2285 views

Skip to first unread message

Message has been deleted

Mar 9, 2018, 7:27:45 AM3/9/18

to

Den torsdag 8 mars 2018 kl. 23:15:10 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.

>

> Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.

>

> MATH TEST::

>

> Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

>

> But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.

>

>

> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

>

> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

>

> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.

>

> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

>

> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

>

> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus

> can exist, and does exist

>

> by Archimedes Plutonium

>

> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no

> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.

> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called

> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,

> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,

> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise

> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first

> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

>

> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between

> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so

> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose

> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any

> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is

> .01.

>

> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with

> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves

> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

>

> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of

> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the

> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the

> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph

> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function

> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the

> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,

> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the

> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of

> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,

> is the function graph itself.

>

> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a

> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a

> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and

> what Calculus does.

>

> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a

> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

>

> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

>

> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of

> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,

> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the

> rectangle for integral as area.

>

> From this:

> B

> /|

> / |

> A /----|

> / |

> | |

> |____|

>

>

> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)

> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for

> integral.

>

> To this:

>

> ______

> | |

> | |

> | |

> ---------

>

> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points

> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part

> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no

> continuum exists in mathematics.

>

> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in

> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to

> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a

> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

>

> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus

> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention

> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal

> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never

> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

>

> by Archimedes Plutonium

> ------------------

> -------------------

why would one need to do it geometrically?

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.

>

> Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.

>

> MATH TEST::

>

> Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

>

> But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.

>

>

> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

>

> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

>

> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.

>

> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

>

> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

>

> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus

> can exist, and does exist

>

> by Archimedes Plutonium

>

> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no

> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.

> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called

> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,

> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,

> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise

> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first

> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

>

> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between

> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so

> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose

> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any

> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is

> .01.

>

> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with

> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves

> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

>

> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of

> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the

> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the

> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph

> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function

> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the

> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,

> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the

> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of

> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,

> is the function graph itself.

>

> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a

> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a

> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and

> what Calculus does.

>

> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a

> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

>

> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

>

> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of

> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,

> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the

> rectangle for integral as area.

>

> From this:

> B

> /|

> / |

> A /----|

> / |

> | |

> |____|

>

>

> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)

> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for

> integral.

>

> To this:

>

> ______

> | |

> | |

> | |

> ---------

>

> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points

> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part

> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no

> continuum exists in mathematics.

>

> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in

> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to

> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a

> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

>

> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus

> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention

> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal

> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never

> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

>

> by Archimedes Plutonium

> ------------------

> -------------------

why would one need to do it geometrically?

Mar 9, 2018, 8:32:59 AM3/9/18

to

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:15:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

I'm guessing then that we would all do well to "flunk" this silly test of yours, Archie Pu.
> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

Here is a little test for you, Archie:

1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?

2. True or false: 10^604 = 0

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Mar 9, 2018, 8:33:55 AM3/9/18

to

Mar 9, 2018, 8:49:16 AM3/9/18

to

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”

--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” (10^604 = 0, so obvious!)

--June 9, 2015

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Mar 12, 2018, 11:00:01 PM3/12/18

to

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Gobbledygook.
> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Mar 14, 2018, 3:59:37 PM3/14/18

to

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail

for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people

name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is

psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not

on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.

Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Am Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 23:15:10 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people

name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is

psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not

on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.

Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Am Donnerstag, 8. März 2018 23:15:10 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:

> Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>

Message has been deleted

Mar 17, 2018, 4:13:27 PM3/17/18

to

What about your pills, do they not anymore work?

Am Samstag, 17. März 2018 20:08:17 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:

> burs...@gmail.com writes:

> 2:00 PM (3 minutes ago)

>

>

> >The crap here is your brain JG, its a birdy birdy

> >brain without a single brain cell. Nothing works

> >

> >in your brains. Here have a banana:

>

> AP writes: Burse the bad scientist assumes Wiles eats banana, to make his banana math. I do not assume anything and therefor can see that Euler's so called proof of exp3 is missing a proof where A,B,C are all even

Am Samstag, 17. März 2018 20:08:17 UTC+1 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:

> burs...@gmail.com writes:

> 2:00 PM (3 minutes ago)

>

>

> >The crap here is your brain JG, its a birdy birdy

> >brain without a single brain cell. Nothing works

> >

> >in your brains. Here have a banana:

>

> AP writes: Burse the bad scientist assumes Wiles eats banana, to make his banana math. I do not assume anything and therefor can see that Euler's so called proof of exp3 is missing a proof where A,B,C are all even

Mar 17, 2018, 4:15:29 PM3/17/18

to

You the autism pills, you never participate in

someothers people threads. You only copy from

others people threads to your threads. I guess

this is a case of severe autism.

