Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words (December 2018)
815 views
Skip to first unread message
Dan Christensen
Dec 8, 2018, 10:52:03 PM12/8/18
to
He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. I guess the promise of YouTube failed to materialize. Why else come back here to be mocked and ridiculed day in and day out.
John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:
"I'll just keep spamming!"
-- Dec. 25, 2016
Following up, 2017 has been very rough year indeed for our resident troll. Now, with his Wacky New Calclueless but a smoldering wreckage, he just seems to be going through the motions, more interested in some kind of face-saving exit strategy. Recently, he pleaded with readers here:
"You want to see me quit sci.math and stop abusing you? Make it impossible for trolls like Dan Christensen and his thugs to post comments... Once they stop spamming my threads, I'll consider quitting. Till then, I will repost [i.e. continue spamming sci.math] every day as long as I am able."
--Nov. 29, 2017
Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless, JG now seems only to want to mislead and confuse students here (as some kind of revenge?), earning him the nickname "Dr. Evil" (in addition to "Troll Boy" and "Spam Boy"). As he has boasted here:
"I thrive on chaos."
-- Nov. 25, 2017
JG's God complex, just too weird for words:
"It took a genius like me to dispel the bullshit of 'axioms and postulates.' There are no axioms in mathematics." (Explains why JG cannot even prove 2+2=4)
-- April 23, 2017
"I am superhuman in many respects, especially intelligence where it counts most... I am the inimitable John Gabriel - the smartest mathematician who lived on planet earth. I won't be surpassed in centuries."
--Jan. 4, 2017
“I am the Creator of this galaxy.”
-- March 19, 2015
“I am the greatest mathematician ever.”
-- June 21, 2016
"I am always right."
-- Nov. 3, 2016
“I am the last word on everything.”
-- May 6, 2015
“Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.”
-- March 26, 2015
“Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”
-- March 17, 2015
JG's very own Final Solution:
"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...
“In the early 20th century, there was a eugenics program in the United States. Too bad it was halted... It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live.”
-- July 13, 2014
"I will crush you... You need to be very careful what you say."
--November 10, 2016
"As for Hitler's actions, logically there is nothing wrong with what he did, after all, who gets to decide what is good and evil? Who gets to decide what is morality and ethics? (Hopefully NOT JG!)...
"Hitler was a genius... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different. (Like JG's morals?) And what makes your morals better than his?”
-- March 18, 2015
JG's Just Plain Stupid:
"I thrive on chaos."
-- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
"3 =< 4 is nonsense."
--October 28, 2017
"4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
-- Nov. 4, 2017
"The RULE is that every set can contain ONLY one subset"
-- October 17, 2017
"There are no postulates or axioms in mathematics." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4)
-- Feb. 6, 2017
“Axioms [are] not required in mathematics.”
-- July 4, 2016
"There is no such thing as an empty set."
-- Jan. 10, 2017
“So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'”
-- May 16, 2015
“To claim that all the natural numbers are in the set N, one must be able to list them all from beginning to the end.”
-- December 2, 2015
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017
"You are a CRANK if you claim that 1/3 = 0.333..."
-- Jan. 17, 2017
“1/0 is not undefined.”
-- May 19, 2015
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"There is NO such thing as a "real" number."
-- May 12, 2017
“The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.”
-- May 28, 2015
“By definition, a line is the distance between two points.”
-- April 13, 2015
"Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic
in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number"
-- May 24, 2017
JG's "formal" definition of a number: "A number is the measure of a magnitude." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4. Truly clueless.)
-- March 17, 2017
"Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
-- April 1, 2018
"A piecewise function is not a function."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"...such as abs(x) not being differentiable at x=0,
then you are no longer dealing with calculus."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"The 'implies' truth table has no connection to actual logic whatsoever."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"There is no such thing as long division where p/q is concerned if p < q." (So, no more 1 -:- 2 = 0.5.)
-- December 8, 2016
“Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus.” (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another international Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015
"There is no instantaneous velocity you stupid ape, only a velocity at a time t."
-- Nov. 29, 2017
"Straight lines don't have derivatives." (JG's wonky definition of a derivative blows up in this case, so JG proclaims such derivatives to be "undefined.")
-- Jan 4, 2017
"There is NEVER a derivative at any inflection point." (JG's definition also blows up in this case.)
-- Dec. 13, 2016
BEFORE: "There are still morons who don't know that Euler claimed S = Lim S.... He wrote it and with exactly that notation!"
-- May 26, 2017
THE EVIDENCE: http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10081749_00151.html?rotate=0&zoom=0.6000000000000001
JG's, AHEM... EVIDENCE: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel (same page, red lettering added by JG, NOT by Euler)
AFTER: "Of course he did not write 'Lim S'... He did not talk about S."
--May 27, 2017
Just when you thought JG might be coming to his senses...
A FEW HOURS LATER: "Euler did write S = Lim S." (Morons like JG never come to their senses!)
--May 27, 2017
"Euler was wrong. Period. I am an authority. Get used to it!"
--October 12, 2017 *** NEW ***
"[0,1) is strictly speaking not a 'set'."
-- May 29, 2017
"A right angled isosceles triangle is a SYMPTOM you morons. It's a SYMPTOM of sqrt(2)."
-- April 23, 2017
"Learn why intuition is very dangerous. Even I, who am infinitely smarter than all of you and have far better intuition, would never base my ideas on intuition!
-- April 23, 2017
"If Nikola Tesla were alive, he would have hailed me as the greatest mathematician ever."
-- April 30, 2017
"In 1998, I glanced at a math book. I think it was beige." (Promoting his New "Calclueless" website)
-- Jan. 19, 2017
“100 years have shown that nothing Einstein predicted is correct.” (“Jewish” science, right, JG?)
-- March 23, 2016
"There is no such thing as an infinite sequence of digits."
-- December 8, 2016
"There are no real numbers.... You get wrong results most of the time. Results such as 0.875... = 0.999... = 1"
-- Dec. 14, 2016
"Only when idiots began to treat points as numbers, did things start going south fast."
--Nov. 19, 2016
“There is no such thing as a continuous real number line.”
-- March 24, 2015
"Complex numbers are not required in pure mathematics at all and are used NOWHERE in the real world."
--November 10, 2016
“Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.”
-- May 30, 2015
"You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap."
--June 21, 2016
Dan
Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. I guess the promise of YouTube failed to materialize. Why else come back here to be mocked and ridiculed day in and day out.
John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:
"I'll just keep spamming!"
-- Dec. 25, 2016
Following up, 2017 has been very rough year indeed for our resident troll. Now, with his Wacky New Calclueless but a smoldering wreckage, he just seems to be going through the motions, more interested in some kind of face-saving exit strategy. Recently, he pleaded with readers here:
"You want to see me quit sci.math and stop abusing you? Make it impossible for trolls like Dan Christensen and his thugs to post comments... Once they stop spamming my threads, I'll consider quitting. Till then, I will repost [i.e. continue spamming sci.math] every day as long as I am able."
--Nov. 29, 2017
Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless, JG now seems only to want to mislead and confuse students here (as some kind of revenge?), earning him the nickname "Dr. Evil" (in addition to "Troll Boy" and "Spam Boy"). As he has boasted here:
"I thrive on chaos."
-- Nov. 25, 2017
JG's God complex, just too weird for words:
"It took a genius like me to dispel the bullshit of 'axioms and postulates.' There are no axioms in mathematics." (Explains why JG cannot even prove 2+2=4)
-- April 23, 2017
"I am superhuman in many respects, especially intelligence where it counts most... I am the inimitable John Gabriel - the smartest mathematician who lived on planet earth. I won't be surpassed in centuries."
--Jan. 4, 2017
“I am the Creator of this galaxy.”
-- March 19, 2015
“I am the greatest mathematician ever.”
-- June 21, 2016
"I am always right."
-- Nov. 3, 2016
“I am the last word on everything.”
-- May 6, 2015
“Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.”
-- March 26, 2015
“Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”
-- March 17, 2015
JG's very own Final Solution:
"I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...
“In the early 20th century, there was a eugenics program in the United States. Too bad it was halted... It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live.”
-- July 13, 2014
"I will crush you... You need to be very careful what you say."
--November 10, 2016
"As for Hitler's actions, logically there is nothing wrong with what he did, after all, who gets to decide what is good and evil? Who gets to decide what is morality and ethics? (Hopefully NOT JG!)...
"Hitler was a genius... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different. (Like JG's morals?) And what makes your morals better than his?”
-- March 18, 2015
JG's Just Plain Stupid:
"I thrive on chaos."
-- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017
"3 =< 4 is nonsense."
--October 28, 2017
"4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
-- Nov. 4, 2017
"The RULE is that every set can contain ONLY one subset"
-- October 17, 2017
"There are no postulates or axioms in mathematics." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4)
-- Feb. 6, 2017
“Axioms [are] not required in mathematics.”
-- July 4, 2016
"There is no such thing as an empty set."
-- Jan. 10, 2017
“So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'”
-- May 16, 2015
“To claim that all the natural numbers are in the set N, one must be able to list them all from beginning to the end.”
-- December 2, 2015
"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017
"Zero is not a number."
