or subtract 1 from exponent.
8:45 PM
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Volney
14
unread,
Re: Dr.Terence Tao along with Dr. Gene D.Block fired from UCLA for teaching propaganda -- truth is slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse, yet UCLA continues their propaganda of ellipse as slant cut.
8:43 PM
Caltech Physics Dept
Felix Boehm, Steven Frautschi
Murray Gell-Mann, David Goodstein, Thomas Phillips,
John Schwarz, Barry Simon, Kip Thorne, Petr Vogel,
Rochus Vogt, Ward Whaling, Michael E. Brown,
Konstantin Batygin, Dr.Frances Arnold (chem), Dr.Barry Barish, Dr.Rudolph Marcus (chem), Dr.Hugh Politzer
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.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept Dr.Martin Schmidt (ee), Dr.Ivar Giaever
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin, Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang
Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai, Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:
What warning is that Kibo Parry 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 stalk hate spew
---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
> 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.
>
> SECOND EXPERIMENT:
>
> 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.
>
> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:07:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 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
Caltech & Rensselaer Polytech do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O
Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting Wikipedia---Dame Katherine GraingerGrainger with her Olympic gold medal
Personal information
Birth name
Katherine Jane Grainger[1]
Nationality
British
Born
12 November 1975 (age 48)
Glasgow, Scotland
Alma mater
- University of Edinburgh (LLB)
- University of Glasgow (MPhil)
- King's College London(PhD)[2]
Height
1.82 m (5 ft 111⁄2 in)
Website
katherinegrainger.com
Chancellor of University of Glasgow
Assumed office
15 June 2020
Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University
In office
20 March 2015 – 15 June 2020
Vice Chancellor
Alistair Fitt[3]
Preceded by
Shami Chakrabarti
Succeeded by
Paterson Joseph
Sport
Country
United Kingdom
Sport
Women's rowing
Event
Double Sculls
College team
Edinburgh University Boat Club
Club
St Andrew Boat Club
Coached by
Paul ThompsonhideMedal record
RepresentingGreat Britain
Women's rowing
Event
1st
2nd
3rd
Olympic Games
1
4
0
World Championships
6
1
1
European Championships
0
0
1
Total
7
5
2
Olympic Games
2012 London
Double sculls
2000 Sydney
Quadruple sculls
2004 Athens
Coxless pair
2008 Beijing
Quadruple sculls
2016 Rio de Janeiro
Double sculls
World Championships
2003 Milan
Coxless pair
2005 Gifu
Quadruple sculls
2006 Eton
Quadruple sculls
2007 Munich
Quadruple sculls
2010 Karapiro
Double sculls
2011 Bled
Double sculls
2009 Poznań
Single scull
1997 Aiguebelette
Eight
European Championships
2015 Poznan
Double sculls--- end quoting Wikipedia---
David Brooks, Michael Roston is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Roston, what is the point in even having a The New York Times Science Section, when it cannot even answer the question of a New Yorker as Mr. Marshall Lett who wants to know if slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval.
Just because the NYT hates the guts of AP, and wants to never print his name, is no excuse in answering Mr. Lett's question. Besides, if NYT never answers the question, shows only that likely all of the NYT stories are just propaganda bias. You cannot answer science, means the rest of your newspaper is unreliable.
Title: "Is an ellipse a conic section?" 421 views Marshall Lett's profile photo Marshall Lett Sep 29, 2022, 7:21:51 AM to sci.math. I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not. Who am I supposed to believe?
On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
>
> Who am I supposed to believe?
Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be false also.
The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.
The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.
David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
> Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
>
> Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > >
> > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
> Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".
>
>
>
> > Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
>
> > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 7:21:51 AM UTC-5, Marshall Lett wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who am I supposed to believe?
>
>
> The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
>
> And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
> > > Kibo Parry M. along with his 938 is 12% short of 945 wrote:
> Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
> > > > Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!
>
>
>
> > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.
