Re: Difference between con-artist John Gabriel and Andrew Wiles// both lust for fame&fortune, only one was editor of math journal before Internet// both fail at ever doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

some success is good AP you moron...
The truth is meant to be known.
Mathematical God creates gravity.
A pendulum shows what He is doing...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Earle Jones]

On Sun Apr 11 11:09:58 2021 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Of course John Gabriel is a loud mouth nitwit that draws your attention away from math itself, in order to steal new ideas from AP and others. Gabriel is a loud mouth stealer.
>
> Andrew Wiles is not a stealer of mathematics, but lusts for fame and fortune the same as John Gabriel. And in the case of Wiles, he is a con-artist, not a stealer, for the presiding over a math journal before the Internet arrived, allowed Wiles, like so many before him who presided over a journal editorship, allowed him to fully bloom as a con-artist of mathematics, to pull the wool over the eyes of those in mathematics with a sham and fakery of Fermat's Last Theorem. When you are a journal editor, you can dictate what is true in math, even if it is a complete joke. And being a journal editor, you collect favors from others by giving them journal access publishing-- Simon Singh, John Stillwell, etc etc, lackey cronies, you wash my hands, I wash your hands in journal access.
>
> But the thread of real truth of mathematics or physics or any science, is actual performance. Can John Gabriel ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, hell no. The idiot was never even aware that it needed a geometry proof.
>
> Can Andrew Wiles, or his buddy allies, Simon Singh or John Stillwell ever do a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, hell no, these guys are full throttle in gaining fortune and fame and never care about science or math truth and reality. They never even heard of a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, let alone try to solve a proof.
>
> So, the deep fault of John Gabriel, the loud mouth stealer of math, who bad mouthes most everyone, for his bad-mouthing is the distractor such as thieves every where need to distract you before they steal your work. The fault of Gabriel, is he was never a editor in charge of a journal, for being a editor that Wiles was, would give him a ticket for a Con Artist Masterpiece-- a fake proof of Fermat's Last Theorem FLT. And for which Andrew would prepare his con artist work by favors to others-- Singh, Stillwell, Ribet etc etc. You favor my con-artistry, and I publish you in the journal I control.

*
AP: Have you ever submitted any mathematical paper to a journal? I mean a real journal and not the Amazon trash-heap of freebies that you seem to populate.

Actually, I would like to ask John Gabriel the same question.

earle
*

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 12:16:23 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> #8-1, 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.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
>
> #8-2, 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 19May2021. 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". 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.
>
> Length: 137 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1307 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 137 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)
> #8-3, 24th published book
>
> World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
>
> Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
> Length: 61 pages
>
> File Size: 1241 KB
> Print Length: 61 pages
> Publication Date: March 20, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07NMV8NQQ
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> #8-4, 28th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
>
> Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
> Length: 29 pages
>
> File Size: 1183 KB
> Print Length: 29 pages
> Publication Date: March 23, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PZ2Y5RV
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> #8-5, 6th published book
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
>
> Preface:
> Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
>
> Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
>
> Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
>
> As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> Length: 156 pages
>
>
>
>
>
> File Size: 1503 KB
> Print Length: 156 pages
> Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
>
>
>
> #8-6, 19th published book
> World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 20Aug2021. This is AP's 19th published book.
>
> Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.
> What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.
>
> Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.
> Length: 61 pages
>
>
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1955 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)
>
>
>
>
> #8-7, 20th published book
> World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.
>
> But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.
>
> Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.
> Length: 58 pages
>
>
>
>
>
> File Size: 1382 KB
> Print Length: 58 pages
> Publication Date: March 16, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMZQNNT
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> #8-8, 21st published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.
>
> Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.
>
> Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.
>
> Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.
>
> Length: 28 pages
>
> File Size: 1534 KB
> Print Length: 28 pages
> Publication Date: March 16, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PN1CPRP
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
>
>
>
> #8-9, 15th published book
> World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Circa 1991-1993, I gave an Old Math style of proof for the Infinitude of Twin Primes, modeling my proof as to a Euclid Infinitude of Primes Proof. But then came year 2009 when I found the way to make Infinity concept well-defined. Up until 2009, no-one in the world had a clear precise definition or understanding of what "infinity" was or what it means. It means a borderline between finite and infinite and the way to find this borderline is to use the Tractrix when the unit-tractrix area catches up with the area inside a unit circle is the infinity borderline and it happens to be when pi digits have three zeroes in a row, does the tractrix area equal the circle area-- hence, we reached infinity border and beyond are infinite numbers, no longer finite numbers. What that discovery does for proofs of infinitude is change all those proofs dramatically. And here in Twin-Primes and Polignac I show the reader how modern day New Math proves infinitude of any set of numbers.
>
>
> Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.
> Length: 10 pages
>
>
> File Size: 1641 KB
> Print Length: 10 pages
> Publication Date: March 15, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PMY1YWB
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Screen Reader: Supported 
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> #8-10, 16th published book
>
> World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.
>
> Cover: Is a Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.
> Length: 37 pages
>
>
> File Size: 1740 KB
> Print Length: 37 pages
> Publication Date: March 15, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PS6MR48
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
> X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> #38 in Number Theory (Books)
> #7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> 

