info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: On 248th book of science// The math proof that 3 arbitrary points in Space, not collinear, determines a Unique Plane in Space and the nonexistence of 4D // Math research by Archimedes Plutonium 10m views
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Fritz Feldhase
May 31, 2023, 2:39:12 PM5/31/23
to
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
Nope.
See the image here: https://postimg.cc/7JXhxPdb
> As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
Nope.
See the image here: https://postimg.cc/7JXhxPdb
Archimedes Plutonium
May 31, 2023, 4:22:46 PM5/31/23
to
Math failures Fritz Feldhase,Sabine Doering-Manteuffel,Ronald H.W.Hoppe with their 2 different ellipses from the same major axis and minor axis of a ellipse, no wonder they failed geometry when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from Oval in slant cut of cone, for the slant cut is a Oval, yet Fritz is too dishonest and a math con-artist to admit the truth. No wonder all of Germany math education is too dishonest in truth, and that is why no-one in German universities math professors can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. How could they when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval.
Fritz Feldhase, the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And Germany Gottingen Uni?? has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So German has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron Wolfgang Mueckenheim and his mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:39:12 PM UTC-5, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
>
> Nope.
>
> See the image here:
Universitat Augsburg, Germany, rector Sabine Doering-Manteuffel
Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
Eternal-September.org
Wolfgang M. Weyand
Berliner Strasse
Bad Homburg
Goethe Universitat Physics dept
Brigitta Wolff president
Jurgen Habermass
Horst Stocker
Gerd Binnig
Horst Ludwig Stormer
Peter Grunberg
math
Alex Kuronya
Martin Moller
Jakob Stix
Annette Werner
Andreas Bernig
Esther Cabezas-Rivas
Hans Crauel
Thomas Gerstner
Bastian von Harrach
Thomas Mettler
Tobias Weth
Amin Coja-Oghlan
Raman Sanyal
Thorsten Theobald
Yury Person
Gottingen Univ math
Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
Gottingen Univ physics
Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
My 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
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Fritz Feldhase, the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And Germany Gottingen Uni?? has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So German has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron Wolfgang Mueckenheim and his mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 1:39:12 PM UTC-5, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
>
> Nope.
>
> See the image here:
Math dept Ronald H.W.Hoppe, B. Schmidt, Sarah Friedrich, Stefan Grosskinsky, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Mirjam Dur, Ralf Werner.
Hochschule Augsburg, Wolfgang Mueckenheim
Eternal-September.org
Wolfgang M. Weyand
Berliner Strasse
Bad Homburg
Goethe Universitat Physics dept
Brigitta Wolff president
Jurgen Habermass
Horst Stocker
Gerd Binnig
Horst Ludwig Stormer
Peter Grunberg
math
Alex Kuronya
Martin Moller
Jakob Stix
Annette Werner
Andreas Bernig
Esther Cabezas-Rivas
Hans Crauel
Thomas Gerstner
Bastian von Harrach
Thomas Mettler
Tobias Weth
Amin Coja-Oghlan
Raman Sanyal
Thorsten Theobald
Yury Person
Gottingen Univ math
Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Stefan Halverscheid, Harald Andres Helfgott, Madeleine Jotz Lean, Ralf Meyer, Preda Mihailescu, Walther Dietrich Paravicini, Viktor Pidstrygach, Thomas Schick, Evelina Viada, Ingo Frank Witt, Chenchang Zhu
Gottingen Univ physics
Prof. Dr. Karsten Bahr
Prof. Dr. Peter Bloechl
Prof. Dr. Eberhard Bodenschatz
Prof. Laura Covi, PhD
Prof. Dr. Andreas Dillmann
Prof. Dr. Stefan Dreizler
Prof. Dr. Jörg Enderlein
Prof. Dr. Laurent Gizon
Prof. Dr. Ariane Frey
apl. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Glatzel
Prof. Dr. Fabian Heidrich-Meisner
Prof. Dr. Hans Christian Hofsäss
Prof. Dr. Andreas Janshoff
Prof. Dr. Christian Jooß
Prof. Dr. Stefan Kehrein
Prof. Dr. Stefan Klumpp
Prof. Dr. Sarah Köster
Prof. Dr. Reiner Kree
Prof. Dr. Matthias Krüger
Prof. Dr. Stanley Lai
Prof. Dr. Stefan Mathias
apl. Prof. Dr. Vasile Mosneaga
Prof. Dr. Marcus Müller
Prof. Dr. Jens Niemeyer
apl. Prof. Dr. Astrid Pundt
Prof. Dr. Arnulf Quadt
apl. Prof. Dr. Karl-Henning Rehren