>
> > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
>
>
> > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > >
> > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > >
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > >
> > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > >
> > >
> > > But the side view of the cone is
> > >
> > > /\E
> > > /c \
> > > F / \
> > >
> > >
> > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
> > >
>
> > > > The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
>
> > > > The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
> > > >
> > > > The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
> > > >
> > > > A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
>
>
> > > > Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
>
> > > > Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
> > > >
> > > > In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
> > > >
> > > > The side view of a cylinder is this
> > > >
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > >
> > > > That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But the side view of the cone is
> > > >
> > > > /\E
> > > > /c \
> > > > F / \
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
>
>
>
> > > > > 3rd published book
> > > > >
> > > > > AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > 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
> > > > >
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)
Archimedes Plutonium
.jpg)
15 November 2012Preceded byHu JintaoPresident of ChinaAssumed office
14 March 2013Premier
- Li Keqiang (2013–23)
- Li Qiang (since 2023)
- Li Yuanchao (2013–18)
- Wang Qishan (2018–23)
- Han Zheng (since 2023)
- Party Commission: 15 November 2012
- State Commission: 14 March 2013
22 October 2007 – 15 November 2012Preceded byZeng QinghongSucceeded byLiu YunshanVice President of ChinaIn office
15 March 2008 – 14 March 2013PresidentHu JintaoPreceded byZeng QinghongSucceeded byLi YuanchaoPersonal detailsBorn15 June 1953 (age 71)
Beijing, ChinaPolitical partyCCP (since 1974)Spouses
.svg)
Websitewww.gov.cn (in Chinese)Scientific careerThesisResearch on China's Rural Marketization (2001)Doctoral advisorLiu Meixun (刘美珣)showTranscriptions
Adam D'Angelo Caltech, Charlie Cheever-Harvard on Univ Glasgow Mark Barton. Quora (symbol logo) Mark Barton PhD physicist with University of Glasgow Author has 16.9K answers and 21.5M answer views10y None at all - he was a raving nutter. 1.9K viewsView upvotes...
Derek Boyd, Dieter Brill, Alessandra Buonanno whatever happened to teaching true calculus at Univ Maryland; let alone ask the question which is the Atom's true electron asked by computer burnt out brain Tim Sweeney--- quoting Wikipedia---Tim SweeneySweeney at the Game Developers Choice Awards 2017
BornTimothy Dean Sweeney[1]
1970 (age 53–54)[2]
Alma mater
University of Maryland[3]
Occupation(s)
Video game programmer and developer, businessman
Notable work
ZZT
Unreal Engine
Title
Founder and CEO of Epic Games
Awards
AIAS Hall of Fame Award (2012)[4]
GDC Lifetime Achievement Award (2017)[5]--- end quoting Wikipedia---Tim Sweeney asks whatever happened to teaching true calculus at Univ Maryland, Darryll Pines; let alone ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle?? Is Sweeney's computer games making students mentally retarded?? Does the EU need to put Mental Health Warnings on Sweeney computer games???
.jpg)
X (symbol) X X-TimSweeneyEpic 4likes, 4 years ago Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? 9:56 PM- Oct 22, 2019
X (symbol) X X-TimSweeneyEpic 4likes, 4 years ago Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? Whatever happened to Archimedes Plutonium? 9:56 PM- Oct 22, 2019
Univ. Maryland physics dept Derek Boyd, Dieter Brill, Alessandra Buonanno, Chia-Cheh Chang, Chung-Yun Chang, Thomas Cohen, Douglas Currie, Sankar Das Sarma, Alan DeSilva, Jay Dorfman, William Dorland, Alex Dragt, James Drake, Howard Drew, Theodore L Einstein, Sarah Eno, Victor Galitski, George Gloeckler, Jordan Goodman, Oscar Greenberg, Richard Greene, Nicholas Hadley, Douglas Hamilton, Kara Hoffman, Theodore Kirkpatrick, Glenn Mason, John Mather, Edward Ott, Johnpierre Paglione, Jogesh Pati, William Philips, Edward Redish, Steven Rolston, Philip Roos, Peter Shawhan, Philip Sprangle, Edo Waks, Stephen Wallace, John Weeks, Frederick Wellstood, Ellen Williams, James Yorke
Univ. Maryland physics dept Derek Boyd, Dieter Brill, Alessandra Buonanno, Chia-Cheh Chang, Chung-Yun Chang, Thomas Cohen, Douglas Currie, Sankar Das Sarma, Alan DeSilva, Jay Dorfman, William Dorland, Alex Dragt, James Drake, Howard Drew, Theodore L Einstein, Sarah Eno, Victor Galitski, George Gloeckler, Jordan Goodman, Oscar Greenberg, Richard Greene, Nicholas Hadley, Douglas Hamilton, Kara Hoffman, Theodore Kirkpatrick, Glenn Mason, John Mather, Edward Ott, Johnpierre Paglione, Jogesh Pati, William Philips, Edward Redish, Steven Rolston, Philip Roos, Peter Shawhan, Philip Sprangle, Edo Waks, Stephen Wallace, John Weeks, Frederick Wellstood, Ellen Williams, James Yorke
Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
9) Never took logic, or not enough, to understand Pauli Exclusion Principle forbids black holes.