>
> #8-11, 25th published book
> Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 31Oct2021. This is AP's 25th book of science.
>
> Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.
>
> Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.
> Length: 58 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1475 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 58 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> ◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
> ◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> ◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
> 

> #8-12, 152nd published book
> The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity// Math proof series, book 12 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
>
> Preface: This is my 152nd book of science an exciting book, and it came out of the clear blue. The writing of it took a mere week's time and it is a byproduct of my 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College. Although my 151st book took me over a year to write, this book took just 1 week to write. Difference being that of a textbook versus that of a book on a specific topic, is 50 times more difficult because a textbook takes so much time in organizing, order, and fitting together pieces, each chapter in fact, whereas a single topic science book is like writing a prose story and is 50 times easier to write than a textbook.
> While I was doing 151st, I noticed and emphasized that all of physics is determined by 6 laws of physics, and the first principle of physics is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Then we notice that 6 laws cover all of physics, 6 laws of electricity and magnetism. We notice that all of logic and math is covered by 6 operators. And then we look at geometry's regular polyhedrons and find there are only 5 known regular polyhedron with a proof in Old Math that a 6th Regular Polyhedron cannot exist. An actual proof in Old Math that a 6th cannot exist.
> Well, AP knows better. For AP knows that if all of Physics is written in the language of just 6 laws and all of logic and mathematics are covered by 6 operators. That AP knows Old Math made a mistake in thinking they proved 5 regular polyhedron were all that exist as regular polyhedron. So Old Math made some or several mistakes in their so called proof that 5 and only 5 regular polyhedron exist, and that is what this book covers, the 6th regular polyhedron of the world, what it is, and what it looks like.
> Warning: the entire book is written from a sequential dated notebook, so if you read something early on, I may have changed my mind on the idea near the end. This is not a textbook, but a notebook of discovery and read it for its history.
> Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of proving the 6th Regular Polyhedron.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
>
> 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, churning imbeciles, 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

AP are you avoiding my success?
It will just get bigger...

[zelos...@gmail.com]

you have no success, you are insane

[zelos...@gmail.com]