For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?

someothers people threads. You only copy from

others people threads to your threads. I guess

this is a case of severe autism.

For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?

Mar 18, 2018, 1:25:46 AM3/18/18

to

>You the autism pills, you never participate in

>someothers people threads. You only copy from

>others people threads to your threads. I guess

>this is a case of severe autism.

>For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?

Unfortunately, Archie hasn't been taking his pills at all for at least
>someothers people threads. You only copy from

>others people threads to your threads. I guess

>this is a case of severe autism.

>For how long already, 10, 20, 30, years?

25 years now. Not sure what's up with him, autism sounds right but I

think there's definitely more.

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Apr 3, 2018, 4:07:09 PM4/3/18

to

Science Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>Michael Moroney writes:

>Apr 2 (20 hours ago)

>>Never any math from you, Plutonium, do you think sci.math is some sewer

>>for your logorrhea?

>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.

Still struggling trying to cram 9 105.7 MeV particles into a 938 MeV container,

I see...

hint... there's only room for 8.88 of them in there, not 9.... no wonder

Archie Plutonium is such a physics failure...

>AP writes: hey, Boston science failure, no wonder you failed percentages,

>you mixed up Logorrhea with logarithm

no, Science Failure Plutonium, "logorrhea" describes your writings

perfectly...

In this post:

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...

[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...

[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...

[X] ...multiple times...

[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...

[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...

[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...

[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...

[ ] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...

[ ] ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...

[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...

[X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...

[ ] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...

[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...

[X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...

[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...

[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...

[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...

[X] ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...

[X] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

11 points. Very bad.

>Michael Moroney writes:

>Apr 2 (20 hours ago)

>>Never any math from you, Plutonium, do you think sci.math is some sewer

>>for your logorrhea?

>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.

Still struggling trying to cram 9 105.7 MeV particles into a 938 MeV container,

I see...

hint... there's only room for 8.88 of them in there, not 9.... no wonder

Archie Plutonium is such a physics failure...

>AP writes: hey, Boston science failure, no wonder you failed percentages,

>you mixed up Logorrhea with logarithm

no, Science Failure Plutonium, "logorrhea" describes your writings

perfectly...

In this post:

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...

[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...

[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...

[X] ...multiple times...

[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...

[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...

[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...

[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...

[ ] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...

[ ] ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...

[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...

[X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...

[ ] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...

[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...

[X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...

[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...

[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...

[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...

[X] ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...

[X] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

11 points. Very bad.

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Apr 14, 2018, 6:55:06 PM4/14/18

to

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:25:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>

> Michael Moroney writes

> ￼

>

>

> 9:11 PM (40 minutes ago)

>

>

> It does make sense in the computer field, the natural word of the computer

> can represent integer numbers or a bitfield of logical values. When

> performing a logical operation such as AND or OR on a field of logical

> bits, the operation is performed in parallel on the corresponding bits of

> the operands. The operands and result may be represented as numbers.

>

> For example, the expression c = 1 | 2; is valid C code to calculate the

> value of 1 OR 2 and assign it to c. c = 2 & 3; calculates the bitwise

> AND of 2 AND 3 and assigns it to c.

>

>

> I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this

> makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I

> have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use

> values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or

> OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which

> he deliberately gets wrong.

You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?

>>> bin(42), bin(33)

('0b101010', '0b100001')

>>> 42 & 33, 42 | 33

(32, 43)

>>> bin(42 & 33), bin(42 | 33)

('0b100000', '0b101011')

> On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:25:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>

> Michael Moroney writes

> ￼

>

>

> 9:11 PM (40 minutes ago)

>

>

> It does make sense in the computer field, the natural word of the computer

> can represent integer numbers or a bitfield of logical values. When

> performing a logical operation such as AND or OR on a field of logical

> bits, the operation is performed in parallel on the corresponding bits of

> the operands. The operands and result may be represented as numbers.

