A proof that math requires an axiom that says— you cannot subtract more than what is available

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 3:06:18 AM12/22/18

to

And of course this would be stated as no negative numbers exist.

Now an axiom needs not be proven.

But an axiom needs to be consistent with the available other axioms. If the negation of a axiom is not consistent with the other axioms means the axiom is true.

Does the axiom— there exists negative numbers rub up against any other axioms of math?

Yes it does in the reality that Physics is a higher truth than math and contains math inside of physics.

And in Physics there is no negative length, no negative speed, no negative area, no negative temperature, etc etc

And recently i showed where negative charge was closed versus open.

So here i drummed up a little proof that math has a axiom— no negative numbers exist.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 3:49:20 AM12/22/18

to

Yes, yes, yes, here is a second proof, that math requires from necessity a axiom of algebra that says -- you cannot subtract more than what is available. It has to do with the fact of an infinity borderline, which its inverse is the infinitesimal. So say you can always subtract no matter what. Well the infinitesimal is the last and final number that is positive. The number 0 is not a finite number but an infinite number and we attach it to the finite numbers. So the infinitesimal is the borderline of small infinity. If we allow for any and all subtraction, we then ruin the fact that the infinitesimal is the smallest positive number to exist, for we invade that space of numbers between 0 and the infinitesimal. We ruin the discrete nature of numbers, with their gaps between successive numbers by at least the infinitesimal. So, admittance of any and all types of subtraction and thus negative numbers, destroys the property of discrete math.

AP

Dan Christensen

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 9:34:52 AM12/22/18

to

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 3:06:18 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> And of course this would be stated as no negative numbers exist.
>

Again, Archie Pu attempts to sabotage the education of US children.

AP's fake math:

“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

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in US schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics"
--November 9, 2017

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 10:42:25 AM12/22/18

to

LOCKDOWN of University Western Ontario, Canada, indefinitely, until they can get a true book of LOGIC, rather than brainwash and pollute the minds of students just so some moneygrub rednecks like Christensen makes more money

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:34:52 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:

> Dan
>

> Download my DC Proof 2.0 ,,,,
> Visit my Math Blog at ,,,,,

(snip the moneygrub spam of Christensen trying to enrich his pockets with his fakery 5 OR 1 = 6 with 5 AND 1= 4 and polluting the minds of students in logic

Above, considering Dan's post, he suggests a Lockdown rather than a closing.

A Closing of University Western Ontario, Canada, indefinitely, until they can get a true book of LOGIC, rather than brainwash and pollute the minds of students just so some moneygrub rednecks like Dan Christensen makes more money?
1 post by 1 author

me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
Dec 21 (10 hours ago)

A Closing of University Western Ontario, Canada, indefinitely, until they can get a true book of LOGIC, rather than brainwash and pollute the minds of students just so some moneygrub rednecks like Dan Christensen makes more money?

Why does Dan attack AP, is it just because Christensen is a bully, dumb and stupid about all science, or is it more involved, that Christensen has money to gain by teaching students error filled logic? That Christensen like all those who wrote Logic textbooks want to keep the money flowing into their pockets even though their Logic is totally wrong and filled with error. It is the students around the world that suffer at the hands of these redneck money grubs, who care not one iota about Logic and students education, but care only about the money flow.

Dan Christensen (the spamming Canadian of 6 years bullying) wrote on 20Dec2018
8:19 AM (11 hours ago)

>WARNING TO PARENTS IN CLAY COUNTY SD: AP wants your children to fail in school and to worship his pagan Atom God Pu

>Archie Pu's fake logic

A B A & B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

Real logic:

A B A & B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F

A B A OR B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F

>AP's fake math:

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV equally as dumb as my idea that Boole logic is valid as 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel*, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 13:24:38 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a
college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Peter Bruce Andrews,
Lennart Aqvist, Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Irving Copi,
Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley et al.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2018 21:24:38 +0000

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley et al.

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Hendrik Pieter Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider, David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan, John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now.

All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder.

All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value.

The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics.

So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrub creeps.

#1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:32:37 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: which term to chose-- indeterminate, undefined, indefinite,
undecidable, probabilistic
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:32:38 +0000

So, my special talented gift as a scientist, is my superior logic abilities over all other humans. I am the closest being to that of the sci fi movie of Spock (Mr. Logic) in Star Trek as any human has ever gone before. All of my progress in physics, science, math, is that I have a superior ability of logical thinking, blessed by the Gods of 231Pu.

History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory.

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.

The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T = T = T
T = not F = T
F = not T = T
F = F = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram

T T

T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square

While addition is and with a Space like this

T T

T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.

New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T -> T = T
T -> F = F
F -> T = U probability outcome
F -> F = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/  whole entire Universe is just one big atom  where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 2:11:30 PM12/22/18

to

That is common sense. Do you have your own ideas AP?
Don't be obsessed with Mitch Raemsch …
Numbers are the names for eternal quantities.
Math is about eternal quantities and not
their names.

