AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform.

AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform. Ordered Sequence of Mathematical Knowledge 1) slant cut of Cone 2) Numbers are decimal Grid

AP's 221st book of science// Test to see if you are mathematician material & the Education Ladder in Mathematics for curriculum reform.

Ordered Sequence of Mathematical Knowledge

1) slant cut of Cone

2) Numbers are decimal Grid


An Education Ladder in Mathematics add to my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook series 55th published book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition by Archimedes P...
6 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Oct 16, 2022, 5:07:44 PM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
An Education Ladder in Mathematics add to my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook series 55th published book TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition by Archimedes P...


So, we have an education ladder of mathematical abilities. So far as I know every professor in mathematics in colleges around the world fail on the first rung of the ladder.

1) Cannot understand slant cut of cone is Oval never ellipse.

2) Cannot understand Boole logic is all wrong and corrupt of its 4 operators --- AND, OR, Equal+Not, If->Then

3) Cannot understand Rationals as a division of two integers cannot form a valid number for valid numbers are not derived numbers but primitive numbers without a operator involved.

4) Cannot understand zero is not a number but a place value for the meaning of "nothing".

5) Cannot envision nor comprehend nor do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 1, 2022, 2:16:15 AM (22 hours ago)



to
Alright, this is my 221st book of science to be published quickly. For I want to move onto the subject of moving the Moon to collide with Earth that pushes both Moon and Earth out to a Mars orbit, because our Sun has gone Red Giant Phase.

And to do the calculations, I am going to be assisted by the recent "move of the orbit" of Dimorphos about Didymos, the two asteroids. I want NASA and European Space agency to go back to Dimorphos and give it a nuclear missile impact to make it collide with Didymos and push Didymos into Mars orbit. All the mathematical data collected and utilized for a day in about 2,000 years in the future where we attempt to save Moon and Earth by pushing them into a Mars orbit.

So as I write my 221st book of science, my greater appeal is writing my 222nd book of science.

This book 221st is both a TEST and a Curriculum Guide.

And surprisingly, most every professor of mathematics will fail this book, fail it on the very first question. The first question being-- is slant cut of Cone a ellipse or oval. I would estimate that 99.9% of mathematics professors will say it is a ellipse and only goes to show that a math professor is memorized knowledge, not innate intrinsic reasoned and logical knowledge.

And I start the first question with geometry, for I sense that geometry is the far more important side of mathematics than is numbers, quantity and algebra. Math has two sides to it-- geometry and algebra-numbers. Same as physics has two sides to it-- electricity and magnetism. In physics this is called duality, and duality is the existence function. Things exist only when both electricity and magnetism are present. In physics there are other dualities such as particle and wave, or energy and time, but the most important duality of all is electricity and magnetism.

And it is known by now, with the Atom Totality theory that Physics is the top science and mathematics is a small subset of physics. The Primal Axiom of all sciences is -- All is Atoms, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

I bring this up because in the most part of the 20th century, there were many many fools of mathematics that thought the Universe is going to be explained by some simple elegant mathematical formula. In other words, in their dumb minds, they elevated mathematics above physics.

In the Plutonium Atom Totality theory where the entire Universe is a giant plutonium 231Pu Atom containing smaller atoms inside itself, that we begin to see that the special numbers of mathematics come directly out of the layout of the 231Pu Atom Totality. For instance pi is what it is because plutonium has 22 subshells in 7 shells in collapsed rational waveform 22/7 = 3.14... And the special number "e" 2.71..... the equiangular number in the logarithmic spiral is because the 231Pu Atom Totality has only 19 of those 22 subshells in 7 shells filled at any specific moment in time, and hence 19/7 = 2.71.... I bring this to your attention only to show that Physics is the top science and all other sciences are minor details and aspects of physics.

So let me get started with the 1st question or 1st curriculum guidance, and it is the slant cut of a cone, what Apollonius studied in Ancient Greek times, yet got the answer wrong.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 1, 2022, 9:57:29 PM (3 hours ago)



to
Question #1
---------------------

Can you understand that the slant cut of Cone, a singular right-circular cone is always a Oval, never the ellipse?