-- Jan. 10, 2017
"You are a CRANK if you claim that 1/3 = 0.333..."
-- Jan. 17, 2017
“1/0 is not undefined.”
-- May 19, 2015
“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015
"There is NO such thing as a "real" number."
-- May 12, 2017
“The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.”
-- May 28, 2015
“By definition, a line is the distance between two points.”
-- April 13, 2015
"Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic
in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number"
-- May 24, 2017
JG's "formal" definition of a number: "A number is the measure of a magnitude." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4. Truly clueless.)
-- March 17, 2017
"Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
-- April 1, 2018
"A piecewise function is not a function."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"...such as abs(x) not being differentiable at x=0,
then you are no longer dealing with calculus."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"The 'implies' truth table has no connection to actual logic whatsoever."
-- Nov 11, 2017
"There is no such thing as long division where p/q is concerned if p < q." (So, no more 1 -:- 2 = 0.5.)
-- December 8, 2016
“Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus.” (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another international Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
-- March 17, 2015
"There is no instantaneous velocity you stupid ape, only a velocity at a time t."
-- Nov. 29, 2017
"Straight lines don't have derivatives." (JG's wonky definition of a derivative blows up in this case, so JG proclaims such derivatives to be "undefined.")
-- Jan 4, 2017
"There is NEVER a derivative at any inflection point." (JG's definition also blows up in this case.)
-- Dec. 13, 2016
BEFORE: "There are still morons who don't know that Euler claimed S = Lim S.... He wrote it and with exactly that notation!"
-- May 26, 2017
THE EVIDENCE: http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10081749_00151.html?rotate=0&zoom=0.6000000000000001
JG's, AHEM... EVIDENCE: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel (same page, red lettering added by JG, NOT by Euler)
AFTER: "Of course he did not write 'Lim S'... He did not talk about S."
--May 27, 2017
Just when you thought JG might be coming to his senses...
A FEW HOURS LATER: "Euler did write S = Lim S." (Morons like JG never come to their senses!)
--May 27, 2017
"Euler was wrong. Period. I am an authority. Get used to it!"
--October 12, 2017 *** NEW ***
"[0,1) is strictly speaking not a 'set'."
-- May 29, 2017
"A right angled isosceles triangle is a SYMPTOM you morons. It's a SYMPTOM of sqrt(2)."
-- April 23, 2017
"Learn why intuition is very dangerous. Even I, who am infinitely smarter than all of you and have far better intuition, would never base my ideas on intuition!
-- April 23, 2017
"If Nikola Tesla were alive, he would have hailed me as the greatest mathematician ever."
-- April 30, 2017
"In 1998, I glanced at a math book. I think it was beige." (Promoting his New "Calclueless" website)
-- Jan. 19, 2017
“100 years have shown that nothing Einstein predicted is correct.” (“Jewish” science, right, JG?)
-- March 23, 2016
"There is no such thing as an infinite sequence of digits."
-- December 8, 2016
"There are no real numbers.... You get wrong results most of the time. Results such as 0.875... = 0.999... = 1"
-- Dec. 14, 2016
"Only when idiots began to treat points as numbers, did things start going south fast."
--Nov. 19, 2016
“There is no such thing as a continuous real number line.”
-- March 24, 2015
"Complex numbers are not required in pure mathematics at all and are used NOWHERE in the real world."
--November 10, 2016
“Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.”
-- May 30, 2015
"You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap."
--June 21, 2016
Dan
burs...@gmail.com
Dec 9, 2018, 11:58:17 AM12/9/18
to
I guess YT has been become too crowded with Cranks.
So JG is coming back to sci.math?
Here is an example how YT corrupts mathematicians,
who just want to get clicks:
The Algebra of Boole is not Boolean algebra!
N J Wildberger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlMoLkfhI8
The above moron can even not name a Boolean
Ring a Boolean Ring.
So JG is coming back to sci.math?
Here is an example how YT corrupts mathematicians,
who just want to get clicks:
The Algebra of Boole is not Boolean algebra!
N J Wildberger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlMoLkfhI8
The above moron can even not name a Boolean
Ring a Boolean Ring.
j4n bur53
Dec 9, 2018, 12:00:28 PM12/9/18
to
Wiki knows more than YT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_ring#Relation_to_Boolean_algebras
burs...@gmail.com schrieb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_ring#Relation_to_Boolean_algebras
burs...@gmail.com schrieb:
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 20, 2018, 9:20:36 PM12/20/18
to
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 9:52:03 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
> JG's Just Plain Stupid:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> --October 22, 2017
>
> "3 =< 4 is nonsense."
> --October 28, 2017
>
> "4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
> -- Nov. 4, 2017
>
Is Univ Western Ontario Dan Christensen any different from the Dan-sickfuck-CHRISTENSEN vs Moroney?
Is the professor at University Western Ontario, one and the same as this hate spewing sickfuck Dan Christensen (or a robot of the professor at UWO)

Dan Christensen (the spamming Canadian sickfuck of 6 years bullying) wrote on 20Dec2018

8:19 AM (11 hours ago)
WARNING TO PARENTS IN CLAY COUNTY SD: AP wants your children to fail in school and to worship his pagan Atom God Pu
Archie Pu's fake logic
A B A & B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Real logic:
A B A & B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
A B A OR B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
AP's fake math:
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” (10^604 = 0, so obvious!)
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
Like Moroney, these two sickfucks have a game going where they try to drive out posters they hate. They build up hate-sheets on authors and attack their victims day and night, and they herd other sickfucks like Eastside, Konyberg, Burse, Malum to gang up on the victim. Some of these sickfucks have been playing this game for 26 years-- Moroney, and Christensen for 6 years.
They are not here for math or physics or science. No, these sick fucks are here because they are degenerate insane people who need psychiatric treatment. They were bullies all their life long, but just has not run into one who stops their bullying. And they think that Usenet will not stop their bullying.
Like Moroney-- just endless hatred from the Shithead Christensen-- is this the same Christensen as in Univ Western Ontario--
Of course Moroney has been stalking for 26 years of nonstop hate spew
Christensen has been foaming at the mouth with hate spew for 6 years.
Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV just as dumb as my idea that Boole logic is valid as 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
But both are in sci.math or sci.physics not for science but their idiot game of trying to kick AP out
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel*, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 8:19:50 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof
Moroney for you-- never any science never any math-- only hatred of everyone around him-- is this what Harvard and MIT encourage
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >MM
> >" think you will like
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 6:20:52 AM UTC-6, john wrote:
> MM
> “ think you will like Sefton. Like you, he has this really dumb and
> stoopid idea that a galaxy is just a part of an atom. It's very much”
> You’re similar to Fake News- dishonest as hell.
> Ill bet people called you dumb AND stupid your whole life and you STILL think they’re two different things
AP writes: never any science or math from the shitheads Moroney, shein barry, kibo of std // just 26 years of attack dog cranking
Michael Moroney writes:
Dec 11 (16 hours ago)
Math Failure
Boo
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
> >>Subject: Re: Racist-Physicists, Weinberg,Witten,Glashow,Gell-Mann,Higgs
> >>who refuse to admit proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, Dirac monopole
> >>.5MeV, proofs by AP, because they never respect the source
>
> >** because they never respect the source **
>
> >Respect must be earned,
AP writes: the Moroney, kibo-shithead, shein, barry of std, never any science, only, ever ad hominem
The pathetic Boston failures-- cranking ad hominem
Boston's std 26 year long stalking shitheads kibo,Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron=.5MeV, you need the proton at 840MeV to 105MeV electron for chemistry to exist
Boston's std 26 year long stalking shitheads kibo,Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron=.5MeV
barry shein's --- std --- stalker Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:11:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
1 post by 1 author
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
11:34 AM (4 hours ago)
barry shein's --- std --- stalker Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:11:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
1 post by 1 author
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
11:34 AM (4 hours ago)
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:32:23 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
Endless mockery by insane Moroney-- Cornell, Harvard, MIT, you name it. Sci.math & sci.physics were never created for an insane stalking mocker like Moroney yet his abuse is unchecked in 26 years...
Michael Moroney wrote:
4:32 PM (2 hours ago)
"Village Idiot"
Math Failure
Moroney mocking Cornell math dept being dumb on ellipse and logic, yet Moroney cannot even do percentages correctly
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
AP writes: MM has been nothing but an insane stalking spammer for 26 years-- worthless loud mouth idiot fool that needs a straightjacket--
Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first ee in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?
Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.
But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.
In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
> JG's Just Plain Stupid:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> --October 22, 2017
>
> "3 =< 4 is nonsense."
> --October 28, 2017
>
> "4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
> -- Nov. 4, 2017
>
Is the professor at University Western Ontario, one and the same as this hate spewing sickfuck Dan Christensen (or a robot of the professor at UWO)

Dan Christensen (the spamming Canadian sickfuck of 6 years bullying) wrote on 20Dec2018

8:19 AM (11 hours ago)
WARNING TO PARENTS IN CLAY COUNTY SD: AP wants your children to fail in school and to worship his pagan Atom God Pu
Archie Pu's fake logic
A B A & B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
Real logic:
A B A & B
T T T
T F F
F T F
F F F
A B A OR B
T T T
T F T
F T T
F F F
AP's fake math:
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” (10^604 = 0, so obvious!)