>

> For example, the expression c = 1 | 2; is valid C code to calculate the

> value of 1 OR 2 and assign it to c. c = 2 & 3; calculates the bitwise

> AND of 2 AND 3 and assigns it to c.

>

>

> I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this

> makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I

> have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use

> values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or

> OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which

> he deliberately gets wrong.

You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?

>>> bin(42), bin(33)

('0b101010', '0b100001')

>>> 42 & 33, 42 | 33

(32, 43)

>>> bin(42 & 33), bin(42 | 33)

('0b100000', '0b101011')

Apr 14, 2018, 6:58:30 PM4/14/18

to

--

Jan

Apr 15, 2018, 2:06:13 AM4/15/18

to

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:25:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>Michael Moroney writes

[nothing added by Archie]
>On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:25:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>Michael Moroney writes

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...

[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...

[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...

[X] ...multiple times...

[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...

[ ] ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
[X] ...and Archie added zero new content...

[X] ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...

[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...

[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...

[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...

[ ] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...

[ ] ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...

[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...

[ ] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...

[ ] ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...

[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...

[X] ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...

[ ] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...

[ ] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...

[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...

[ ] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...

[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...

[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...

[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...

[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...

[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...

[ ] ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...

[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...

[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...

[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...

[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...

[ ] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

[ ] ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...

[ ] ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...

[ ] ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...

[ ] ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...

[X] ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Lameness score of only 12. The score is low because Archie didn't add any

new content.

Apr 15, 2018, 2:07:17 AM4/15/18

to

Python <pyt...@python.invalid> writes:

>Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

<snip>

>You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?

Yes, he really is that ignorant.

>Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

<snip>

>You are really *that* ignorant Herr Ludwig Poehlman, *really*?

Apr 15, 2018, 2:17:44 AM4/15/18

to

Bad combination.

I am not sure how to place the repeated postings of professor stalking

lists/unrelated reposts of his "works"/snippets of critics' writings

when he seems to be upset. The repetition sounds very autistic to me.

Message has been deleted

Apr 17, 2018, 1:25:29 AM4/17/18

to

mentally unsound.

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Apr 23, 2018, 1:47:05 AM4/23/18

to

Den måndag 23 april 2018 kl. 06:22:09 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:

> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:25:29 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>

> >

> > I'm no expert in psychiatry ....

> >

> > --

> > Jan

>

>

> AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...

> they call for sanity....

> Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda

You do need help Archie, go and get some pills

> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:25:29 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>

> >

> > I'm no expert in psychiatry ....

> >

> > --

> > Jan

>

>

> AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...

> they call for sanity....

> Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda

You do need help Archie, go and get some pills

Apr 23, 2018, 2:37:48 PM4/23/18

to

On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 9:22:09 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:25:29 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>

> >

> > I'm no expert in psychiatry ....

> >

> > --

> > Jan

>

>

> AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...

> they call for sanity....

> Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda

See a doctor. Your posts are 99% nonsense.
> On Tuesday, April 17, 2018 at 12:25:29 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>

> >

> > I'm no expert in psychiatry ....

> >

> > --

> > Jan

>

>

> AP writes: I left ... math kooks, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...

> they call for sanity....

> Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Apr 26, 2018, 11:51:41 PM4/26/18

to

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 5:20:04 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Michael Moroney stalker writes:

He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you

don't like public forums, just leave.

--

Jan

> Michael Moroney stalker writes:

He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you

don't like public forums, just leave.

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Apr 27, 2018, 12:46:50 PM4/27/18

to

fredag 27. april 2018 02.20.04 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> Michael Moroney stalker writes:

> ￼

>

>

> 5:04 PM (2 hours ago)

>

>

> Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

>

> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>

> [starts a new topic regarding his proof mistake but says nothing about it]

>

> >AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please

>

> Good news, Archie. The commercial DNA testing companies all have sales for

> DNA Day (which was yesterday but the sales are ongoing) so if you hurry,

> you can order a test and save money. That way you should be able to track

> down the sources of your "issues", whether it's Alzheimers, autism or

> schizophrenia. Good luck!

>

>

> AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome.

AP

You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame?

I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with.

You treat me as an enemy, and I am not.

I am not the stalker, You are!