onsdag 8 december 2021 kl. 21:39:03 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> MitchR can Roger Penrose, Peter Higgs, Edward Witten ever, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or are they too far brainwashed in mind that they lost the ability to ask questions?
>
> Much of cooking (see far below) is a mindless act-- voiced by MitchR, Zelos, John Gabriel, just like their "no physics" in sci.physics and no math in sci.math and echoed by these losers of physics who hoodwinked a Nobel Prize in physics.
> Hoodwinked because none can ask the childlike question that even a child knows to ask-- which is the atom's true electron, is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings doing the Faraday law, or is the true electron of atoms the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. (See cooking 8Dec21 below of making chocolate chip cookies with the least electricity possible).
>
> Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> Peter Higgs, 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
> William Alfred Fowler
> Kenneth G. Wilson
> James Watson Cronin
> Val Logsdon Fitch
> Sheldon Lee Glashow
> Steven Weinberg
> .
> .
> little fishes
> .
> .
> Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
>
> Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> more and more layers of error thinking physics
> .
> .
> John Baez
> Brian Greene
> Lisa Randall
> Alan H. Guth
> Michael E. Brown
> Konstantin Batygin
> Ben Bullock
> Larry Harson
> Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> Edward Witten
>
> Why cannot any of the above listed bozo the clowns of physics ever ask a LOGICAL question, for we have to wonder whether a degree in physics is mindboggling a 100% corruption of the brain, so far brainwashed, for example that Ed Witten could never ever ask the question which is the atom's real electron, for Ed's brain was excavated out by the school system having him memorize that 0.5MeV is the atom's real electron, and the Logical question is -out of the question- for the excavated brain mind of Ed Witten's physics.
>
> So, here on 8Dec21 we have a cooking lesson of a mind that if Free of pollution and brainwashed schooling. A mind capable of asking questions, capable of experimentation unlike MitchR, WM, John Gabriel, Zelos. So about 2 months ago I was experimenting with toasted cheese with tomato slices to perfect that cooking and quite by accident I left a sandwich on top of the electric heater in the living room. And almost forgot it, doing some science. When I returned, I had found that the slow and small heat by the radiator electric heater had toasted that cheese-tomato sandwich to perfection, so that there was just a tiny layer of toast on bottom and the cheese and tomato were perfectly cooked. The best toasted or grilled cheese sandwich in my entire life.
>
> So with that experience I bought Amy's (hard to keep straight all these female names, --- Amy, Alice, Ann... for the last time at the organic food store I was confused if it was Amy yoghurt or Alice yoghurt or Ann's yoghurt as I even confused the stockman).
>
> Anyway, I bought a box of Amy's, not Ann's nor Alice's, nor Newman's daughter chocolate chip cookies for the expressed purpose of seeing if I can cook those cookies to perfection on my living room electric heater.
>
> No oven, of course not. For this is what I call the mindless cooking of what everyone, including MitchR, Zelos, John Gabriel, Pentcho Valev, WM when not spamming sci.math or Ed Witten use to cook.
>
> Everyone uses the wasteful wasteful wasteful energy of ovens for hours, while AP uses a radiant electric heater that is in use already to heat the house, and why waste kilotherms and kilotherms of electric power for a oven.
>
> The cookies are in a stainless steel pot with tight lid sitting on the heater as I type. And I added a stick of butter, and 1 egg, and a bit of milk to make it a dough like.
>
> So, will report throughout the day on how it goes-- does AP achieve cookie perfection with spending the least amount of energy?
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
you still failed my challenge, I wonder why :)

[zelos...@gmail.com]

tisdag 14 december 2021 kl. 06:40:58 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> MitchR why cannot Andrew Wiles do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Is it because he cannot even see the slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse. Gee, and to think he won prizes in mathematics when so so blind of mathematics.
> 
> 
> I recommed these two books for Gabriel and Wiles, for both are too stupid to admit Oval is the slant cut in single cone, not the ellipse. And both are far too stupid in math to understand the idea that Calculus is geometry, therefore, yes therefore, a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is required. This is the most important math problem of our century, for in doing such a proof, cleans up much of Old Math mistakes and errors-- such as Reals cannot be the true numbers of mathematics, for Reals do not allow a geometry proof of Calculus.

no one cares about something that insignificant Archie, get over yourself.

You couldn't even prove that a galois field has order of a prime power

[Fraga Kent]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> 3Andrew Wiles needs to publish in Oxford Univ newspaper that he now sees
> the light of day that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the
> ellipse. Time is of the essence.

absolutely, thanks. I'm coming back in a minute. Watch this.

New Zealand's WEF Enabling Act - Evil Is Authorized If They Use The Covid
Excuse. What's Next! https://www.bitchute.com/video/kQzcj6S67Q9i/

[Mostowski Collapse]

Micro penis every morning:

The Trashmen - Surfin Bird
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gc4QTqslN4

[Fraga Kent]

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Micro penis every morning:

Dude, you mind douche with bleachbitch. You so crave vaginal attention
that your penis is now fucking your anus.