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
Like Moroney, these two sickfucks have a game going where they try to drive out posters they hate. They build up hate-sheets on authors and attack their victims day and night, and they herd other sickfucks like Eastside, Konyberg, Burse, Malum to gang up on the victim. Some of these sickfucks have been playing this game for 26 years-- Moroney, and Christensen for 6 years.
They are not here for math or physics or science. No, these sick fucks are here because they are degenerate insane people who need psychiatric treatment. They were bullies all their life long, but just has not run into one who stops their bullying. And they think that Usenet will not stop their bullying.
Like Moroney-- just endless hatred from the Shithead Christensen-- is this the same Christensen as in Univ Western Ontario--
Of course Moroney has been stalking for 26 years of nonstop hate spew
Christensen has been foaming at the mouth with hate spew for 6 years.
Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am Christensen, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV just as dumb as my idea that Boole logic is valid as 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
But both are in sci.math or sci.physics not for science but their idiot game of trying to kick AP out
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel*, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 8:19:50 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof
Moroney for you-- never any science never any math-- only hatred of everyone around him-- is this what Harvard and MIT encourage
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 9:33:42 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >MM
> >" think you will like
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 6:20:52 AM UTC-6, john wrote:
> MM
> “ think you will like Sefton. Like you, he has this really dumb and
> stoopid idea that a galaxy is just a part of an atom. It's very much”
> You’re similar to Fake News- dishonest as hell.
> Ill bet people called you dumb AND stupid your whole life and you STILL think they’re two different things
AP writes: never any science or math from the shitheads Moroney, shein barry, kibo of std // just 26 years of attack dog cranking
Michael Moroney writes:
Dec 11 (16 hours ago)
Math Failure
Boo
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
> >>Subject: Re: Racist-Physicists, Weinberg,Witten,Glashow,Gell-Mann,Higgs
> >>who refuse to admit proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, Dirac monopole
> >>.5MeV, proofs by AP, because they never respect the source
>
> >** because they never respect the source **
>
> >Respect must be earned,
AP writes: the Moroney, kibo-shithead, shein, barry of std, never any science, only, ever ad hominem
The pathetic Boston failures-- cranking ad hominem
Boston's std 26 year long stalking shitheads kibo,Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron=.5MeV, you need the proton at 840MeV to 105MeV electron for chemistry to exist
Boston's std 26 year long stalking shitheads kibo,Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron=.5MeV
barry shein's --- std --- stalker Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:11:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
1 post by 1 author
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
11:34 AM (4 hours ago)
barry shein's --- std --- stalker Moroney implies Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:11:46 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
1 post by 1 author
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
11:34 AM (4 hours ago)
Richard E. Taylor Physics-Racists John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King//Chemistry bonding cannot exist when proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:32:23 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
Endless mockery by insane Moroney-- Cornell, Harvard, MIT, you name it. Sci.math & sci.physics were never created for an insane stalking mocker like Moroney yet his abuse is unchecked in 26 years...
Michael Moroney wrote:
4:32 PM (2 hours ago)
"Village Idiot"
Math Failure
Moroney mocking Cornell math dept being dumb on ellipse and logic, yet Moroney cannot even do percentages correctly
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 4:52:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
AP writes: MM has been nothing but an insane stalking spammer for 26 years-- worthless loud mouth idiot fool that needs a straightjacket--
Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first ee in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
Harvard Physics dept
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston?
Yes, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars.
But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.
In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
j4n bur53
Jan 24, 2019, 2:29:30 PM1/24/19
to
Bird brain John Garbageiel hits the stupidity jackpot again:
In mathematics, A => B means that B is true only if A is true.
-- January 24th, 2019
LoL
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 04:52:03 UTC+1 schrieb Dan Christensen:
In mathematics, A => B means that B is true only if A is true.
-- January 24th, 2019
LoL
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 04:52:03 UTC+1 schrieb Dan Christensen:
Dan Christensen
Jan 24, 2019, 3:17:15 PM1/24/19
to
On Thursday, January 24, 2019 at 2:29:30 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Bird brain John Garbageiel hits the stupidity jackpot again:
>
> In mathematics, A => B means that B is true only if A is true.
> -- January 24th, 2019
>
What do you expect from someone who would post, "zero is not a true number" -- at LinkedIn of all places! I can only guess that he has given up getting any more work. He is his own worst enemy.
> Bird brain John Garbageiel hits the stupidity jackpot again:
>
> In mathematics, A => B means that B is true only if A is true.
> -- January 24th, 2019
>
Dan
Me
Jan 24, 2019, 5:18:55 PM1/24/19
to
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 4:52:03 AM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. [...]
> Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless ...
Little wonder, his "New Calculus" can't even deal with the following simple problem:
Let f(x) = sqrt(x) (x e IR, x >= 0).
What's f'(1)?
His "New Calculus" seems to be a total failure!
> Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. [...]
> Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless ...
Little wonder, his "New Calculus" can't even deal with the following simple problem:
Let f(x) = sqrt(x) (x e IR, x >= 0).
What's f'(1)?
His "New Calculus" seems to be a total failure!
j4n bur53
Jan 26, 2019, 9:33:10 AM1/26/19
to
More nonsense from John Garbageiels brain cancer:
3=<4 is an invalid logical disjunction but your
birdbrain can't comprehend such subtlety.
- January 26th, 2019
As usual the nonsense comes flooding in.
3=<4 is an invalid logical disjunction but your
birdbrain can't comprehend such subtlety.
- January 26th, 2019
As usual the nonsense comes flooding in.
j4n bur53
Jan 26, 2019, 8:09:36 PM1/26/19
to
Thats really the cutes thing I have every heard:
bird brain cites Wikipedia:
A key use of formulas is in propositional logic and predicate logic such as first-order logic. In those contexts, a formula is a string of symbols φ for which it makes sense to ask "is φ true?", once any free variables in φ have been instantiated. - Wikipedia Moronica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula#Introduction
then bird brain concludes:
Does it make sense to ask if (3<=4) is true? ... The answer is NO. ...
Now (x<=4) is sensible because x is a free variable. ....
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rIzRtg9MhyI/9eqY0LcjEQAJ
- January 27th, 2019
So what is the quantifier dislexia here?
bird brain cites Wikipedia:
A key use of formulas is in propositional logic and predicate logic such as first-order logic. In those contexts, a formula is a string of symbols φ for which it makes sense to ask "is φ true?", once any free variables in φ have been instantiated. - Wikipedia Moronica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-formed_formula#Introduction
then bird brain concludes:
Does it make sense to ask if (3<=4) is true? ... The answer is NO. ...
Now (x<=4) is sensible because x is a free variable. ....
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/rIzRtg9MhyI/9eqY0LcjEQAJ
- January 27th, 2019
So what is the quantifier dislexia here?
j4n bur53
Jan 26, 2019, 8:20:28 PM1/26/19
to
I guess now even S=Lim S starts to make
sense. But I am afraid to dig deeper,
there is real abyss of kuddlemuddle.
sense. But I am afraid to dig deeper,
there is real abyss of kuddlemuddle.
j4n bur53
Jan 28, 2019, 6:35:44 AM1/28/19
to
Woa, John Garbageiel, surpassing any sillyness already
seen anywhere else. It just cannot get more silly:
<= is NOT a binary relation, you moron. A binary relation
describes ONE operation or relation, not TWO as in < and =.
- January 28th, 2019
To the best of my knowledge you can define what ever
you want as a relation R, and then use the infix
notation xRy. Woa, how stupid is bird brain John Garbageiel?
seen anywhere else. It just cannot get more silly:
<= is NOT a binary relation, you moron. A binary relation
describes ONE operation or relation, not TWO as in < and =.
- January 28th, 2019
To the best of my knowledge you can define what ever
you want as a relation R, and then use the infix
notation xRy. Woa, how stupid is bird brain John Garbageiel?
j4n bur53
Jan 28, 2019, 6:44:30 AM1/28/19
to
Well JG gets up in the morning. And thinks, what
nonsense could I spread over the internet. And
then he does his inhibited spamming of nonsense.
Not a single line of math already for 10 years.
nonsense could I spread over the internet. And
then he does his inhibited spamming of nonsense.
Not a single line of math already for 10 years.
j4n bur53
Jan 29, 2019, 7:19:13 PM1/29/19
to
Is bird brain John Gabriel not a human being,
maybe a mollusc or something?
Let x=3 and y=4, then x <= y means (x < y) \/ (x = y)
which is not a well formed statement because (x = y) is nonsense.
- January 30th, 2019
maybe a mollusc or something?
Let x=3 and y=4, then x <= y means (x < y) \/ (x = y)
which is not a well formed statement because (x = y) is nonsense.
- January 30th, 2019
j4n bur53
Jan 30, 2019, 11:26:35 AM1/30/19
to
bird brain John Garbageiel, the mollusc, whos only
two brain cells got also amputated.
Anyone who says (0 = 1) is well formed, is obviously an idiot.