If not, you do not belong in mathematics, never did, never will.

For not only is a refusal of this question a problem of eyesight but a problem of mental skills to do geometry.

Most math professors as of 2022, fail on this first question, for they rely on their memorization of math, and no skills of reasoning or logical abilities. In fact, one can say they have less than a 1 marble brain of logic.

Now in Question #1, we ask the student or reader to give his/her outline of a argument that slant cut of cone is a Oval, and never the ellipse.

Supply your argument in one or two paragraphs below.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:44 AM (22 hours ago)



to
This book pretty much models my Mathopedia book only in a questionare style.

My 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:01 AM (22 hours ago)



to
Here on Usenet I am only going to wade shallow on each question and fill it with details in the actual book itself. Where I can place the answers at the back of the book. Some have tried in Usenet to have answers upside down. I will have them at the back of the book. And I am going to publish this book as soon as I reach the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not the end concluding question involving the Riemann Hypothesis, and will get to that as the years roll by.

Since the first question was about geometry and since math has two houses-- a duality, then the second question should be about Numbers. And here again most math professors once again fail with their continuity and Reals and their mindless extensions of imaginary numbers and Complex Numbers.

Question #2
---------------------

Can you see why it is important for mathematics Numbers to be discrete since Physics Quantum Mechanics is discrete, meaning that there are holes in between one number and the next, and that all the true numbers of mathematics have to be built from one mechanism-- mathematical induction. And these true numbers of mathematics are called the Decimal Grid Numbers. The smallest is the 10 Grid as seen here.


9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0
8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9,
7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9,
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9,
5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9,
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9,
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9,
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9,
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9,
0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9,

a) Since the 10 Grid starts with 0 to 0.1 and adds 0.1 to build up to 10. Then what builds up the 100 Grid? What builds up the 1000 Grid? What builds up the 10000 Grid?

b) Can you see that as you need more precision, you simply borrow from higher Grid Systems?

c) Not counting zero, how many numbers exist in the Decimal 10 Grid? How many exist in the 100 Grid? How many exist in the 1000 Grid?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So I am going to write this book for now, up to the Question where I talk about the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and then later on, months years later fill the book out to reach Question of Riemann Hypothesis, the hypothesis which was the last crazy insane conjecture of Old Math.

Here is a tentative framework:

3) Logic 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction

4) back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination

5) more geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix

6) All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom

7) Rationals do not exist, same for irrationals, Reals, negative numbers

8) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation

9) Define a function, so that if, and only if it is polynomial, is it a function.

Once I define function, it is not far off that the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is in view.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So I will write this book until I reach geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and include that proof, and then save this book for a later date to write questions out to the Riemann Hypothesis, for it is RH, in which Old Math finally reached its gravesite, for there is never a proof of RH with Reals, with negative numbers, with not knowing that a proper definition of equation never has a zero all alone on the rightside of equation. Where Old Math never had a true definition of "function". All these errors of logical insight and reasoning make a proof of RH impossible. In literary terms, the Riemann Hypothesis is a pile of shit as the accummulation of all the error clad little piles of shit all converging upon RH.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, it is essential I get the Logical Sequence of the questions down correct.


So the very most important aspect of this book is the Logical Order of questions. In my Mathopedia, my listings strived to be logically ordered, but only turned out fair to middling ordered. Here in this book, it is essential to have logical order of questions.

And it looks as though Logic needs more of a representation in the first 10 questions. For no-one can do math well, without a logical mind. And the Logic involved is the correct AND to OR connectors as being addition versus subraction (you either take A OR B and subtract one of them). Then, multiplication and division have to be correct as per Logic Equality with Not, and that division has to be corrrect with If--> Then. If Logic is not directly tied to mathematics correctly in its connectors, then broad swathes of Mathematics is a pile of shit.

Here is a tentative framework:

1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse
Reason: science starts first with observation-- seeing things-- and if you are blind or partially blind in seeing the World-- you automatically will be a failure of science for you cannot understand the World if you cannot see the world for what it is.


2) Decimal Grid Numbers as true numbers of mathematics
Reason: we see and observe counting and relate quantity to number. This is the seeing of numbers, whereas geometry is the seeing of figures and form.