KON

> Michael Moroney stalker writes:

> ￼

>

>

> 5:04 PM (2 hours ago)

>

>

> Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

>

> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>

> [starts a new topic regarding his proof mistake but says nothing about it]

>

> >AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please

>

> Good news, Archie. The commercial DNA testing companies all have sales for

> DNA Day (which was yesterday but the sales are ongoing) so if you hurry,

> you can order a test and save money. That way you should be able to track

> down the sources of your "issues", whether it's Alzheimers, autism or

> schizophrenia. Good luck!

>

>

> AP writes:: please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome.

AP

You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame?

I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with.

You treat me as an enemy, and I am not.

I am not the stalker, You are!

KON

Message has been deleted

Apr 27, 2018, 1:52:04 PM4/27/18

to

You didn't answer Konyberg's question.

>> You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

After all, this is a discussion group! Commenting is to be expected.

And once again, there is no such thing as "my thread" in Usenet, meaning

nobody else is allowed to reply there. Remember, this is a discussion group!

Usenet was explicitly designed so that nobody could control it or part of

it (exception: moderated groups). If you don't want discussion, why are

you posting on Usenet? You should have a blog, or post Youtube videos or

so forth, with comments disabled or moderated by yourself.

And nobody "hates your guts" or is stalking you. Many people think you

need to grow up but that type of suggestion is certainly not "hating your

guts" or stalking.

>> You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

And once again, there is no such thing as "my thread" in Usenet, meaning

nobody else is allowed to reply there. Remember, this is a discussion group!

Usenet was explicitly designed so that nobody could control it or part of

it (exception: moderated groups). If you don't want discussion, why are

you posting on Usenet? You should have a blog, or post Youtube videos or

so forth, with comments disabled or moderated by yourself.

And nobody "hates your guts" or is stalking you. Many people think you

need to grow up but that type of suggestion is certainly not "hating your

guts" or stalking.

Apr 27, 2018, 3:46:29 PM4/27/18

to

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 12:45:42 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Wiles is so dumb in math,

Like YOU would know.

> pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle

That's because a sine wave is NOT a "semicircle" (what a STUPID notion).

See a doctor.

--

Jan

> Wiles is so dumb in math,

Like YOU would know.

> pathetically dumb for throughout his years in math he was never able to see that a sine wave was a semicircle

That's because a sine wave is NOT a "semicircle" (what a STUPID notion).

See a doctor.

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Apr 27, 2018, 7:39:21 PM4/27/18

to

fredag 27. april 2018 19.06.08 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

>

> All of your posts can be summarized as "I hate your guts"

>

> This is not math, not commenting on math-- but your crazy insane mind-- doing its crazy insane deeds.

>

> You are an insane stalker, not a person deserving of posts to sci.math. Same goes for the list of other stalkers in sci.math. None of them can stop their bad behavior. All of them like you are crazy insane loons, who wake up every day, and want to start the day by harassing, bullying someone in sci.math.

>

> So, have a DNA test, and probably there is a defect in your genes, probably on the Y chromosome that you simply cannot stop harassing people. You are a defective insane person.

>

> AP

Am I allowed to disagree with you?

Or not?

Tell me!

KON

> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 11:46:50 AM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> >

> > You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

> > Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame?

> > I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with.

> > You treat me as an enemy, and I am not.

> > I am not the stalker, You are!

> > KON

>

> Numerous times I have asked you to "go away, leave my threads alone". Every human has the right to ask another to go away because they just harass and bother. But being a jerk a creep like you, you never listen. You keep harassing and stalking and bullying.
>

> >

> > You are posting, and we are commenting. What is wrong about that?

> > Have I done anything that should give you the creeps or give you something to blame?

> > I have not. I have treated you as a fellow who I disagree with.

> > You treat me as an enemy, and I am not.

> > I am not the stalker, You are!

> > KON

>

>

> All of your posts can be summarized as "I hate your guts"

>

> This is not math, not commenting on math-- but your crazy insane mind-- doing its crazy insane deeds.

>

> You are an insane stalker, not a person deserving of posts to sci.math. Same goes for the list of other stalkers in sci.math. None of them can stop their bad behavior. All of them like you are crazy insane loons, who wake up every day, and want to start the day by harassing, bullying someone in sci.math.

>

> So, have a DNA test, and probably there is a defect in your genes, probably on the Y chromosome that you simply cannot stop harassing people. You are a defective insane person.