- January 30th, 2019
two brain cells got also amputated.
Anyone who says (0 = 1) is well formed, is obviously an idiot.
- January 30th, 2019
j4n bur53
Feb 8, 2019, 6:24:23 PM2/8/19
to
Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the most
schizophrenic crank of all?
Answer, it is bird brain John Garbageiel.
Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2019 00:21:02 UTC+1 schrieb j4n bur53:
> Hey birdbrain, you have "False" in your vocabulary,
> you just demonstrated it below. Why didn't you respond
> with not well formed or invalid?
>
> Ha Ha, bridbrain cannot walk as he talks.
>
> Am Freitag, 8. Februar 2019 21:20:34 UTC+1 schrieb Jew Lover:
> > On Friday, 8 February 2019 13:39:06 UTC-5, moron wrote:
> > > Well formed refers only to the form, not to
> > > the truth value of a form.
> >
> > False. Including an impossibility in any FOL means it is NOT well formed.
schizophrenic crank of all?
Answer, it is bird brain John Garbageiel.
Am Samstag, 9. Februar 2019 00:21:02 UTC+1 schrieb j4n bur53:
> Hey birdbrain, you have "False" in your vocabulary,
> you just demonstrated it below. Why didn't you respond
> with not well formed or invalid?
>
> Ha Ha, bridbrain cannot walk as he talks.
>
> Am Freitag, 8. Februar 2019 21:20:34 UTC+1 schrieb Jew Lover:
> > On Friday, 8 February 2019 13:39:06 UTC-5, moron wrote:
> > > Well formed refers only to the form, not to
> > > the truth value of a form.
> >
> > False. Including an impossibility in any FOL means it is NOT well formed.
j4n bur53
Feb 19, 2019, 9:40:37 AM2/19/19
to
I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks:
About a∈N. ⊃ .a+1∈N
"As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
- sci.logic, 19.02.2019
Seriously?
About a∈N. ⊃ .a+1∈N
"As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
- sci.logic, 19.02.2019
Seriously?
Me
Feb 19, 2019, 9:52:22 AM2/19/19
to
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:40:37 PM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:
> I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks
I'd rather call him "stubborn". He definitely knows stuff, and his productions don't seem to be like the worthless stuff produced by cranks.
> I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks
> About a∈N. ⊃ .a+1∈N
>
> "As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
> essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
> - sci.logic, 19.02.2019
Maybe he had something in mind which actually DOES make sense.
Some questionable believes are definitely not enought to call someone (justy) a crank, imho.
Dan Christensen
Feb 19, 2019, 4:12:31 PM2/19/19
to
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks:
>
> About a∈N. ⊃ .a+1∈N
> "As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
> essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
> - sci.logic, 19.02.2019
>
JG's latest recruit?
> I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks:
>
> About a∈N. ⊃ .a+1∈N
> "As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
> essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
> - sci.logic, 19.02.2019
>
Nice bit of creative editing, Jan. You ARE getting SOOOOO desperate, and really a bit trollish of late. Reminds me of JG tampering with an article by Euler.
My response above was written in response to you pointing out Peano's 2nd Axiom in WP:
"Did you see this axiom: An(n in N => n' in N)"
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano-Axiome
You took exception to me defining functions in this way myself, as if it was something new and radical. You wanted it to be a biconditional so that you could make inferences about elements NOT in N. Now there's an innovation or you. (HA, HA, HA!!!) Don't ask me why, folks! That's just Jan for you.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Me
Feb 19, 2019, 5:26:40 PM2/19/19
to
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:40:37 PM UTC+1, j4n bur53 wrote:
> I guess we can add Dan Christensen to the list of cranks.
If we utilize the definition
"A crank is defined as a man who cannot be turned."
then we might indeed call him a crank.
Discussions with him seem to be rather pointless.
I alread experienced this some years ago when trying to give him some (helful) tips to improve his system "DC Proof".
j4n bur53
Feb 19, 2019, 5:30:57 PM2/19/19
to
Since Bourbaki f : E -> F means the following:
0) f is a relation
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-rel.html
1) f is functional
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/dffun4.html
2) dom(f)=E
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-fn.html
3) ran(f) subset F
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-f.html
And not Danomatik nonsense.
See also:
In 1939, Bourbaki, in addition to giving the well-known
ordered pair definition of a function as a certain subset
of the cartesian product E x F, gave the following:
"Let E and F be two sets, which may or may not be distinct.
A relation between a variable element x of E and a variable
element y of F is called a functional relation in y if,
for all x ∈ E, there exists a unique y ∈ F which is in
the given relation with x. We give the name of function
to the operation which in this way associates with every
element x ∈ E the element y ∈ F which is in the given
relation with x, and the function is said to be determined
by the given functional relation. Two equivalent functional
relations determine the same function."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_function_concept#Bourbaki_1939
Since subset E x F is required, you cannot model
it as forall x (x e E => f'x e F).
0) f is a relation
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-rel.html
1) f is functional
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/dffun4.html
2) dom(f)=E
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-fn.html
3) ran(f) subset F
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-f.html
And not Danomatik nonsense.
See also:
In 1939, Bourbaki, in addition to giving the well-known
ordered pair definition of a function as a certain subset
of the cartesian product E x F, gave the following:
"Let E and F be two sets, which may or may not be distinct.
A relation between a variable element x of E and a variable
element y of F is called a functional relation in y if,
for all x ∈ E, there exists a unique y ∈ F which is in
the given relation with x. We give the name of function
to the operation which in this way associates with every
element x ∈ E the element y ∈ F which is in the given
relation with x, and the function is said to be determined
by the given functional relation. Two equivalent functional
relations determine the same function."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_function_concept#Bourbaki_1939
Since subset E x F is required, you cannot model
it as forall x (x e E => f'x e F).
Dan Christensen
Feb 19, 2019, 7:08:50 PM2/19/19
to
Me
Feb 19, 2019, 7:42:17 PM2/19/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 1:08:50 AM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> So, you have a function f that maps every element [x] of set E to a unique
> element [y] of set F [which depends on x]. Previously, you said that, from
> So, you have a function f that maps every element [x] of set E to a unique
> element [y] of set F [which depends on x]. Previously, you said that, from
> this fact alone, we can make certain inferences about any elements that are
> NOT in set E. What were those inferences again?
Did he claim that? Where? And what did he ACTUALLY claim?
> NOT in set E. What were those inferences again?
Dan Christensen
Feb 19, 2019, 8:27:25 PM2/19/19
to
For all a: [a in E <=> f(a) in F] (note the biconditional)
or equivalently
For all a: [a not in E <=> f(a) not in F]
Did I get that right, Jan? Perhaps you could clarify.
Me
Feb 19, 2019, 8:47:33 PM2/19/19
to
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 10:12:31 PM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> >
> > "As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
> > essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
> > - DC, sci.logic, 19.02.2019
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:40:37 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> >
> > "As you can see, it is nothing new or radical. It is
> > essentially what most textbooks mean by a function."
> >
> My response above was written in response to you pointing out Peano's 2nd
> Axiom in WP:
>
> "Did you see this axiom: An(n in N => n' in N)"
>
> My response above was written in response to you pointing out Peano's 2nd
> Axiom in WP:
>
> "Did you see this axiom: An(n in N => n' in N)"
>
> You took exception to me defining functions in this way
Yeah, and he's right. We DON'T do it this way in mathematics.
> as if it was something new and radical.
Get over it, man: your approach is defective.
Dan Christensen
Feb 19, 2019, 9:20:36 PM2/19/19
to
Do you deny the conclusion on line 85? Do you even understand it?
Me
Feb 20, 2019, 4:19:52 AM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 3:20:36 AM UTC+1, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Unlike JG's wonky "New Calculus," my approach actually works.
Agree.
> Unlike JG's wonky "New Calculus," my approach actually works.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:05:02 AM2/20/19
to
Did you ever use your working wonky cranky approach to prove:
|{ f | f : X -> 2 }| = |P(X)|
Can you prove it with your working wonky cranky approach?
|{ f | f : X -> 2 }| = |P(X)|
Can you prove it with your working wonky cranky approach?
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:10:01 AM2/20/19
to
Nope, the function concept doesn't work
with first order function symbols. The
Bourbaki Function concept, which is the
basis for all math text books, doesn't
use first order function symbols. An unary
first order function has the signature:
f : V -> V
it sends elements from the universal class,
to elements from the universal class. Thats
how a first order function symbol is
interpreted. Thats exactly not what we want
when we have f : A -> B and A,B are sets.
Here is again what it means:
Since Bourbaki f : E -> F means the following:
0) f is a relation
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-rel.html
1) f is functional
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/dffun4.html
2) dom(f)=E
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-fn.html
3) ran(f) subset F
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-f.html
And you cannot use the notation f(x) from
first order logic for function application.
You need to use f'x or something.
Because function application might yield
no value, since every function f : A -> B
is partial outside of A.
with first order function symbols. The
Bourbaki Function concept, which is the
basis for all math text books, doesn't
use first order function symbols. An unary
first order function has the signature:
f : V -> V
it sends elements from the universal class,
to elements from the universal class. Thats
how a first order function symbol is
interpreted. Thats exactly not what we want
when we have f : A -> B and A,B are sets.