Prof. Dr. Ansgar Reiners
Prof. Dr. Angela Rizzi
Prof. Dr. Claus Ropers
Prof. Dr. Tim Salditt
Prof. Dr. Konrad Samwer
Prof. Dr. Christoph Schmidt
apl. Prof. Dr. Susanne Schneider
Prof. Dr. Steffen Schumann
Prof. Dr. Simone Techert
apl. Prof. Dr. Michael Seibt
Prof. Dr. Peter Sollich
Prof. Dr. Andreas Tilgner
Prof. Cynthia A. Volkert
Prof. Dr. Florentin Wörgötter
Prof. Dr. Annette Zippelius
My 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
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Fritz Feldhase
May 31, 2023, 5:22:03 PM5/31/23
to
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:22:46 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: <nothing>
> FF wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> > See the image here:
https://postimg.cc/7JXhxPdb
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> > See the image here:
Archimedes Plutonium
May 31, 2023, 5:55:27 PM5/31/23
to
Math failures Fritz Feldhase,Jurgen Habermass,Horst Stocker with their 2 different ellipses from the same major axis and minor axis of a ellipse, no wonder they failed geometry when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from Oval in slant cut of cone, for the slant cut is a Oval, yet Fritz is too dishonest and a math con-artist to admit the truth. No wonder all of Germany math education is too dishonest in truth, and that is why no-one in German universities math professors can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. How could they when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval.
>
> Fritz Feldhase, the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And Germany Gottingen Uni?? has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So Germany has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron Wolfgang Mueckenheim and his mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
>
Fritz, such a moron of math, and just a spammer, thinks art graphics is a substitute for mathematics.... No wonder Germany has dropped from 1st class education in math to being now a 3rd world loser in math education with all those idiots like Fritz and Wolfgang Mueckenheim running around with their ellipse a conic section when in reality that is a oval. No-one in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and obviously because you have idiots like Fritz spamming.
>
> Fritz Feldhase, the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And Germany Gottingen Uni?? has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So Germany has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron Wolfgang Mueckenheim and his mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
>
Fritz, such a moron of math, and just a spammer, thinks art graphics is a substitute for mathematics.... No wonder Germany has dropped from 1st class education in math to being now a 3rd world loser in math education with all those idiots like Fritz and Wolfgang Mueckenheim running around with their ellipse a conic section when in reality that is a oval. No-one in Germany can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and obviously because you have idiots like Fritz spamming.
Fritz Feldhase
May 31, 2023, 6:48:53 PM5/31/23
to
On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 10:22:46 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: <nothing>
> FF wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> > See the image here:
https://postimg.cc/7JXhxPdb
> > On Wednesday, May 31, 2023 at 6:51:04 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > As the two triangles get closer and closer to being right triangles, the second ellipse disappears and you have remaining a Unique ellipse.
> > >
> > Nope.
> >
> > See the image here:
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 3, 2023, 12:45:23 AM6/3/23
to
Morons in sci.math-Feldhase, Thomasson, WM
where a dumbfuck thinks computer graphics is math.
Fritz Feldhase,Chris Thomasson massively stupid. So they have a 3-4-5 right triangle placed let to leg
/|
|/
Or, how about trying the 45-45-90, identical leg to leg for numbclutches like Fritz and Chris.
Then they sit at their arsewipe-computer, punching in keys, saying to the computer-- give me two ellipses. First the arsewipe computer wipes their arse, breast feeds their teething mouths, then shows 2 different ellipses on their computer screen. And this is what Fritz calls "doing mathematics".
Fritz Feldhase,Chris Thomasson massively stupid. So they have a 3-4-5 right triangle placed let to leg
/|
|/
Or, how about trying the 45-45-90, identical leg to leg for numbclutches like Fritz and Chris.