No quantity below the infinitely small...

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 4:14:56 PM12/22/18

to

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:11:30 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That is common sense. Do you have your own ideas AP?
> Don't be obsessed with Mitch Raemsch …
> Numbers are the names for eternal quantities.
> Math is about eternal quantities and not
> their names.
>
> No quantity below the infinitely small...
>
> God creates gravity.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch

AP writes: I thought Porat was bad at stealing, but it looks as though MR above is trying to outbid Porat in stealing from the Internet.

Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Gottingen's physicists why is Mitch Raemsch too stupid to learn proton is not 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Gottingen math racists Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, Jorg Brüdern, Viktor Pidstrygach, Ingo Frank Witt, Stefan Halverscheid, racists deny ellipse is never a conic only because AP discovered it

DEFINITION of a racist-scientist , racist-mathematician
Racist Mathematician & Scientist definition— this is a person or group of people who reject a idea or proof or experiment on simply the grounds of __who the person was that gave/discovered the idea___, proof, or experiment. Hatred of the source. Hatred of the author/s. Racists ignore or deny the truth because they hate the source. And racists would rather keep on teaching a fakery or wrong science than to change to the true science.

Most people think Racist Mathematicians are rare. But sci.math from 1993 to 2018 is proving that the majority of math professors around the world are Racists, for example-- the AP proof ellipse is never a conic cut, but rather a cylinder cut.

Mitch Raemsch ask Gottingen's Drs. Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, Valentin Blomer, why they still believe proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

AP writes: why does not Mitch just simply ask professors of physics at Gottingen and Goethe why they think the real proton is not 840MeV and real electron = 105MeV with .5 MeV the Dirac Magnetic Monopole

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '

; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I'm the manhandler to the spamming robot of Mitch Raemsch, and my favorite posts were stealing the math of AP-- no negative numbers exist

` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X
X X
X X
X X
Hi, I am the worthless airhead computer robot named Mitch parked in sci.physics whose mission is to suck out all the air in sci.physics with the help of other robots. So that sci.physics is just a robot parking lot. My specialty is stealing the works of AP especially his "no negative numbers exist"
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

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

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 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

/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Germany?

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.

Yes, there Mitch when you have time away from stealing from AP, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

What answer did they give?

AP

j4n bur53

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 9:48:28 PM12/22/18

to

AP brain farto, high score on the Fluketonium scale.
Not a single line of math, already for 30 years.

Me

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 10:42:05 PM12/22/18

to

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 10:14:56 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> ellipse is never a conic cut

WRONG!

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

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 22, 2018, 10:50:39 PM12/22/18

to

Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds of Univ Western Ontario, is this foolish idiot Franz, your UWO Math professor Matthias Franz who constantly cranks error filled ellipse?

On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 9:42:05 PM UTC-6, Me (Franz) wrote:
>
> > ellipse is never a conic cut
>
> WRONG!

Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds of Univ Western Ontario, is this foolish idiot Franz, your UWO Math professor Matthias Franz who constantly cranks error filled ellipse?

- hide quoted text -

Franz, insane crank of ellipse

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..

, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '

. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '

; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Franz, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV just as dumb as my idea that Boole logic is valid as 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 , and I know nothing about an ellipse nor even a simple High School geometry math proof that the oval is the conic slant cut

` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept

Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works

Let us analyze AP's Proof

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.

The side view of a cylinder is this

| |
| |
| |

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF

But the side view of the cone is

/\E
/c \
F / \

The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |

So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED

Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::

A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED

--Archimedes Plutonium

Michael Moroney

unread,

Dec 25, 2018, 12:48:42 PM12/25/18

to

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

>Jan Minác, Victoria Olds of Univ Western Ontario, is this foolish idiot

>Franz, your UWO Math professor Matthias Franz who constantly cranks error
>filled ellipse?

Oh, you want to see Franz's excellent proof that the ellipse is a conic
section? Great! Here it is!!

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 25, 2018, 4:09:45 PM12/25/18

to

Moroney,kibo,shein barry the sewer of sci.math and sci.physics// see "LOCKDOWN at Harvard Univ....."

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 11:48:42 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure

AP writes: I know the word "misogyny" means a hatred of everything women. And the word misanthrope means the hatred of being around people and want to be alone. But does the English language have a word that means hatred of all people, all things, and every thing? A misanthrope hates being in the company of people and wants to shy away into a corner for himself, but with Moroney, his hatred extends far beyond misanthropy for Moroney actively seeks to attack people and put those people into a volley of his hate spew. I guess the English language has just a phrase to describe Moroney-- last and darkest stages of insanity.