3) Logic 2 AND 1 = 3 with OR as subtraction. Boole and Jevons got AND mixed up with OR, for the truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF, for we never throw out the baby in the bathwater-- every time a string of statements has just 1 true statement, the entire string is true.
Reason: Yes, we have to have the Logic, the language that does addition and subtraction of numbers.

4) Logic -- multiplication is the combined Equal with Not in Logic connectors, while If--> Then forms division.
Reason: We must have add, subtract, multiply and divide in Logic first, before we deal with it in math.

5) Multiply is rapid add, and divide is rapid subtract.
Reasoning: We need Logic of If-->Then as division so that division by 0 is undefined, and that subtraction does not spill over in creating fictional numbers called negative numbers.

6) Reductio Ad Absurdum, proof by contradiction is not a math proof at all.
Reasoning: the truth tables of If--> Then are TFUU where U stands for unknown or undefined. This allows mathematics to blair out-- you cannot divide by 0. And this also nixes the Wiles FLT as bullshit proof, the Tao-Green theorem as bullshit proof, the Thomas Hales of Kepler Packing as bullshit proof, the Appel&Haken 4 Color Mapping as bullshit proof, in fact every so called proof of math using reductio ad absurdum is not a proof but stinking bullshit.


7) Zero is a special number. It is the only number that ruins a operator of math-- the division. And so, zero as a number stands aside from all other numbers, and we append zero to the other numbers-- the true numbers of mathematics-- the Decimal Grid numbers.
Reason: we cannot give zero the status as we give other numbers, not in terms of quantity, in algebra, even in geometry. We require and need zero, but we cannot call it a number in terms of the other numbers. This has huge consequences as to what is an equation of mathematics, for boneheads of math thought they could put zero all alone on the rightside of an equation and still be an equation. Also, the boneheads of math let zero be accomplice to a crime of mathematics in creating fictional numbers called negative numbers. All because they were too stupid to set zero aside when doing mathematics.



8) Back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination.
Reasoning: here is a lesson in that if one makes a definition of sine and cosine, then you better follow to the T, your definition, for the sine and cosine are right triangles etching out via the definition, not a sinusoid curve for Unit Circle, but a Semicircle figure. This really shows how impotent and lacking are math professors-- they make up a definition of sine -- opposite / hypotenuse, yet not even obey their own definition.

9) More geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix.
Reasoning: So how far out does the sine or cosine Semicircle curve go?? We were fortunate to have a genius Huygens prove many centuries ago, that there exists a geometry figure that has infinite reach yet finite area, as difficult to conceive of when you think about it. And applying a little bit of algebra and reasoning on digits of Pi, we see the infinity borderline is 1*10^604, where the digits of pi have 3 consecutive zeroes in a row, allowing for the area of Tractrix to catch up to area of associated unit circle.

10) All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom.
Reasoning: I need to pull everything together at this juncture. All of math and logic and physics and science. For you cannot have a Logic, if you make statements such as Feynman " All things are made up of atoms" and leave out the total universe itself as a "thing" but not a atom. So there is no Logic and then without logic there is no mathematics.
This further comes down to a logical statement which is the Primal Axiom of all Science-- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

11) Rationals do not exist, irrationals do not exist, Reals do not exist but a figment of the imagination no better or worse than thinking there are witches yonder flying in the trees with broomsticks, negative numbers are the worst nonsense in human math history-- what is a negative elephant or a negative 4 wildebeests?
Reasoning: Old Math is full of people who wanted fame and fortune in math, not happy with just teaching the truth, they had to open their big dumb bad loud mouth and create fictional bullshit, so they could get some fame and fortune, and would cause future generations to have to clean up after their piles of shit.

12) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation.
Reasoning: think of all the time wasted by Cardan and ..... and then Abel and Galois looking for the "quintic". When all they really needed was the awareness, no equation of math is correct if it has a zero all alone on the rightside of a equation, for it is not a equation of mathematics at all. We earlier saw that 0 is a special entity, and yet fools of math tried to make 0 be just like all the other numbers.