Then they sit at their arsewipe-computer, punching in keys, saying to the computer-- give me two ellipses. First the arsewipe computer wipes their arse, breast feeds their teething mouths, then shows 2 different ellipses on their computer screen. And this is what Fritz calls "doing mathematics".
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 3, 2023, 3:47:38 AM6/3/23
to
Math failures ... with their 2 different ellipses from the same major axis and minor axis of a ellipse, no wonder they failed geometry when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from Oval in slant cut of cone, for the slant cut is a Oval, yet ... is too dishonest and a math con-artist to admit the truth. No wonder all of .... math education is too dishonest in truth, and that is why no-one in .... can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. How could they when they cannot tell apart a ellipse from oval.
...., the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And .... has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So .... has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron .... mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in .... can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
>
...., such a moron of math, and just a spammer, thinks art graphics is a substitute for mathematics.... No wonder .... has dropped from 1st class education in math to being now a 3rd world loser in math education with all those idiots like .... running around with their ellipse a conic section when in reality that is a oval.
where a.... thinks computer graphics is math.
So they have a 3-4-5 right triangle placed leg to leg
/|
|/
Or, how about trying the 45-45-90, identical triangles joined leg to leg
Then they sit at their computer, punching in keys, saying to the computer-- give me two ellipses. ...then shows 2 different ellipses on their computer screen. And this is what .... calls "doing mathematics".
And this is a modern day problem of grave concern, those who are stupid and blind in thinking their computer graphics is giving them math results when all it is giving them is Artwork graphics, that lures the stupid into thinking they have ellipses covering 4 points.
Now there is a question of why 2 identical right triangles leg to leg give a unique ellipse but other triangles leg to leg allow 2 ellipses to cover their 4 vertex points.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the right triangles mark out not only the major and minor axes-- a uniqueness feature, but also mark out the foci as another uniqueness feature imposed on right triangles as parallelograms but not on say a rhombus as parallelogram.
And here the question has to be, as a corollary in geometry, can there ever be a rhombus composed of 2 right triangles joined leg to leg. Certainly the 45-45-90 cannot be a rhombus, and thus I figure, no rhombus is 2 right triangles joined leg to leg.
AP
...., the Smithsonian in the USA has a Ellipsograph that is wood,and they shaved the edges as to not be sharp, but by doing so, hides the fact that the slant cut is not a ellipse but an Oval. And .... has a ellipsograph (if not mistaken which also has a ellipse only because it was shaved from a Oval so as not to be a sharp edge. So .... has become idiots of mathematics, no-one there can tell the truth anymore, exemplified by the moron .... mindless "dark numbers". No math professor in .... can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, see AP's below.
>
...., such a moron of math, and just a spammer, thinks art graphics is a substitute for mathematics.... No wonder .... has dropped from 1st class education in math to being now a 3rd world loser in math education with all those idiots like .... running around with their ellipse a conic section when in reality that is a oval.
where a.... thinks computer graphics is math.
So they have a 3-4-5 right triangle placed leg to leg
/|
|/
Or, how about trying the 45-45-90, identical triangles joined leg to leg
Then they sit at their computer, punching in keys, saying to the computer-- give me two ellipses. ...then shows 2 different ellipses on their computer screen. And this is what .... calls "doing mathematics".
And this is a modern day problem of grave concern, those who are stupid and blind in thinking their computer graphics is giving them math results when all it is giving them is Artwork graphics, that lures the stupid into thinking they have ellipses covering 4 points.
Now there is a question of why 2 identical right triangles leg to leg give a unique ellipse but other triangles leg to leg allow 2 ellipses to cover their 4 vertex points.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the right triangles mark out not only the major and minor axes-- a uniqueness feature, but also mark out the foci as another uniqueness feature imposed on right triangles as parallelograms but not on say a rhombus as parallelogram.
And here the question has to be, as a corollary in geometry, can there ever be a rhombus composed of 2 right triangles joined leg to leg. Certainly the 45-45-90 cannot be a rhombus, and thus I figure, no rhombus is 2 right triangles joined leg to leg.
AP
0 new messages