Edward Witten,Rainer Weiss,Kip Thorne,Barry Barish,David J. Thouless are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Steven Weinberg,Peter Higgs,Sheldon Glashow,Murray-GellMann are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, MIT physicists are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. The true proton is 840MeV, true electron= muon = 105MeV and the little particle of .5MeV that JJ Thomson discovered is actually Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Moroney-- hates everyone and everything-- even himself-- is there a word for such a person in the English language, other than shithead ? Perhaps-- The Last Shades of Insanity is Moroney

..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..

, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '

. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '

; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am mindless jerk under the name Moroney or kibo or dozens of other fake names for I am so stupid that I think 938 is 12% short of 945. Because my game is not science or math but to stalk and spew hatred nonstop for 26 years. I am worse than misogyny and misanthrope for those are too lame for my condition I feel-- nonstop hatred of everything and I want to "verbally destroy anyone who I fixate upon". I am Moroney the dark and terminally insane stalker of sci.math sci.physics

` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'

Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly

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.

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)

MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young

Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin

LIST OF Failed Physicists, in no order

Steven Weinberg
Peter Higgs
Sheldon Glashow
Murray-GellMann
Edward Witten
Rainer Weiss
Kip Thorne
Barry Barish
David J. Thouless
F. Duncan M. Haldane
John M. Kosterlitz
Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene

/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/

You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?

Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the silly idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.

In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.

Michael Moroney

unread,

Dec 25, 2018, 10:00:26 PM12/25/18

to

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

[]

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to trach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Dec 26, 2018, 1:57:16 AM12/26/18

to

Rainer Weiss,Ed Witten,Kip Thorne,Barry Barish,David J. Thouless are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding

Moroney,kibo,shein barry the sewer of sci.math and sci.physics// LOCKDOWN at Harvard Univ.....

On Tuesday, December 25, 2018 at 9:00:26 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure

AP writes: I know the word "misogyny" means a hatred of everything women. And the word misanthrope means the hatred of being around people. But does the English language have a word that means hatred of all people, all things, and every thing? A misanthrope hates being in the company of people and wants to shy away into a corner for himself, but with Moroney, his hatred extends far beyond misanthropy for Moroney actively seeks to attack people and put those people into a volley of his hate spew. I guess the English language has just a phrase to describe Moroney-- last and darkest stages of insanity.

LIST OF Failed Physicists, in no order, so failed they never understood what Angular Momentum was, for you cannot have chemistry when the proton is 938MeV, electron is .5MeV, you need the proton be 840MeV and muon = electron = 105MeV

Steven Weinberg
Peter Higgs
Sheldon Glashow
Murray-GellMann
Edward Witten
Rainer Weiss

Kip S. Thorne
Barry C. Barish

David J. Thouless
F. Duncan M. Haldane
John M. Kosterlitz
Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot

Roy J. Glauber

David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek

Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
Subramanyan Chandrasekhar
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
Kai M. Siegbahn
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Abdus Salam
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes

.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene

Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin

LIST of failed Logicians

Source- Wikipedia list of logicians (alive ones)

Peter Bruce Andrews
Lennart Aqvist
Henk Barendregt
John Lane Bell
Nuel Belnap
Paul Benacerraf
Jean Paul Van Bendegem
Johan van Benthem
Jean-Yves Beziau
Andrea Bonomi
Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers)
Alan Richard Bundy
Gregory Chaitin
Jack Copeland
John Corcoran
Dirk van Dalen
Martin Davis
Michael A.E. Dummett
John Etchemendy
Hartry Field
Kit Fine
Melvin Fitting
Matthew Foreman
Michael Fourman
Harvey Friedman
Dov Gabbay
L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers)
Sol Garfunkel
Jean-Yves Girard
Siegfried Gottwald
Jeroen Groenendijk
Susan Haack
Leo Harrington
William Alvin Howard
Ronald Jensen
Dick de Jongh
David Kaplan
Alexander S. Kechris
Howard Jerome Keisler
Robert Kowalski
Georg Kreisel
Saul Kripke
Kenneth Kunen
Karel Lambert
Penelope Maddy
David Makinson
Isaac Malitz
Gary R. Mar
Donald A. Martin
Per Martin-Lof
Yiannis N. Moschovakis
Jeff Paris
Charles Parsons
Solomon Passy
Lorenzo Pena
Dag Prawitz
Graham Priest
Michael O. Rabin
Gerald Sacks
Dana Scott
Stewart Shapiro
Theodore Slaman
Robert M. Solovay
John R. Steel
Martin Stokhof
Anne Sjerp Troelstra
Alasdair Urquhart
Moshe Y. Vardi
W. Hugh Woodin
John Woods

Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.

Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education

George Boole,
William Jevons,
Bertrand Russell,
Kurt Godel,
Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Willard Quine,
Alfred North Whitehead,

Irving Copi,
Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley,
Harry J Gensler,
David Kelley,
Jesse Bollinger,
Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer,
I. C. Robledo,
John Nolt,
Peter Smith,
Stan Baronett,
Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk,
David Agler,
Susanne K. Langer,
Gary M. Hardegree,
Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn,
William Gustason,

Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now,