Here is again what it means:
Since Bourbaki f : E -> F means the following:
0) f is a relation
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-rel.html
1) f is functional
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/dffun4.html
2) dom(f)=E
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-fn.html
3) ran(f) subset F
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-f.html
first order logic for function application.
You need to use f'x or something.
Because function application might yield
no value, since every function f : A -> B
is partial outside of A.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:14:10 AM2/20/19
to
The notation f(x) works only for function classes,
but not for functions f : A -> B.
Here are some examples of function classes:
{_} : V -> V, producing a singleton
P(_) : V -> V, producing a powerset
Etc..
For the above you can use first order function symbol.
But if you have f : X -> 2, you cannot use a
first order function symbol per se.
John Harrison discussed some of the issues also here:
Let’s make set theory great again! - 2018
http://aitp-conference.org/2018/slides/JH.pdf
but not for functions f : A -> B.
Here are some examples of function classes:
{_} : V -> V, producing a singleton
P(_) : V -> V, producing a powerset
Etc..
For the above you can use first order function symbol.
But if you have f : X -> 2, you cannot use a
first order function symbol per se.
John Harrison discussed some of the issues also here:
Let’s make set theory great again! - 2018
http://aitp-conference.org/2018/slides/JH.pdf
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:24:58 AM2/20/19
to
This is a problem of **formal** versus **informal**.
In math text books, when you see f(x), its still
informal, you cannot formally translate it to a first
order function symbol always. Tacitly it has multiple
connotations. From the context we might know that
x is in the domain, and hence we might know that
f(x) is defined. But nevertheless you cannot translate
it to single sorted first order logic, when functions
are also used as objects. There exists a translation
for multi sorted first order logic,
which looks a little bit like your forall x(x in A ->
f(x) in B). Basically in such a translation you relativize
every quantifier. So a multisorted quantifier:
forall x_A P(x_A)
exists x_A P(x_A)
Is translated to:
forall x(A(x) => P(x))
exists x(A(x) /\ P(x))
But this works only in a first order setting, where you
dont quantify over function symbols. But for example
this challenge here:
|{ f | f : X -> 2 }| = |P(X)|
has the variable f quantified. Its quantified in
the set builder.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
In math text books, when you see f(x), its still
informal, you cannot formally translate it to a first
order function symbol always. Tacitly it has multiple
connotations. From the context we might know that
x is in the domain, and hence we might know that
f(x) is defined. But nevertheless you cannot translate
it to single sorted first order logic, when functions
are also used as objects. There exists a translation
for multi sorted first order logic,
which looks a little bit like your forall x(x in A ->
f(x) in B). Basically in such a translation you relativize
every quantifier. So a multisorted quantifier:
forall x_A P(x_A)
exists x_A P(x_A)
Is translated to:
forall x(A(x) => P(x))
exists x(A(x) /\ P(x))
But this works only in a first order setting, where you
dont quantify over function symbols. But for example
this challenge here:
|{ f | f : X -> 2 }| = |P(X)|
the set builder.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
Dan Christensen
Feb 20, 2019, 10:46:46 AM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 5:10:01 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Nope, the function concept doesn't work
> with first order function symbols.
It seems to work with whatever symbols I am using -- call them what you will. If there is anything more to an arbitrary function other than
> Nope, the function concept doesn't work
> with first order function symbols.
ALL(a):[a in X => f(a) in Y]
then I haven't come across it in my own work. Whatever it might be, I did not require it to prove the associativity of the composition of functions most recently or Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder some years ago.
https://www.dcproof.com/CompositionOfFunctionsAssoc.htm
http://dcproof.com/CBS.htm
I'm not saying we should ban domain or codomain operators, or whatever a la JG. I just haven't found them to be necessary in my own considerable amount work (for an amateur).
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 10:51:04 AM2/20/19
to
You didn't show that Burbaki functions are associative.
You only showed that Danomatik functions are associative.
Why should this be useful?
If you don't interpret f : X -> Y as in Bourbaki,
all your theorems are useless.
You only showed that Danomatik functions are associative.
Why should this be useful?
If you don't interpret f : X -> Y as in Bourbaki,
all your theorems are useless.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 10:55:35 AM2/20/19
to
Corr. Burbaki -> Bourbaki
One way to fix your nonsense, could be to introduce
a special equality among functions, which differs
from the Bourbaki equality (which is set extensionality).
The special equality would have a domain parameter,
so instead of Bourbaki equality among functions:
f, g functions =>
f = g <=> forall z (z in f <=> z in g)
You would only have:
f, g functions =>
f =_A g <=> forall z in A (z in f <=> z in g)
And you could use =_A in some theorems.
But then how would you do set theory? The pairing
axiom requires an equality which doesn't have
some parameter A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_pairing
One way to fix your nonsense, could be to introduce
a special equality among functions, which differs
from the Bourbaki equality (which is set extensionality).
The special equality would have a domain parameter,
so instead of Bourbaki equality among functions:
f, g functions =>
f = g <=> forall z (z in f <=> z in g)
You would only have:
f, g functions =>
f =_A g <=> forall z in A (z in f <=> z in g)
And you could use =_A in some theorems.
But then how would you do set theory? The pairing
axiom requires an equality which doesn't have
some parameter A:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_pairing
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 11:10:09 AM2/20/19
to
The Bourbaki Equality is here (between ********* and *********):
> See also:
> In 1939, Bourbaki, in addition to giving the well-known
> ordered pair definition of a function as a certain subset
> of the cartesian product E x F, gave the following:
> "Let E and F be two sets, which may or may not be distinct.
> A relation between a variable element x of E and a variable
> element y of F is called a functional relation in y if,
> for all x ∈ E, there exists a unique y ∈ F which is in
> the given relation with x. We give the name of function
> to the operation which in this way associates with every
> element x ∈ E the element y ∈ F which is in the given
> relation with x, and the function is said to be determined
****************************************************************
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_function_concept#Bourbaki_1939
> See also:
> In 1939, Bourbaki, in addition to giving the well-known
> ordered pair definition of a function as a certain subset
> of the cartesian product E x F, gave the following:
> "Let E and F be two sets, which may or may not be distinct.
> A relation between a variable element x of E and a variable
> element y of F is called a functional relation in y if,
> for all x ∈ E, there exists a unique y ∈ F which is in
> the given relation with x. We give the name of function
> to the operation which in this way associates with every
> element x ∈ E the element y ∈ F which is in the given
> relation with x, and the function is said to be determined
> by the given functional relation. Two equivalent functional
> relations determine the same function."
****************************************************************
> relations determine the same function."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_function_concept#Bourbaki_1939
Dan Christensen
Feb 20, 2019, 11:26:35 AM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 10:51:04 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> You didn't show that Burbaki functions are associative.
> You only showed that Danomatik functions are associative.
>
> Why should this be useful?
>
Again, DC Proof may well be useless to philosophers, but not to students of mathematics who simply want to understand how to use widely accepted methods of proof and get valid results in a way not too different from proofs in their textbooks.
> You didn't show that Burbaki functions are associative.
> You only showed that Danomatik functions are associative.
>
> Why should this be useful?
>
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 11:31:05 AM2/20/19
to
So you have foremost cheated yourself, like
John Gabriel has cheated himself with his parallel
secants. And now you try to cheat other people?
I still think you are Stubbornik Crank.
John Gabriel has cheated himself with his parallel
secants. And now you try to cheat other people?
I still think you are Stubbornik Crank.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 11:39:21 AM2/20/19
to
Lets say A = 1 = {0}, a one element set.
And lets write f^2 for the function composition f o f.
You cannot prove:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
And lets write f^2 for the function composition f o f.
You cannot prove:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 11:40:32 AM2/20/19
to
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 11:43:27 AM2/20/19
to
In (Bourbaki) set theory we can prove:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
where A = {0}.
I don't think this is possible in DC Proof.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
I don't think this is possible in DC Proof.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
Dan Christensen
Feb 20, 2019, 12:02:16 PM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 11:31:05 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> So you have foremost cheated yourself...
You are deluding yourself if you think most mathematicians care about your finer points of set theory or logic. They want results.
> So you have foremost cheated yourself...
You are deluding yourself if you think most mathematicians care about your finer points of set theory or logic. They want results.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 12:09:03 PM2/20/19
to
Thats the point laud mouth, with your nonsense,
you cannot produce any results. Show us a proof of:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
Where A={0}.
you cannot produce any results. Show us a proof of:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
Dan Christensen
Feb 20, 2019, 12:49:20 PM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 12:09:03 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Thats the point, with you cannot produce any results.
Liar. I was asked recently to prove that the composition of functions is associative using my approach. I did that. Some years ago, I was able to prove Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder -- a torture test for any system. DC Proof was up to the challenge. It works. Deal with it, Jan.
> Thats the point, with you cannot produce any results.