10) Too stupid in mind to understand for the Atomic Theory to be a law of science requires the Universe itself be a Atom.
11) Far far too stupid to insist the Polynomial is the only valid function in all of math, thus reducing Calculus to a mere add or subtract 1 from exponent and making Calculus ----Super super easy
--- quoting my 283rd book of science---
Psychopathology of why math professors refuse to make Calculus super-easy and stop torturing students// psychology in math
by Archimedes Plutonium
This is AP's 283rd published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe, PAU newsgroup is this.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Preface: AP is tired of Old Math and Old Math professors who refuse to correct and revise what math they teach. Calculus as taught today is a torture chamber, of vomiting during exams, and nervous breakdowns all because math professors do not switch to the super-easy calculus, where the only valid function of mathematics is the polynomial, making calculus super, super easy. And AP can teach calculus in Junior High School, so easy as it is. Old Math teaches fake calculus, that is tough and incomprehensible to students with a mindless limit analysis, expecting students to accept a rectangle with 0 width having interior area for integral, and their derivative as tangent to the function graph at a point when it should be predicting the next point of the function graph. Mistake after mistake after mistake, when instead of 1,000 page calculus textbooks, AP can teach calculus with only 100 pages and where students love calculus, love math, and find math the easiest of all the sciences.
This book is more of a psychology book asking and analyzing why Old Math professors delight in punishing students rather than teach calculus in the easiest way possible.
Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of some of my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks. The world's first math textbooks that take a student from 5 years old through graduate school written by one author alone. Focus on the far right top as the textbook that teaches ages 5 to 18. TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2. TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks is written by one author who carries the student through all their math needs from age 5 to age 26. When one author does all math textbooks, there is coherence and logical flow in math education, not a disruption and discontinuity and oddball stuff that does not fit together. And especially those students who move from one school to another.
-------------------------------------
Table of Contents
-------------------------------------
1) My history on this topic.
2) The current scene of math education in Calculus by March 2024.
3) Further topics in this series in math psychology.
4) AP not the only one to notice math calculus classrooms as torture chambers.
5) Few scientists examine themselves through the lens of psychology.
6) There is a pretty link between physics unification of forces and math making calculus super-easy.
7) Physicists have their own demon of Psychopathology in their Standard Model, string, quarks.
8) Others in education and academia communities have taken up the alarm call of math calculus being degenerate psychopathology.
9) Math professors in Colleges & Universities have decided it is better to torture students, rather than 1/2 the math staff layed off since calculus is so easy.
10) Together, those of us who want only truth in science, will force out the psychopathology in math.
11) Summary.
--- quoting my 283rd book of science---
Archimedes Plutonium
-Portr_19618.jpg)
Archimedes Plutonium
Univ Manchester Nancy Rothwell, Toby Howard (psychoceramics), Jack Dongarra
Timothy Brauch, Jim Brumbaugh-Smith, Young Lee, Robin Mitchell, Eva Sagan. Dr.Andre Geim (physics)
Univ Manchester physics dept
Robert Appleby, Richard Battye, Robert Beswick, David Binks, Michael Birse, Stewart Boogert, Jens Chluba, Chris Conselice, Brian Cox, Mark Dickinson, Justin Evans, Kieran Flanagan, Jeffrey Forshaw, Sean Freeman, Michael Garrett, Roxanne Guenette, Roger Jones, Judith McGovern, Andrew Murray, Tim O'Brien, Christopher Parkes, Patrick Parkinson, Anna Scaife
Math dept. David Bell, Roger Bryant, Christopher Dodson, John Dold, Ronald Doney, Peter Eccles, Roger Plymen, Patrick Laycock, Jeff Paris, Mike Prest, Nige Ray, Toby Stafford, Ralph Stohr, Alex Wilkie, Marcus Webb, Korbinian Strimmer, David Silvester, Mark Kambites, Andrew Hazel
The University of Manchester cs dot man dot ac dot uk Guardian ceramics Toby Howard:: Psychoceramics
So when, between TV shows, someone pops up claiming that the universe is a giant Plutonium atom, all you'll have to do is press "psychoceramic" button on...
Wikipedia: Usenet personality
Archimedes Plutonium (current legal name, born Ludwig Poehlmann in 1950... " Psychoceramics: the on-line crackpots " (reprint) The Guardian ...Joseph Scott "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'"