13) Back to geometry, our coordinate system can only be 1st Quadrant Only, where there are no negative numbers and that zero is at the bottom as point |__
Reasoning: Calculus needs to be with 1st Quadrant Only, none of this bullshit of negative derivatives, negative area of integral and all other assorted nonsense.

14) Define a function, so that it is a function if, and only if it is polynomial function.
Reasoning: if you know calculus, the easiest of all calculus is the derivative and integral of polynomials. Being the easiest, tells the person with a Logical brain-- why not have all of Calculus be on polynomials??? Why not and make Calculus as easy, or almost as easy as add subtract multiply and divide for the Power Rules on polynomials will make Calculus as simple and easy as the other four operators.

A tentative list,...

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright can I make the geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus be number (15), having captured everything needed in math and logic in 1-14???

Let me review in my mind if I have forgotten something in that proof.

15) Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Well, basically the proof of FTC geometry proof is in this sketch.


Start with this rectangle as the area or integral of a function from E to D interval:

__A__C
|         |
|B       |
|         |
---------
E D
And the derivative at x= A where A is the midpoint of top side of the rectangle, 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.

So the derivative is a hinge at point A and we lift up the right triangle with hypotenuse AB and set it upon the other line segment AC.


To this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 A /----| C
  /      |
|        |
|____|
E D

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. The point A is the midpoint of the rectangle top side same as side ED.
This is why we need empty space so that the midpoint of ED is three
consecutive or successor points. This allows the derivative function to be
one and the same as the graph function itself.

I think I have everything I need in the 1 through 14 questions and can make FTC the 15th question.

In the history of math, other than general geometry and numbers, there exists two important theorems-- first being the Pythagorean theorem because it relates directly, geometry to that of numbers. And now, the 2nd most important theorem in mathematics is the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. FTC cleans the house of rotten and fake math. And mathematics is almost nothing, without calculus. And what the FTC does is show that mathematics actually has 6 basic operators, not just 4. Math has add and subtract, multiply and divide, and derivative and integral. In true math, we see the derivative and integral as the 5th and 6th operators.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, as soon as I sent that last post, I realized I needed the Lagrange Interpolation, which I call Lagrange Transformation.

So where everyone wants to know a derivative or integral of a function over a specific interval, must first turn the "fake and dufus function" into a polynomial function over the interval in question.

Thus, I need this change.

15) Lagrange Transformation of a nonpolynomial over a specific interval.

16) Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No getting around it, I need the Pythagorean theorem in order to lead up to the Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I would not have known this, if not for writing this book. For the Pythagorean theorem shows us how we avoid the mistake of thinking there is substance to "irrational numbers". For in truth, it is the holes and gaps between Decimal Grid Numbers that provides for a Decimal Grid Number hypotenuse for all right triangles.

Here is my layout as of today, 7Dec2022.


-----------------------------
Table of Contents
-----------------------------

a) My history behind this book.

b)

c)

1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

2) Decimal Grid Numbers as true numbers of mathematics.

3) Logic; 2 AND 1 = 3 with OR as subtraction. Boole and Jevons got AND mixed up with OR, for the truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF.

4) Logic; -- multiplication is the combined Equal with Not in Logic connectors, while If--> Then forms division.

5) Multiply is rapid add, and divide is rapid subtract.

6) Reductio Ad Absurdum, proof by contradiction is not a math proof at all.

7) Zero is a special number. It is the only number that ruins a operator of math-- the division.

8) More geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix.

9) Logic; All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom.

10) Rationals do not exist, Irrationals do not exist, Reals do not exist but a figment of the imagination.

11) Pythagorean Theorem explained via Decimal Grid Number Systems and how they avoid the need of the phony irrationals of Old Math

12) Negative numbers are the worst nonsense in human math history.

13) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation.

14) Back to geometry, our coordinate system can only be 1st Quadrant Only, where there are no negative numbers and that zero is at the bottom as point vertex of x and y axes.

15) Back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination.

16) Define a function, so that it is a function if, and only if it is polynomial function.

17) Lagrange Transformation of a non-polynomial over a specific interval.

18) Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC.

19) The two great math proofs in human history-- Pythagorean theorem and FTC.