Liar. I was asked recently to prove that the composition of functions is associative using my approach. I did that. Some years ago, I was able to prove Cantor-Bernstein-Schroeder -- a torture test for any system. DC Proof was up to the challenge. It works. Deal with it, Jan.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 1:33:24 PM2/20/19
to
This is a composition problem, you cannot solve:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
You can also write it as:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
You see the composition o ? How do you prove it
with your moron DC Proof and your moron approach
to functions and function type declarations?
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
You can also write it as:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f^2 = f)
with your moron DC Proof and your moron approach
to functions and function type declarations?
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 1:52:37 PM2/20/19
to
I could also ask to prove that id_A is unique,
without requiring A = {0}. But when A = {0},
the only function A -> A is id_A.
See also this exercise 1.3 here:
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mitya/topics-in-algebra/categories.pdf
Most things that hold for categories should also
hold for Bourbaki functions, based on set theoery.
<Sets> is just a special case of a category.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
without requiring A = {0}. But when A = {0},
the only function A -> A is id_A.
See also this exercise 1.3 here:
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mitya/topics-in-algebra/categories.pdf
Most things that hold for categories should also
hold for Bourbaki functions, based on set theoery.
<Sets> is just a special case of a category.
j4n bur53 schrieb:
Dan Christensen
Feb 20, 2019, 3:18:01 PM2/20/19
to
On Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 1:33:24 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> This is a composition problem, you cannot solve:
>
You are becoming very boring, Jan. I have already demonstrated how DC Proof handles the composition of functions. Have another look at it: https://www.dcproof.com/CompositionOfFunctionsAssoc.htm Is it too long for you? It's only 85 lines plus a lemma -- short for a formal proof.
> This is a composition problem, you cannot solve:
>
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:07:47 PM2/20/19
to
This is only half of the story, you can check yourself:
See also this exercise 1.3 here:
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mitya/topics-in-algebra/categories.pdf
If you cannot prove for example the following:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
Then there is something wrong with your
"composition" and your "functions".
The problem is associativity says nothing.
For example string concatenation is also
associative:
"DC-"+("P"+"roof") = ("DC-"+"P")+"roof" = "DC-Proof"
I guess you become slowly the John Garbageiel
of proof assistents. Its just nonsense to
claim associativity proofs anything about
your "functions" and "composition". Its just
not enough. In minimum you need also have
an "identity" to get compatible with set theory.
See also this exercise 1.3 here:
http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~mitya/topics-in-algebra/categories.pdf
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
"composition" and your "functions".
The problem is associativity says nothing.
For example string concatenation is also
associative:
"DC-"+("P"+"roof") = ("DC-"+"P")+"roof" = "DC-Proof"
I guess you become slowly the John Garbageiel
of proof assistents. Its just nonsense to
claim associativity proofs anything about
your "functions" and "composition". Its just
not enough. In minimum you need also have
an "identity" to get compatible with set theory.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:11:57 PM2/20/19
to
But identity is not possible if you view
f : A -> B would say Ax(x e A => f(x) e B).
You will have problems to prove f o id = f.
Because a Danomatik id : A -> A, might behave
arbitrarily outside of A, and hence the
composition outside of A will be also
arbitrarily. You don't get enough categoricity
to even prove f o id = f to begin with,
using the set theoretic equality =.
f : A -> B would say Ax(x e A => f(x) e B).
You will have problems to prove f o id = f.
Because a Danomatik id : A -> A, might behave
arbitrarily outside of A, and hence the
composition outside of A will be also
arbitrarily. You don't get enough categoricity
to even prove f o id = f to begin with,
using the set theoretic equality =.
j4n bur53
Feb 20, 2019, 5:17:39 PM2/20/19
to
Or in other words. You only proved semigroup,
but function composition is a monoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid
Not every semigroup is a monoid. Unfortunately
the DC Proof functions with the Danomatik
interpretation of f : A -> B, do not form
a monoid. If they were monodial you could prove:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
But I guess you cannot prove it in DC proof
with your approach of function interpretation.
but function composition is a monoid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semigroup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid
Not every semigroup is a monoid. Unfortunately
the DC Proof functions with the Danomatik
interpretation of f : A -> B, do not form
a monoid. If they were monodial you could prove:
exists! f (f : A -> A /\ f o f = f)
with your approach of function interpretation.
Dan Christensen
Mar 28, 2019, 10:01:57 AM3/28/19
to
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:52:03 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
>
> Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. I guess the promise of YouTube failed to materialize. Why else come back here to be mocked and ridiculed day in and day out.
>
>
> John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:
>
> "I'll just keep spamming!"
> -- Dec. 25, 2016
>
> Following up, 2017 has been very rough year indeed for our resident troll. Now, with his Wacky New Calclueless but a smoldering wreckage, he just seems to be going through the motions, more interested in some kind of face-saving exit strategy. Recently, he pleaded with readers here:
>
> "You want to see me quit sci.math and stop abusing you? Make it impossible for trolls like Dan Christensen and his thugs to post comments... Once they stop spamming my threads, I'll consider quitting. Till then, I will repost [i.e. continue spamming sci.math] every day as long as I am able."
> --Nov. 29, 2017
>
> Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless, JG now seems only to want to mislead and confuse students here (as some kind of revenge?), earning him the nickname "Dr. Evil" (in addition to "Troll Boy" and "Spam Boy"). As he has boasted here:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017
>
>
> JG's God complex, just too weird for words:
>
> "It took a genius like me to dispel the bullshit of 'axioms and postulates.' There are no axioms in mathematics." (Explains why JG cannot even prove 2+2=4)
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "I am superhuman in many respects, especially intelligence where it counts most... I am the inimitable John Gabriel - the smartest mathematician who lived on planet earth. I won't be surpassed in centuries."
> --Jan. 4, 2017
>
> “I am the Creator of this galaxy.”
> -- March 19, 2015
>
> “I am the greatest mathematician ever.”
> -- June 21, 2016
>
> "I am always right."
> -- Nov. 3, 2016
>
> “I am the last word on everything.”
> -- May 6, 2015
>
> “Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.”
> -- March 26, 2015
>
> “Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”
> -- March 17, 2015
>
>
> JG's very own Final Solution:
>
> "I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...
>
> “In the early 20th century, there was a eugenics program in the United States. Too bad it was halted... It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live.”
> -- July 13, 2014
>
> "I will crush you... You need to be very careful what you say."
> --November 10, 2016
>
> "As for Hitler's actions, logically there is nothing wrong with what he did, after all, who gets to decide what is good and evil? Who gets to decide what is morality and ethics? (Hopefully NOT JG!)...
>
> "Hitler was a genius... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different. (Like JG's morals?) And what makes your morals better than his?”
> -- March 18, 2015
>
>
> JG's Just Plain Stupid:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> --October 22, 2017
>
> "3 =< 4 is nonsense."
> --October 28, 2017
>
> "4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
> -- Nov. 4, 2017
>
> "The RULE is that every set can contain ONLY one subset"
> -- October 17, 2017
>
> "There are no postulates or axioms in mathematics." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4)
> -- Feb. 6, 2017
>
> “Axioms [are] not required in mathematics.”
> -- July 4, 2016
>
> "There is no such thing as an empty set."
> -- Jan. 10, 2017
>
> “So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'”
> -- May 16, 2015
>
> “To claim that all the natural numbers are in the set N, one must be able to list them all from beginning to the end.”
> -- December 2, 2015
>
> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> -- Jan. 4, 2017
>
> "Zero is not a number."
> -- Jan. 10, 2017
>
> "You are a CRANK if you claim that 1/3 = 0.333..."
> -- Jan. 17, 2017
>
> “1/0 is not undefined.”
> -- May 19, 2015
>
> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> -- February 8, 2015
>
> "There is NO such thing as a "real" number."
> -- May 12, 2017
>
> “The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.”
> -- May 28, 2015
>
> “By definition, a line is the distance between two points.”
> -- April 13, 2015
>
> "Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic
> in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number"
> -- May 24, 2017
>
> JG's "formal" definition of a number: "A number is the measure of a magnitude." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4. Truly clueless.)
> -- March 17, 2017
>
> "Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
> -- April 1, 2018
>
> "A piecewise function is not a function."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
> "...such as abs(x) not being differentiable at x=0,
> then you are no longer dealing with calculus."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
> "The 'implies' truth table has no connection to actual logic whatsoever."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
>
> "There is no such thing as long division where p/q is concerned if p < q." (So, no more 1 -:- 2 = 0.5.)
> -- December 8, 2016
>
> “Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus.” (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another international Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
> -- March 17, 2015
>
> "There is no instantaneous velocity you stupid ape, only a velocity at a time t."
> -- Nov. 29, 2017
>
> "Straight lines don't have derivatives." (JG's wonky definition of a derivative blows up in this case, so JG proclaims such derivatives to be "undefined.")
> -- Jan 4, 2017
>
> "There is NEVER a derivative at any inflection point." (JG's definition also blows up in this case.)
> -- Dec. 13, 2016
>
>
> BEFORE: "There are still morons who don't know that Euler claimed S = Lim S.... He wrote it and with exactly that notation!"
> -- May 26, 2017
>
> THE EVIDENCE: http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10081749_00151.html?rotate=0&zoom=0.6000000000000001
>
> JG's, AHEM... EVIDENCE: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel (same page, red lettering added by JG, NOT by Euler)
>
> AFTER: "Of course he did not write 'Lim S'... He did not talk about S."