>

> AP

Am I allowed to disagree with you?

Or not?

Tell me!

KON

Message has been deleted

Apr 27, 2018, 10:34:53 PM4/27/18

to

Yet another Archimedes Plutonium shit post.

On 3/8/2018 2:15 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

<Nothing>

On 3/8/2018 2:15 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

<Nothing>

Message has been deleted

Apr 30, 2018, 5:45:16 AM4/30/18

to

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:01:13 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Stalker Jan, 24 years worth of this insane stalker

Stop posting idiocies about other people.

--

Jan

Stop posting idiocies about other people.

--

Jan

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

May 13, 2018, 9:49:39 PM5/13/18

to

Archimedes "Failure" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>konyberg wrote:

>7:15 AM (6 hours ago)

>Translate message to English

>- show quoted text -

>Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it?

>Or is it that you can't?

>You just not know the mathematics?

>KON

>AP writes:: Yes, Andrew, Andrew Wiles, you know you really cannot remain

Why try to change the topic, Archimedes Failure Plutonium?

KON was asking _you_ (not Wiles) why _you_ (not Wiles) didn't answer the

question. Is it really because you (not Wiles) can't, or because you (not

Wiles) don't know the mathematics?

<snip more babbling about Wiles>

>konyberg wrote:

>7:15 AM (6 hours ago)

>Translate message to English

>- show quoted text -

>Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it?

>Or is it that you can't?

>You just not know the mathematics?

>KON

>AP writes:: Yes, Andrew, Andrew Wiles, you know you really cannot remain

Why try to change the topic, Archimedes Failure Plutonium?

KON was asking _you_ (not Wiles) why _you_ (not Wiles) didn't answer the

question. Is it really because you (not Wiles) can't, or because you (not

Wiles) don't know the mathematics?

<snip more babbling about Wiles>

Message has been deleted

May 17, 2018, 11:52:46 PM5/17/18

to

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

May 20, 2018, 4:36:13 PM5/20/18

to

lørdag 19. mai 2018 19.40.38 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors.

>

> Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3

>

> A^3 + B^3 = C^3

>

> Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers.

>

> And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases.

>

> So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler.

>

> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

> >

> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.

> >

> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.

> >

> > MATH TEST::

> >

> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.

> > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

> >

> > But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.

> >

> >

> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

> >

> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

> >

> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.

> >

> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

> >

> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

> >

> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus

> > can exist, and does exist

> >

> > by Archimedes Plutonium

> >

> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no

> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.

> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called

> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,

> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,

> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise

> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first

> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

> >

> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between

> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so

> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose

> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any

> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is

> > .01.

> >

> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with

> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves

> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

> >

> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of

> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the

> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the

> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph

> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function

> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the

> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,

> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the

> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of

> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,

> > is the function graph itself.

> >

> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a

> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a

> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and

> > what Calculus does.

> >

> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a

> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

> >

> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

> >

> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of

> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,

> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the

> > rectangle for integral as area.

> >

> > From this:

> > B

> > /|

> > / |

> > A /----|

> > / |

> > | |

> > |____|

> >

> >

> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)

> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for

> > integral.

> >

> > To this:

> >

> > ______

> > | |

> > | |

> > | |

> > ---------

> >

> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points

> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part

> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no

> > continuum exists in mathematics.

> >

> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in

> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to

> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a

> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

> >

> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus

> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention

> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal

> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never

> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

> >

> > by Archimedes Plutonium

> > ------------------

> > -------------------

Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd?

If all are even, can we not reduce it?

KON

> You see, the only real , real question to ever ask Wiles, in which newsreporters are simply incapable of understanding but which other mathematicians --all of them should have asked of Wiles rather than congratulating Wiles and awarding him honors.

>

> Is ask Wiles on Fermat's Last Theorem, where Wiles assumed Euler had a proof of FLT for exponent 3

>

> A^3 + B^3 = C^3

>

> Where Wiles believed Euler had a true proof in exponent 3, but it turns out that Euler was so dumb on exp3 that Euler only proved it is true when two of A,B,C were odd or even, but Euler was so slipshod, that Euler never proved FLT in exponent 3, because he forgot he had to prove it in case A,B,C all three were even numbers.