20) Atoms have shape and figure, giving rise to geometry, and atoms have quantity, giving rise to numbers and algebra, for pi = 3.14... because there are 22 subshells in 7 shells.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Soon I will nail this down. Here I forgot sigma error, yes, even math has sigma error for physics has it.

--------------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------------

a) My history behind this book.

b)

c)

1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

2) Decimal Grid Numbers as true numbers of mathematics.

3) Logic; 2 AND 1 = 3 with OR as subtraction. Boole and Jevons got AND mixed up with OR, for the truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF.

4) Logic; -- multiplication is the combined Equal with Not in Logic connectors, while If--> Then forms division.

5) Multiply is rapid add, and divide is rapid subtract.

6) Reductio Ad Absurdum, proof by contradiction is not a math proof at all.

7) Zero is a special number. It is the only number that ruins a operator of math-- the division.

8) More geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix.

9) Logic; All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom.

10) Rationals do not exist, Irrationals do not exist, Reals do not exist but a figment of the imagination.

11) Negative numbers are the worst nonsense in human math history.

12) Pythagorean Theorem explained via Decimal Grid Number Systems and how they avoid the need of the phony irrationals of Old Math

13) Sigma-Error in mathematics, for it pervades Physics and since math is a subset of physics,
Sigma Error is pervasive also in mathematics.


14) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation.

15) Back to geometry, our coordinate system can only be 1st Quadrant Only, where there are no negative numbers and that zero is at the bottom as point vertex of x and y axes.

16) Back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination.

17) Define a function, so that it is a function if, and only if it is polynomial function.

18) Lagrange Transformation of a non-polynomial over a specific interval.

19) Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC.

20) The two great math proofs in human history-- Pythagorean theorem and FTC.

21) Atoms have shape and figure, giving rise to geometry, and atoms have quantity, giving rise to numbers and algebra, for pi = 3.14... because there are 22 subshells in 7 shells.

22) Primal Axiom over all Sciences-- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I weave back and forth between geometry, Logic and numbers/algebra. And I think that is an appropriate listing in sequence to go from geometry and numbers and finally reach a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. I do not think there is a single math professor alive today that knows that math has 6 operators, and not just the 4 of add, subtract, multiply, divide, for the derivative and integral are the missing operators.

In logic there are 6 operators of AND, OR, Equal-Not, If->Then, existential, universal.

In physics there are 6 Electromagnetic laws, see my TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS textbooks.

1) Slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

2) Decimal Grid Numbers as true numbers of mathematics.

3) Logic; 2 AND 1 = 3 with OR as subtraction. Boole and Jevons got AND mixed up with OR, for the truth table of AND is TTTF, not TFFF.

4) Logic; -- multiplication is the combined Equal with Not in Logic connectors, while If--> Then forms division.

5) Multiply is rapid add, and divide is rapid subtract.

6) Reductio Ad Absurdum, proof by contradiction is not a math proof at all.

7) Zero is a special number. It is the only number that ruins a operator of math-- the division.

8) More geometry with infinity borderline reckoned by the Tractrix.

9) Logic; All matter is made up of atoms, hence the Universe itself is an atom.

10) Rationals do not exist, Irrationals do not exist, Reals do not exist but a figment of the imagination.

11) Negative numbers are the worst nonsense in human math history.

12) Pythagorean Theorem explained via Decimal Grid Number Systems and how they avoid the need of the phony irrationals of Old Math.

13) Sigma-Error in mathematics, for it pervades Physics and since math is a subset of physics,
Sigma Error is pervasive also in mathematics.


14) Define equation properly, where you never can have a 0 all alone on the rightside of equation.

15) Back to geometry, our coordinate system can only be 1st Quadrant Only, where there are no negative numbers and that zero is at the bottom as point vertex of x and y axes.

16) Back to geometry with sine and cosine truly semicircle curves, not the ignorant sinusoid which is a hallucination.

17) Define a function, so that it is a function if, and only if it is polynomial function.

18) Lagrange Transformation of a non-polynomial over a specific interval.

19) Geometry Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC.

20) The two great math proofs in human history-- Pythagorean theorem and FTC.