> --May 27, 2017
>
> Just when you thought JG might be coming to his senses...
>
> A FEW HOURS LATER: "Euler did write S = Lim S." (Morons like JG never come to their senses!)
> --May 27, 2017
>
> "Euler was wrong. Period. I am an authority. Get used to it!"
> --October 12, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "[0,1) is strictly speaking not a 'set'."
> -- May 29, 2017
>
> "A right angled isosceles triangle is a SYMPTOM you morons. It's a SYMPTOM of sqrt(2)."
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "Learn why intuition is very dangerous. Even I, who am infinitely smarter than all of you and have far better intuition, would never base my ideas on intuition!
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "If Nikola Tesla were alive, he would have hailed me as the greatest mathematician ever."
> -- April 30, 2017
>
> "In 1998, I glanced at a math book. I think it was beige." (Promoting his New "Calclueless" website)
> -- Jan. 19, 2017
>
> “100 years have shown that nothing Einstein predicted is correct.” (“Jewish” science, right, JG?)
> -- March 23, 2016
>
> "There is no such thing as an infinite sequence of digits."
> -- December 8, 2016
>
> "There are no real numbers.... You get wrong results most of the time. Results such as 0.875... = 0.999... = 1"
> -- Dec. 14, 2016
>
> "Only when idiots began to treat points as numbers, did things start going south fast."
> --Nov. 19, 2016
>
> “There is no such thing as a continuous real number line.”
> -- March 24, 2015
>
> "Complex numbers are not required in pure mathematics at all and are used NOWHERE in the real world."
> --November 10, 2016
>
> “Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.”
> -- May 30, 2015
>
> "You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap."
> --June 21, 2016
>
>
This just in...
"Who sets the agenda and who decides? I get to decide because no one else has the same clarity of thought as I." (From an idiot who denies that 1/2=2/4.)
-- John "Troll Boy" Gabriel, March 27, 2019
Dan
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
>
> Nut-job uber-troll, John Gabriel, is back at it AGAIN. I guess the promise of YouTube failed to materialize. Why else come back here to be mocked and ridiculed day in and day out.
>
>
> John Gabriel's New Year's Resolution for 2017:
>
> "I'll just keep spamming!"
> -- Dec. 25, 2016
>
> Following up, 2017 has been very rough year indeed for our resident troll. Now, with his Wacky New Calclueless but a smoldering wreckage, he just seems to be going through the motions, more interested in some kind of face-saving exit strategy. Recently, he pleaded with readers here:
>
> "You want to see me quit sci.math and stop abusing you? Make it impossible for trolls like Dan Christensen and his thugs to post comments... Once they stop spamming my threads, I'll consider quitting. Till then, I will repost [i.e. continue spamming sci.math] every day as long as I am able."
> --Nov. 29, 2017
>
> Having pretty much given up on his Wacky New Calclueless, JG now seems only to want to mislead and confuse students here (as some kind of revenge?), earning him the nickname "Dr. Evil" (in addition to "Troll Boy" and "Spam Boy"). As he has boasted here:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017
>
>
> JG's God complex, just too weird for words:
>
> "It took a genius like me to dispel the bullshit of 'axioms and postulates.' There are no axioms in mathematics." (Explains why JG cannot even prove 2+2=4)
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "I am superhuman in many respects, especially intelligence where it counts most... I am the inimitable John Gabriel - the smartest mathematician who lived on planet earth. I won't be surpassed in centuries."
> --Jan. 4, 2017
>
> “I am the Creator of this galaxy.”
> -- March 19, 2015
>
> “I am the greatest mathematician ever.”
> -- June 21, 2016
>
> "I am always right."
> -- Nov. 3, 2016
>
> “I am the last word on everything.”
> -- May 6, 2015
>
> “Whatever I imagine is real because whatever I imagine is well defined.”
> -- March 26, 2015
>
> “Unless I think it's logic, it's not... There are no rules in mathematics... As I have repeatedly stated, if there were to be rules, I'd be making the rules.”
> -- March 17, 2015
>
>
> JG's very own Final Solution:
>
> "I will point out a few facts about Hitler that most of you arrogant idiots didn't know or refused to acknowledge because your Jewish overlords do not allow you...
>
> “In the early 20th century, there was a eugenics program in the United States. Too bad it was halted... It would be a very good idea to round up all the academic idiots, gas them and incinerate the useless lot. Only those that pass John Gabriel's exam should be allowed to live.”
> -- July 13, 2014
>
> "I will crush you... You need to be very careful what you say."
> --November 10, 2016
>
> "As for Hitler's actions, logically there is nothing wrong with what he did, after all, who gets to decide what is good and evil? Who gets to decide what is morality and ethics? (Hopefully NOT JG!)...
>
> "Hitler was a genius... As from a moral point of view, again his actions can't be judged, because his morals are different. (Like JG's morals?) And what makes your morals better than his?”
> -- March 18, 2015
>
>
> JG's Just Plain Stupid:
>
> "I thrive on chaos."
> -- Nov. 25, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "1/2 not equal to 2/4"
> --October 22, 2017
>
> "3 =< 4 is nonsense."
> --October 28, 2017
>
> "4 <= 4 is just as invalid as 3 <= 4"
> -- Nov. 4, 2017
>
> "The RULE is that every set can contain ONLY one subset"
> -- October 17, 2017
>
> "There are no postulates or axioms in mathematics." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4)
> -- Feb. 6, 2017
>
> “Axioms [are] not required in mathematics.”
> -- July 4, 2016
>
> "There is no such thing as an empty set."
> -- Jan. 10, 2017
>
> “So, 'is a member of' = 'is a subset of.'”
> -- May 16, 2015
>
> “To claim that all the natural numbers are in the set N, one must be able to list them all from beginning to the end.”
> -- December 2, 2015
>
> "0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
> -- Jan. 4, 2017
>
> "Zero is not a number."
> -- Jan. 10, 2017
>
> "You are a CRANK if you claim that 1/3 = 0.333..."
> -- Jan. 17, 2017
>
> “1/0 is not undefined.”
> -- May 19, 2015
>
> “1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
> -- February 8, 2015
>
> "There is NO such thing as a "real" number."
> -- May 12, 2017
>
> “The square root of 2 and pi are NOT numbers.”
> -- May 28, 2015
>
> “By definition, a line is the distance between two points.”
> -- April 13, 2015
>
> "Until I revealed what Euclid had written down, not a single moron academic
> in the last 2300 years even had a clue what it means to be a number"
> -- May 24, 2017
>
> JG's "formal" definition of a number: "A number is the measure of a magnitude." (No wonder he cannot prove 2+2=4. Truly clueless.)
> -- March 17, 2017
>
> "Magnitudes are regarded as magnitudes."
> -- April 1, 2018
>
> "A piecewise function is not a function."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
> "...such as abs(x) not being differentiable at x=0,
> then you are no longer dealing with calculus."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
> "The 'implies' truth table has no connection to actual logic whatsoever."
> -- Nov 11, 2017
>
>
> "There is no such thing as long division where p/q is concerned if p < q." (So, no more 1 -:- 2 = 0.5.)
> -- December 8, 2016
>
> “Indeed, there is no such thing as an instantaneous speed -- certainly not with respect to the calculus.” (Note: Instantaneous speed is indicated by the speedometer in a car. Another international Jewish conspiracy, JG?)
> -- March 17, 2015
>
> "There is no instantaneous velocity you stupid ape, only a velocity at a time t."
> -- Nov. 29, 2017
>
> "Straight lines don't have derivatives." (JG's wonky definition of a derivative blows up in this case, so JG proclaims such derivatives to be "undefined.")
> -- Jan 4, 2017
>
> "There is NEVER a derivative at any inflection point." (JG's definition also blows up in this case.)
> -- Dec. 13, 2016
>
>
> BEFORE: "There are still morons who don't know that Euler claimed S = Lim S.... He wrote it and with exactly that notation!"
> -- May 26, 2017
>
> THE EVIDENCE: http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10081749_00151.html?rotate=0&zoom=0.6000000000000001
>
> JG's, AHEM... EVIDENCE: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/eulers-worst-definition-lim-john-gabriel (same page, red lettering added by JG, NOT by Euler)
>
> AFTER: "Of course he did not write 'Lim S'... He did not talk about S."
> --May 27, 2017
>
> Just when you thought JG might be coming to his senses...
>
> A FEW HOURS LATER: "Euler did write S = Lim S." (Morons like JG never come to their senses!)
> --May 27, 2017
>
> "Euler was wrong. Period. I am an authority. Get used to it!"
> --October 12, 2017 *** NEW ***
>
> "[0,1) is strictly speaking not a 'set'."
> -- May 29, 2017
>
> "A right angled isosceles triangle is a SYMPTOM you morons. It's a SYMPTOM of sqrt(2)."
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "Learn why intuition is very dangerous. Even I, who am infinitely smarter than all of you and have far better intuition, would never base my ideas on intuition!
> -- April 23, 2017
>
> "If Nikola Tesla were alive, he would have hailed me as the greatest mathematician ever."
