Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
BETON888 WEBSITE ANTI RUNGK4T TERBAIK NO.1 DI INDONESIA π―% MUDAH J4CKPOT β‘οΈLINK RESMIβ‘οΈ
106 views
Skip to first unread message
Beton888 Gacor
Nov 23, 2023, 10:20:52β―PM11/23/23
to
BETON888 Situs Besar yang Merupakan Panutan dari Semua Situs game online diIndonesia, Karna Kualitas Game dan prasarana dari BETON888 Situs Anti Rungkat
Yang Begitu Update & Lengkap serta Komitmen Terpercaya π―% Amanah Membuat nya Menjadi Situs TERBAIK.
β‘οΈβ‘οΈππLink VIP BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/
β‘οΈβ‘οΈππLink Sccater BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π DEPO SEKALI WEDE BERKALI-KALI..!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π ANTI RUNGKAT ANTI GALAU..!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π LINK VIP PASTI GACOR TINGKAT KEMENANGAN 98%
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π BANJIR BONUS BANJIR SCCATER..!!!
ππππβ»βLink VIP BETON888ββ»ππππ
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
ππππππππππππππ UWAK IPULL MAIN PITA.!! MODAL LIMPUL JADI BERJUTAπ₯.!!!! ππππππππππππππ
## APA ITU RUNGKAT.??
## MEMBER BETON888 GAK KENAL.!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯KEY BETON888π₯π₯β‘οΈ
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #beton888 #beton888gacor #slotantirungkat #rtpbeton888 #slotantirungkatbeton888 #situsterpercayabeton888 #wdpausbeton888
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #wdbesarbeton888 #gampangmenang #polazeusbeton888 #polaincesbeton888 #perkalian500 #perkalian1000 #linkgacorbeton888
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #autosccater #autopetir #wdterbesar #linkvipbeton888 #linkkhususbeton888 ##linkmudahmenang #situsterpercaya #trikmain
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #linkamanahbeton888 #bonusbeton888 #gamegacorhariini #okbeton888 #situsrekomendasibeton888 #autopetir #infomaxwinbeton888
Yang Begitu Update & Lengkap serta Komitmen Terpercaya π―% Amanah Membuat nya Menjadi Situs TERBAIK.
β‘οΈβ‘οΈππLink VIP BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/
β‘οΈβ‘οΈππLink Sccater BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π DEPO SEKALI WEDE BERKALI-KALI..!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π ANTI RUNGKAT ANTI GALAU..!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π LINK VIP PASTI GACOR TINGKAT KEMENANGAN 98%
β‘οΈπ₯π₯BETON888 π BANJIR BONUS BANJIR SCCATER..!!!
ππππβ»βLink VIP BETON888ββ»ππππ
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘β»οΈLink MAXWIN BETON888=@ https://heylink.me/okbeton888/ β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯β‘οΈβ‘οΈπ₯π₯
ππππππππππππππ UWAK IPULL MAIN PITA.!! MODAL LIMPUL JADI BERJUTAπ₯.!!!! ππππππππππππππ
## APA ITU RUNGKAT.??
## MEMBER BETON888 GAK KENAL.!!!
β‘οΈπ₯π₯KEY BETON888π₯π₯β‘οΈ
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #beton888 #beton888gacor #slotantirungkat #rtpbeton888 #slotantirungkatbeton888 #situsterpercayabeton888 #wdpausbeton888
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #wdbesarbeton888 #gampangmenang #polazeusbeton888 #polaincesbeton888 #perkalian500 #perkalian1000 #linkgacorbeton888
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #autosccater #autopetir #wdterbesar #linkvipbeton888 #linkkhususbeton888 ##linkmudahmenang #situsterpercaya #trikmain
π‘β»οΈ#candibeton888 #linkamanahbeton888 #bonusbeton888 #gamegacorhariini #okbeton888 #situsrekomendasibeton888 #autopetir #infomaxwinbeton888
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 24, 2023, 1:14:57β―AM11/24/23
to
Is Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles, Oxford Univ. math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Andrew Hide Andrew
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > http ----------
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> >
>
>
> More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
>
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://.....