>

> And the reason Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 when A,B,C are all even numbers-- is that is the backbreaker case, --- Euler could never prove FLT in exp3 without proving FLT in all cases.

>

> So ask Wiles, not those silly questions of his fake proof, ask him about why Wiles was such a stupid ignorant mathematician, that Wiles never spotted the mistake made by Euler.

>

> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:15:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

> >

> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.

> >

> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.

> >

> > MATH TEST::

> >

> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.

> > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.

> >

> > But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune.

> >

> >

> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

> >

> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS

> >

> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.

> >

> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

> >

> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

> >

> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus

> > can exist, and does exist

> >

> > by Archimedes Plutonium

> >

> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no

> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.

> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called

> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,

> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,

> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise

> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first

> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

> >

> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between

> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so

> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose

> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any

> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is

> > .01.

> >

> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with

> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves

> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

> >

> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of

> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the

> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the

> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph

> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function

> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the

> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,

> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the

> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of

> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,

> > is the function graph itself.

> >

> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a

> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a

> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and

> > what Calculus does.

> >

> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a

> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

> >

> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

> >

> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of

> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,

> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the

> > rectangle for integral as area.

> >

> > From this:

> > B

> > /|

> > / |

> > A /----|

> > / |

> > | |

> > |____|

> >

> >

> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)

> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for

> > integral.

> >

> > To this:

> >

> > ______

> > | |

> > | |

> > | |

> > ---------

> >

> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points

> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part

> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no

> > continuum exists in mathematics.

> >

> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in

> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to

> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a

> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

> >

> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus

> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention

> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal

> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never

> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

> >

> > by Archimedes Plutonium

> > ------------------

> > -------------------

Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd?

If all are even, can we not reduce it?

KON

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

May 20, 2018, 5:16:11 PM5/20/18

to

søndag 20. mai 2018 22.53.07 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd.

>

>

> The number Space that governs FLT is this:

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

> exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}

>

> exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}

>

> exp6 .....

> .

> .

> .

> .

>

> Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.

>

> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens

> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even

> 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even

>

> It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math.

>

> AP

Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

KON

>

> > If all are even, can we not reduce it?

> > KON

>

> No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3.
> > If all are even, can we not reduce it?

> > KON

>

>

>

> The number Space that governs FLT is this:

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

> exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}

>

> exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}

>

> exp6 .....

> .

> .

> .

> .

>

> Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.

>

> 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens

> 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even

> 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even

>

> It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math.

>

> AP

Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

KON

Message has been deleted

May 20, 2018, 5:33:13 PM5/20/18

to

søndag 20. mai 2018 23.23.51 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

Touche!

KON

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math
>

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

Touche!

KON

May 20, 2018, 5:41:39 PM5/20/18

to

søndag 20. mai 2018 23.23.51 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math

I know that.
But you should be able to give such an equation since you proclaim it is there.

I have never seen such. Why don't you show me?

KON

May 20, 2018, 6:32:45 PM5/20/18

to

søndag 20. mai 2018 23.23.51 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

>

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> A proof is NOT EXAMPLES, you worthless and mindless ignorant sh)thead of math

I know that you are thinking hard on this.
a^3 + b^3 = (2c)^3 or

a^3 + (2b)^3 = c^3 or

(2a)^3 + b^3 = c^3

These are reduced equations, where a,b,c are odd integers greater than 0.

Can you now show me how these equations can be transformed so all parts are all even and change the equations to something different?

KON

Message has been deleted

May 20, 2018, 6:48:58 PM5/20/18

to

mandag 21. mai 2018 00.44.31 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

> Proof that KON is a worthless idiot of Math alongside Wiles on FLT

>

> Even KON and Wiles know that much.

>

> But, where all three fail, and Euler can be excused because there really was no LOGIC, formal logic at his time. For it was in Euler's mind that Suppose three evens exist that fulfill A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and all three are even, then we can say we can reduce to A,B,C where two are odd and one even. But--- you see the logical SUPPOSE that were true of a A^3 + B^3 = C^3, was true then you can extract out the two odds and one even.

>

> But, that is a DOUBLE Supposition.

>

> The FLT that needs proving is look at this sequence

>

> So, we can have Euler's two odd and one even

>

> But, we can have three evens of A,B,C which is independent of the two odds and one even. Totally independent and has to be proven separately.