21) Atoms have shape and figure, giving rise to geometry, and atoms have quantity, giving rise to numbers and algebra, for pi = 3.14... because there are 22 subshells in 7 shells.

22) Primal Axiom over all Sciences-- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Friday, December 9, 2022 at 1:10:14 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> 13) Sigma-Error in mathematics, for it pervades Physics and since math is a subset of physics,
> Sigma Error is pervasive also in mathematics.
>

Now sigma error is going to give most math professors an extremely difficult time to comprehend, because they have grown up with an absolutist view of math, everything is absolutely precise. No, math is not absolute precise, but like physics, has fog surrounding most determinations, not all determinations. Like that of a right triangle with sides 3,4,5 is exactly precise, but a right triangle of 1,1,1.414 is not 100% precise for in Decimal Grid Systems we have to be satisfied with a hypotenuse of 1.414. So the sigma error is 1.4142/1.414 = 0.01% sigma error.

The price math pays to have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, is that the numbers have to be Discrete, with empty space in between one number and the next number. We certainly cannot throw out Calculus for calculus is the lifeblood of math. So what we end up doing is accepting the fact that some numbers are a slight bit off of total precision. Old Math called these things Irrational numbers. New Math says Irrationals never existed and what we do is borrow from higher Decimal Grid Systems to make the precision as best as possible given the circumstances.

For math cannot be more precise than what its master science-- physics is. Math is but a tiny subset of physics and so math cannot be more precise for just that reason alone.

But let me visit some aspects of Physics that shows this "fog of measurement" known as sigma-error. And in physics we can undertand this "fog" better than in math. When we make measurements in physics, our rulers are never 100% accurate. Our measuring devices are never 100% accurate. Our attempts to capture all the forces going on in a measurement are always missing this or that, and so the end outcome is a "close measure" but never 100% precise. Many of these physics measures involve waves, crests and troughs and we can see how fraught we are in measure wave parameters.

For example in physics, the measure of rest-mass of the proton+muon inside proton is 938MeV and the measure of neutron is 940MeV and the measure of muon is 105MeV. So that we have 9 x muon is 945 and that 945/938 is 0.7% sigma error while neutron is 945/940 = 0.5% sigma error. If the world were perfect in physics measuring we would get 945MeV for proton +muon rest mass and the same for neutron rest mass.

But let us look at the Dirac magnetic monopole rest mass of 0.51MeV by experimental reports. And it should really be 0.5MeV exactly. So we have a sigma error of 0.51/0.5 = 2%, a high sigma error. But now we look at the sigma error of muon as 105.65 versus 105 and we have 105.65/105 = 0.6% sigma error.

So now we go back to proton+muon sigma error of 0.7% and neutron sigma error of 0.5% and compare to muon alone sigma error and we have 0.6%.

So what this tells us, is that the sigma error is part of the fault of the background noise of the environment where we do the measuring and the true value of Proton is 840MeV, true value of muon is 105MeV, true value of neutron is 945MeV and true value of Dirac magnetic monopole is 0.5 MeV in order that two monopoles add up to 1 MeV.

Sigma error is exquisitely seen in the tau particle of 1784 MeV (reported by Halliday & Resnick & Krane 1992) for we take 17 x 105 = 1785 and we have 1786/1785 = 0.05%

Again in physics, the Fine Structure Constant of nearly 1/137 as 0.00729 and Feynman's Fine Structure of square root of 0.007299 as 0.0854 and using the rest mass of proton as 840 as 0.0840 we have sigma error of .0854/.084 is 1.6% sigma error.

And in geometry, if we take a slinky toy of 840 windings and bend it into a torus, we find the diameter of donut hole is a distance of pi units 3.14. And we find the angle of separation of each ring 360/840 = 0.428 degree.

Amazingly a angle of 0.428 degree is in radians that of 0.0072 or the physics Fine Structure Constant. Here I have an angle for a torus which allows for a free thrusting of a muon inside the torus, as if the muon is in a cylinder in the Faraday law. And this angle of 0.428 allows the muon to freely thrust without bumping into the torus walls.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Student teaches professor

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to joined in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.