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
>
> > He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
> >
> > And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19β―PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > fails at math and science:
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
ξ
> > #12-2, 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 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 β : β B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date β : β March 14, 2019
> > Language β : β English
> > File size β : β 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech β : β Enabled
> > Screen Reader β : β Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting β : β Enabled
> > X-Ray β : β Not Enabled
> > Word Wise β : β Not Enabled
> > Print length β : β 154 pages
> > Lending β : β 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)
> My 245th published book of science.
>
>
> Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
>
>
> Product details
> β’ ASIN β : β B0C9P5F755
> β’ Publication date β : β June 27, 2023
> β’ Language β : β English
> β’ File size β : β 530 KB
> β’ Text-to-Speech β : β Enabled
> β’ Screen Reader β : β Supported
> β’ Enhanced typesetting β : β Enabled
> β’ X-Ray β : β Not Enabled
> β’ Word Wise β : β Not Enabled
> β’ Sticky notes β : β On Kindle Scribe
> β’ Print length β : β 116 pages
ξ
Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1.001,1.002001).
This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
For Heaven's sake, the derivative has to be identical to the function graph itself within each cell for that is why calculus predicts the next successor point of the function graph, and is so useful to physics in prediction of the laws of physics.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
Or, maybe Andrew Wiles is a member of the gang of math spammers as of 24July2023, and thus denies mathematics as a science, but just math spam fodder, fodder, ....
Run and hide, like Andrew Wiles and Terry Tao run and hide from ellipse is _not a conic_ for that is a oval at slant cut. No wonder they cannot do a valid proof of calculus, for they are too blind in the very most simple of geometry figures.
AP
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > > *
> > > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > earle
> > > > > *
> > > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > http ----------
> > > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> >
>
>
> More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---
>
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://.....
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.
>
> > He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
> >
> > And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19β―PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
> >"Drag Queen of Math"
> > fails at math and science:
> Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
> >
> > Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> > Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
> >
> > 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> > Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> > John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
ξ
> > #12-2, 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 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 β : β B07PQTNHMY
> > Publication date β : β March 14, 2019
> > Language β : β English
> > File size β : β 1309 KB
> > Text-to-Speech β : β Enabled
> > Screen Reader β : β Supported
> > Enhanced typesetting β : β Enabled
> > X-Ray β : β Not Enabled
> > Word Wise β : β Not Enabled
> > Print length β : β 154 pages
> > Lending β : β 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)
> My 245th published book of science.
>
>
> Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has made math the worst science and filled with error.
>
>
> Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.
>
>
> Product details
> β’ ASIN β : β B0C9P5F755
> β’ Publication date β : β June 27, 2023
> β’ Language β : β English
> β’ File size β : β 530 KB
> β’ Text-to-Speech β : β Enabled
> β’ Screen Reader β : β Supported
> β’ Enhanced typesetting β : β Enabled
> β’ X-Ray β : β Not Enabled
> β’ Word Wise β : β Not Enabled
> β’ Sticky notes β : β On Kindle Scribe
> β’ Print length β : β 116 pages
ξ
Now I fill in the actual function graph curve that runs through my cell, as a derivative that is a straightline segment that goes from (1,1) to (1.001,1.002001).
This is True Calculus, where the derivative and the function graph curve are the same thing.
In Old Math, their derivative was an alien tangent line to a curve graph at a point.
In New True Math, the derivative and the function graph curve are one and the same.
The Reason, the Utter Reason calculus is so Valuable as a math tool is that given A, it predicts what B is going to be. For heaven's sake, that is why calculus is so valuable to physics law, it tells the physics law, given A, the derivative predicts B.
Old Math professors of math are fools and village idiots that think a tangent to a point on a curved graph predicts anything, only shows us how empty headed they are in logic, Old Math professors have no logical marbles of a brain when it comes to calculus, for a tangent is not going to predict the next point of the Function graph curve.
For Heaven's sake, the derivative has to be identical to the function graph itself within each cell for that is why calculus predicts the next successor point of the function graph, and is so useful to physics in prediction of the laws of physics.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
Or, maybe Andrew Wiles is a member of the gang of math spammers as of 24July2023, and thus denies mathematics as a science, but just math spam fodder, fodder, ....
Run and hide, like Andrew Wiles and Terry Tao run and hide from ellipse is _not a conic_ for that is a oval at slant cut. No wonder they cannot do a valid proof of calculus, for they are too blind in the very most simple of geometry figures.
AP
0 new messages