>

> You cannot do what Euler did--- Suppose A,B,C solve A^3 +B^3= C^3 with two odds and one even, and then add a second dependent Supposition if A^3 +B^3 = C^3 with all three even reverts to two odds and one even.

>

> All of this is far over the head of KON who is an insane Norwegian stalker and never a mathematician

>

> But, none of that above is over the head of Wiles, who upon reading the above, can see that you cannot SUPPOSE true A^3 +B^3 = C^3 as A,B,C all three even and then say-- it reverts back to 2 odd and 1 even.

>

> The proof of FLT is show no three A,B,C of the sequence

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has a solution

>

> And each case of two odds,one even is proven separate of the case of three evens.

>

> I do not expect KON to have, ever, one gram of Logical thinking, that he could ever realize the proof of FLT is not suppose true, then go back and say two odds and one even. For KON is logically insane.

>

> I do not expect Euler to have realized his mistake, for formal logic did not exist in his time and place.

>

> However, I do expect Andrew Wiles to have at least a gram of a logical mind to realize this sequence

>

> KON belongs in a Norwegian psychiatric home.

>

> But Wiles should have caught Euler's mistake. For Formal Logic is prevalent in the 20th century and no excuse can be made for not realizing a Logical ARGUMENT cannot have two suppositions.

>

> The proof of FLT is to show no three numbers A,B,C can solve A+B=C in that sequence, and 2odds1even case is independent of 3evens case.

>

> AP

I do know how to divide by 2.

Do you?

KON

> Proof that KON is a worthless idiot of Math alongside Wiles on FLT

>

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

> On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at 4:16:11 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:

> > søndag 20. mai 2018 22.53.07 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:

>

> > > > Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd?

> > >

> > > Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd.

>

> A rushed typo mistake on my part.
>

> > > > Do you really think that two of A, B, C can be even and the third odd?

> > >

> > > Alright, my typo mistake-- only two odds with 1 even, never two evens with one odd.

>

>

> > >

> > > > If all are even, can we not reduce it?

> > > > KON

>

> Now Euler had no Formal Logic way back in his day, so we can excuse Euler for his mistake. And his mistake was to think, --- we need only the case where two of A,B,C are odd and the third being even, for we all know arithmetic that two odds make an even. And this is why we cannot have two evens make a odd.
> > >

> > > > If all are even, can we not reduce it?

> > > > KON

>

>

> Even KON and Wiles know that much.

>

> But, where all three fail, and Euler can be excused because there really was no LOGIC, formal logic at his time. For it was in Euler's mind that Suppose three evens exist that fulfill A^3 + B^3 = C^3, and all three are even, then we can say we can reduce to A,B,C where two are odd and one even. But--- you see the logical SUPPOSE that were true of a A^3 + B^3 = C^3, was true then you can extract out the two odds and one even.

>

> But, that is a DOUBLE Supposition.

>

> The FLT that needs proving is look at this sequence

>

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

>

> And prove that any three A, B, C add up to where A+B= C
>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

>

>

> So, we can have Euler's two odd and one even

>

> But, we can have three evens of A,B,C which is independent of the two odds and one even. Totally independent and has to be proven separately.

>

> You cannot do what Euler did--- Suppose A,B,C solve A^3 +B^3= C^3 with two odds and one even, and then add a second dependent Supposition if A^3 +B^3 = C^3 with all three even reverts to two odds and one even.

>

> All of this is far over the head of KON who is an insane Norwegian stalker and never a mathematician

>

> But, none of that above is over the head of Wiles, who upon reading the above, can see that you cannot SUPPOSE true A^3 +B^3 = C^3 as A,B,C all three even and then say-- it reverts back to 2 odd and 1 even.

>

> The proof of FLT is show no three A,B,C of the sequence

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .} has a solution

>

> And each case of two odds,one even is proven separate of the case of three evens.

>

> I do not expect KON to have, ever, one gram of Logical thinking, that he could ever realize the proof of FLT is not suppose true, then go back and say two odds and one even. For KON is logically insane.

>

> I do not expect Euler to have realized his mistake, for formal logic did not exist in his time and place.

>

> However, I do expect Andrew Wiles to have at least a gram of a logical mind to realize this sequence

>

>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

> has to be proven independently of two odds with one even and independent of three evens.
>

> exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

>

>

>

> > >

> > > No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3.

