Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TEST BANK for Human Resource Management 16th Edition by Gary Dessler. (All 18 Chapters).
321 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Zakharov
Jun 15, 2023, 12:04:17 AM6/15/23
to
TEST BANK for Human Resource Management 16th Edition by Gary Dessler. (All 18 Chapters).
https://browsegrades.net/documents/228395/human-resource-management-16e-by-dessler-test-bank
https://browsegrades.net/documents/228395/human-resource-management-16e-by-dessler-test-bank
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 15, 2023, 12:19:08 AM6/15/23
to
insane math professors of Dr. Tao, Dr. Wiles, Dr. Hales, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (see AP's book below)
AP's 244th book of science--Overhaul of Trigonometry: the nauseating math full of errors// Psychology-mathematics
5m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2023, 5:13:30 PM (yesterday)
The title of my 244th book of science is this: Overhaul of Trigonometry: the nauseating math full of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2023, 11:10:55 PM (yesterday)
Let me add one more word to the title "crank" to mathematics. Mathematics-psychology of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:16 AM (23 hours ago)
Now, every math teacher in the world is likely to say-- "AP is too harsh". And my retort,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
4:41 PM (7 hours ago)
to
As I said, Euler was 1/2 great mathematician, but 1/2 of Euler was a mindless logic crank. Unfortunate that no mathematician after Euler had a logical mind to clean up and straighten up Euler's contributions.
Euler was poor, very poor in logic skills as can be seen with his silly and stupid so called proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3. For in Euler's fake proof, he simply forgot he had to prove in the case of all three A,B, C in A^3 + B^3 = C^3 that in the case all three A,B,C were even numbers that the equation does not hold. It certainly holds in exponent 2 of 6^2 +8^2 = 10^2. And boneheaded stupid mathematicians like Andrew Wiles fell for the Euler fake proof, even going further to say he found a proof of FLT, when the idiot Wiles cannot even see Euler had no proof of FLT in exponent 3.
Euler's greatest nuisance to mathematics was his elevation of Trigonometry far far beyond what trigonometry is, what trigonometry is all about, and what trigonometry can do. So vast was the trigonometry idiocy by Euler, that by 1900s and even up to 2023 as I write, that most college calculus textbooks are 1/2 about trigonometry, when those books should have 0 trigonometry on their pages.
Euler was 1/2 crank, and it is little wonder that math education did not go so overboard in insane-math of e^(pi*i) = -1 as they went overboard on trigonometry flooding math. For even a High School math teacher would bulk at presenting the insane Euler e^(pi*i) = -1 into the classroom. But that does not stop the insane math professors of Dr. Tao, Dr. Wiles, Dr. Hales, Dr. Ribet, Dr. Stillwell, AMS Dr. Ruth Charney from prattling how lovely is e^(pi*i) = -1 for these math morons cannot even admit that the slant cut of right-circular cone (single cone) is a oval, not their mindless ellipse.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
AP's 244th book of science--Overhaul of Trigonometry: the nauseating math full of errors// Psychology-mathematics
5m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2023, 5:13:30 PM (yesterday)
The title of my 244th book of science is this: Overhaul of Trigonometry: the nauseating math full of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 13, 2023, 11:10:55 PM (yesterday)
Let me add one more word to the title "crank" to mathematics. Mathematics-psychology of
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
12:16 AM (23 hours ago)
Now, every math teacher in the world is likely to say-- "AP is too harsh". And my retort,
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
4:41 PM (7 hours ago)
to
As I said, Euler was 1/2 great mathematician, but 1/2 of Euler was a mindless logic crank. Unfortunate that no mathematician after Euler had a logical mind to clean up and straighten up Euler's contributions.
Euler was poor, very poor in logic skills as can be seen with his silly and stupid so called proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3. For in Euler's fake proof, he simply forgot he had to prove in the case of all three A,B, C in A^3 + B^3 = C^3 that in the case all three A,B,C were even numbers that the equation does not hold. It certainly holds in exponent 2 of 6^2 +8^2 = 10^2. And boneheaded stupid mathematicians like Andrew Wiles fell for the Euler fake proof, even going further to say he found a proof of FLT, when the idiot Wiles cannot even see Euler had no proof of FLT in exponent 3.
Euler's greatest nuisance to mathematics was his elevation of Trigonometry far far beyond what trigonometry is, what trigonometry is all about, and what trigonometry can do. So vast was the trigonometry idiocy by Euler, that by 1900s and even up to 2023 as I write, that most college calculus textbooks are 1/2 about trigonometry, when those books should have 0 trigonometry on their pages.
Euler was 1/2 crank, and it is little wonder that math education did not go so overboard in insane-math of e^(pi*i) = -1 as they went overboard on trigonometry flooding math. For even a High School math teacher would bulk at presenting the insane Euler e^(pi*i) = -1 into the classroom. But that does not stop the insane math professors of Dr. Tao, Dr. Wiles, Dr. Hales, Dr. Ribet, Dr. Stillwell, AMS Dr. Ruth Charney from prattling how lovely is e^(pi*i) = -1 for these math morons cannot even admit that the slant cut of right-circular cone (single cone) is a oval, not their mindless ellipse.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
0 new messages