[Michael Moroney]

🐜 of Math and 🐛 of Physics Archimedes "Imp of Math" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

> 5 AP has to guide and direct the math failure Andrew Wiles to the Univ Oxford student newspaper to print that he apologizes for his mindless and

Why would the math failure Archimedes Plutonium need to guide the math
genius Andrew Wiles anywhere? Are you trying to force him to lie and
destroy his career by publishing a lie in a school newspaper?
Especially since he is a genius and understands all the proofs that the
ellipse is a conic section.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

söndag 10 juli 2022 kl. 10:00:11 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> Both are failures of math, neither can do a geometry proof of calculus, neither can admit slant cut in single cone is a oval, never the ellipse. Major difference between the two con-artists is that Gabriel was never recognized nor awarded for his con art, while Wiles is the more devious of the two and angled his way into a fake Fermat's Last Theorem fake proof. With awards for his fakery.
> _For pity sake, get Wiles into the Oxford Univ student newspaper and announce Wiles now sees the light of day-- slant cut of single cone is a oval, for a cone and oval have one axis of symmetry, not two. And Wiles is a con artist galore in mathematics.
No one cares about your "geometry proof" because it is irrelevant

[Jim Chiba]

zelos...@gmail.com wrote:

>> is a con artist galore in mathematics.
> No one cares about your "geometry proof" because it is irrelevant

Covid Coercion Cult Discards 1.1 BILLION Doses, Destroying Environment
Like They Did Nuremberg Code

Desrroying evidence AND nature, the latter of which they hate but pretend
to love, and the former of which they simply want to confuse further and
avoid blame, which is the Pharma crilme familiy's forever MO.

They were never approved, the one that was approved was never even
manufactured. It was all a scam just like big pharma has always been a
scam.

How can it be a waste if someone got paid for it? Just like war, this is a
big industry.

Looks like someone is trying to destroy evidence, we all know by now who
all is involed in this pedo death cult, hang these ass clown cowards
already https://www.bitchute.com/video/4FYOVDA63BXe/

[zelos...@gmail.com]

söndag 17 juli 2022 kl. 00:13:46 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> _Andrew Wiles delusional, my gosh he is delusional, cannot even admit 1 does not add up to 2 as a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, same as oval, but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. Mitch-- have you seen Wiles apologize to Univ Oxford students in their newspaper, apologizing for not recognizing the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, or is Wiles still plying his con-art ways? And yet the math community gives him awards. Awards for what-- dunce of math reasoning???
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:34:20 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You are delusional
> > > Don't talk about me. Mine are real...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
> > AP responds: Yes, Wiles is vastly delusional-- his slant cut in cone an ellipse when it is a oval. His mindless acceptance of Boole logic with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. His mindless acceptance of Real numbers when they cannot possibly provide a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but worst of all of Wiles delusions is his inability to even see that Euler never even had a proof of FLT in exp3. This is why AP continues to call Wiles a con-artist of mathematics, not a mathematician at all.
> >
> > 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)
> >
> > #11-3, 24th published book
> >
> > World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.
> >
> > Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-4, 28th published book
> >
> > World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
> > Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.
> >
> > Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.
> >
> > Product details
> > ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
> > Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
> > Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
> > Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
> > Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> > #11-5, 6th published book
> > World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.
> >
> > Preface:
> > Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.
> >
> > Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.
> >
> > Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.
> >
> > As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
he knows mathematics way better than you :)

[Earle Jones]

On Wed Jul 20 11:36:43 2022 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> deranged Andrew Wiles & delusional, my gosh he is delusional, cannot even admit 1 does not add up to 2 as a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, same as oval, but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. Mitch-- have you seen Wiles apologize to Univ Oxford students in their newspaper, apologizing for not recognizing the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, or is Wiles still plying his con-art ways? And yet the math community gives him awards. Awards for what-- dunce of math reasoning???

>
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 4:34:20 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > You are delusional
> > > Don't talk about me. Mine are real...
> > >
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch

*
Your delusions are real?

Is that what you mean?

earle
*