> > >

> > >

> > > The number Space that governs FLT is this:

> > >

> > > exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

> > >

> > > exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}

> > >

> > > exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}

> > >

> > > exp6 .....

> > > .

> > > .

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > > Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.

> > >

> > > 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens

> > > 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even

> > > 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even

> > >

> > > It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math.

> > >

> > > AP

> >

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

> You see the trouble with the insane KON, is he knows little math, and all he wants to do is hassle people, stalk people.
>

> > >

> > > No, cannot be reduced as the below Generalized FLT shows a plethora of solutions when A,B,C, all three are even. So what Euler proved was only the case of A,B,C two odds and one even has no solutions in exponent 3 but, Euler failed to prove all exponent 3 has no solutions. Only by proving FLT itself--the entirety of FLT in all exponents, do we prove A,B,C evens have no solution in exponent 3.

> > >

> > >

> > > The number Space that governs FLT is this:

> > >

> > > exp3 {1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216, 343, 512, 729, 1000, 1331, 1728, . .}

> > >

> > > exp4 {1, 16, 81, 256, 625, 1296, 2401, 4096, 6561, 10000, . .}

> > >

> > > exp5 {1, 32, 243, 1024, 3125, 7776, 16807, 32,768, 59,049, 100,000, 161,051, 248,832, 371,293, . .}

> > >

> > > exp6 .....

> > > .

> > > .

> > > .

> > > .

> > >

> > > Now in the proof of Generalized FLT, solutions of A + B = C require a common divisor.

> > >

> > > 2^3 + 2^3 = 2^4 with prime divisor 2 A,B,C all evens

> > > 3^3 + 6^3 = 3^5 with prime divisor 3 two odds, one even

> > > 7^3 + 7^4 = 14^3 with prime divisor 7 two odds, one even

> > >

> > > It is mistakes like this, that Wiles should have spotted in Euler, before he made is silly stupid mission to conquer FLT and for which he ends up with a fakery of math.

> > >

> > > AP

> >

> > Can you show me one equation (which we are talking about) where all are even, and cannot be reduced to a fermat equation?

> > That is two of A, B, C odd and the third even.

> > KON

>

>

> KON belongs in a Norwegian psychiatric home.

>

> But Wiles should have caught Euler's mistake. For Formal Logic is prevalent in the 20th century and no excuse can be made for not realizing a Logical ARGUMENT cannot have two suppositions.

>

> The proof of FLT is to show no three numbers A,B,C can solve A+B=C in that sequence, and 2odds1even case is independent of 3evens case.

>

> AP

I do know how to divide by 2.

Do you?

KON

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

May 25, 2018, 5:15:54 PM5/25/18

to

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Andrew Wiles is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Wiles would correct them—

>

>

> 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes

> >These last two lessons are going to be long lessons

>

> Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:

>

> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic

> sections are ellipses.

>

> Some preliminaries:

>

> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used

> in the proof:

>

> ^ x

> |

> -+- <= x=h

> .' | `.

> . | .

> | | |

> ' | '

> `. | .'

> y <----------+ <= x=0

>

> Cone (side view):

> .

> /|\

> / | \

> /b | \

> /---+---' <= x = h

> / |' \

> / ' | \

> / ' | \

> x = 0 => '-------+-------\

> / a | \

>

> Proof:

>

> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

>

> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

>

> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

>

> qed

Hey Dummy, why don't you show why the proof above is wrong? You can't, can you?

> Andrew Wiles is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Wiles would correct them—

>

>

> 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes

> >These last two lessons are going to be long lessons

>

> Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:

>

> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic

> sections are ellipses.

>

> Some preliminaries:

>

> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used

> in the proof:

>

> ^ x

> |

> -+- <= x=h

> .' | `.

> . | .

> | | |

> ' | '

> `. | .'

> y <----------+ <= x=0

>

> Cone (side view):

> .

> /|\

> / | \

> /b | \

> /---+---' <= x = h

> / |' \

> / ' | \

> / ' | \

> x = 0 => '-------+-------\

> / a | \

>

> Proof:

>

> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

>

> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

>

> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

>

> qed

Hey Dummy, why don't you show why the proof above is wrong? You can't, can you?

Message has been deleted

May 31, 2018, 5:19:23 PM5/31/18