> -- April 30, 2017
>
> "In 1998, I glanced at a math book. I think it was beige." (Promoting his New "Calclueless" website)
> -- Jan. 19, 2017
>
> “100 years have shown that nothing Einstein predicted is correct.” (“Jewish” science, right, JG?)
> -- March 23, 2016
>
> "There is no such thing as an infinite sequence of digits."
> -- December 8, 2016
>
> "There are no real numbers.... You get wrong results most of the time. Results such as 0.875... = 0.999... = 1"
> -- Dec. 14, 2016
>
> "Only when idiots began to treat points as numbers, did things start going south fast."
> --Nov. 19, 2016
>
> “There is no such thing as a continuous real number line.”
> -- March 24, 2015
>
> "Complex numbers are not required in pure mathematics at all and are used NOWHERE in the real world."
> --November 10, 2016
>
> “Proofs had nothing to do with calculus.”
> -- May 30, 2015
>
> "You don't need associativity or commutativity or any other crap."
> --June 21, 2016
>
>
This just in...
"Who sets the agenda and who decides? I get to decide because no one else has the same clarity of thought as I." (From an idiot who denies that 1/2=2/4.)
-- John "Troll Boy" Gabriel, March 27, 2019
Dan
Dan Christensen
Dec 2, 2019, 3:41:54 PM12/2/19
to
> "Who sets the agenda and who decides? I get to decide because no one else has the same clarity of thought as I." (From an idiot who denies that 1/2=2/4.)
> -- John "Troll Boy" Gabriel, March 27, 2019
>
OMG....
> -- John "Troll Boy" Gabriel, March 27, 2019
>
"The following is NOT anti-semitism, you stupid fuck!!
"The wealthy Jewish elite had systematically reduced Germany to slavehood. Not too different from what the parasites are doing in their host countries, the USA, UK, etc today.
"It is FACT, you fucking moron!!!"
-- John "Troll Boy" Gabriel, Dec. 1, 2019
Archimedes Plutonium
Dec 3, 2019, 2:23:09 AM12/3/19
to
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
#1
Atom Totality Universe: Atom Totality Series book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.
Length: 617 pages
Product details
File Size: 633 KB
Print Length: 617 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
#2
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.
The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 125 pages
Product details
File Size: 2364 KB
Print Length: 125 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#3
Raw Research into ANGULAR-MOMENTUM DYNAMICS//Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Warning to any reader. This research book is advanced and unless you know a lot of physics and math, you be advised that much is difficult to read.
No-one in the 20th century of physics understood what Angular Momentum truly was. Two of the best and finest mathematical physicists Dirac and Feynman missed understanding what Angular Momentum was. I say that because both believed you could have a electron at .5 MeV with proton at 938 MeV and have a hydrogen atom. When you fail at knowing what Angular Momentum is and what it is all about, then you will fail in realizing the true electron of atoms is the muon at 105 MeV and the true proton of atoms is 840 MeV, so that the muon and proton conduct Faraday's law inside of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
Cover Picture is my handwritten like blackboard writing of the AP-EM Equations. Those equations get at the heart of what Angular Momentum means. And if you have no idea of what that math is, you be advised that this book is too difficult for you.
Length: 126 pages
Product details
File Size: 859 KB
Print Length: 126 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 30, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07XB9BLX2
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4
Raw Research into 3dimensional Calculus//Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In doing the AP-EM Equations of electricity and magnetism, I found myself wanting the calculus for 4 variables in 3rd dimension. None exists in Old Math mathematics of a 3rd dimension calculus, thus I have to invent that new math. This is the raw research book that attempts to do just that. Warning to any reader, this is sophisticated mathematics and physics for which most readers require at least completing 1st year college calculus and 1st year college physics to fully appreciate perhaps even comprehend what is going on. I do not attempt to make this easy but attempting to find answers myself, so I have not the time to stop and explain. However, the general reader can learn snippets and pieces and sort of get the general drift of what is going on.
Cover picture: this is the third cover picture for this book. And may not be the last. This is terribly difficult new mathematics. The world has never seen 3rd dimensional calculus before, and that is exactly what this book tries to achieve in the derivative of angular momentum. This latest cover picture is a full torus and my hand held down planar torus, a squashed torus, the derivative of a full torus is a squashed full torus to be a planar ellipse. Terribly difficult because in this New Calculus, it is physics that is determining what 3rd dimension calculus must be, not as if the math pre-exists and waiting to be discovered, no, it is the physics that pre-exists and waiting to tell how the mathematics is going to be.
Length: 88 pages
Product details
File Size: 744 KB
Print Length: 88 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: September 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Y9H9KTT
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#5
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154 pages
File Size: 1991 KB
Print Length: 1154 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
#1
Atom Totality Universe: Atom Totality Series book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the universe itself is an atom.
Length: 617 pages
Product details
File Size: 633 KB
Print Length: 617 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#8526 in Physics (Books)
#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)
#2
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.
The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 125 pages
Product details
File Size: 2364 KB
Print Length: 125 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)
#3
Raw Research into ANGULAR-MOMENTUM DYNAMICS//Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Warning to any reader. This research book is advanced and unless you know a lot of physics and math, you be advised that much is difficult to read.
No-one in the 20th century of physics understood what Angular Momentum truly was. Two of the best and finest mathematical physicists Dirac and Feynman missed understanding what Angular Momentum was. I say that because both believed you could have a electron at .5 MeV with proton at 938 MeV and have a hydrogen atom. When you fail at knowing what Angular Momentum is and what it is all about, then you will fail in realizing the true electron of atoms is the muon at 105 MeV and the true proton of atoms is 840 MeV, so that the muon and proton conduct Faraday's law inside of a hydrogen atom, or any atom for that sake.
Cover Picture is my handwritten like blackboard writing of the AP-EM Equations. Those equations get at the heart of what Angular Momentum means. And if you have no idea of what that math is, you be advised that this book is too difficult for you.
Length: 126 pages
Product details
File Size: 859 KB
Print Length: 126 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 30, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07XB9BLX2
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4
Raw Research into 3dimensional Calculus//Atom Totality series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In doing the AP-EM Equations of electricity and magnetism, I found myself wanting the calculus for 4 variables in 3rd dimension. None exists in Old Math mathematics of a 3rd dimension calculus, thus I have to invent that new math. This is the raw research book that attempts to do just that. Warning to any reader, this is sophisticated mathematics and physics for which most readers require at least completing 1st year college calculus and 1st year college physics to fully appreciate perhaps even comprehend what is going on. I do not attempt to make this easy but attempting to find answers myself, so I have not the time to stop and explain. However, the general reader can learn snippets and pieces and sort of get the general drift of what is going on.
Cover picture: this is the third cover picture for this book. And may not be the last. This is terribly difficult new mathematics. The world has never seen 3rd dimensional calculus before, and that is exactly what this book tries to achieve in the derivative of angular momentum. This latest cover picture is a full torus and my hand held down planar torus, a squashed torus, the derivative of a full torus is a squashed full torus to be a planar ellipse. Terribly difficult because in this New Calculus, it is physics that is determining what 3rd dimension calculus must be, not as if the math pre-exists and waiting to be discovered, no, it is the physics that pre-exists and waiting to tell how the mathematics is going to be.
Length: 88 pages
Product details
File Size: 744 KB
Print Length: 88 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: September 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Y9H9KTT
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#5
True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is everywhere.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154 pages
File Size: 1991 KB
Print Length: 1154 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#181 in General Chemistry & Reference
#1324 in General Chemistry
#1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)
Dan Christensen
Dec 3, 2019, 10:47:10 AM12/3/19
to
On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 2:23:09 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.
>
Hey, John, I think Archie Pu here is extending an invitation to you to join him in his little sanctuary free of any dissenting opinion. It would just be the two of you on your own SECLUDED desert isle. Very romantic.
> 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.
>
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious troll who really, REALLY wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 1950's or 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:
AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019
AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019
AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Are you ready, boys??? (No girls allowed, right, Archie?)
Dan Christensen
Mar 10, 2020, 6:33:49 PM3/10/20
to
--John Gabriel, March 10, 2020
Dan
Morethanyouknow
Aug 23, 2021, 3:56:00 AM8/23/21
to
because thats how dumb you have to be to NOT understand what is being said by the guy youre bullying.
what part of anything he said do you not understand?
i now want to seek this man out and chat with him, and complain with him about the stupidity of the earthlings.
(why i am here, doing research on the current knowledge that there are no irrational numbers when the nature of the number is accounted for.)
p.s. i am willing to bet 10,000 usd that one of you guys claims im this guy you are bullying. even though I HAVE NOTHING to do with any of this except that i totally agree with everything the man said. just lucky to be here.
peace, you freaking earthlings.... wtf
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 4, 2022, 8:46:27 PM1/4/22
to
We are still waiting for a DC Proof come back.
Like when (Refl) inference rule will work as before.
Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
Like when (Refl) inference rule will work as before.
Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
> He's BAAAAAAACK!!!
Mostowski Collapse
Jan 5, 2022, 6:45:11 AM1/5/22
to
Now DC Proof is the Nut-job uber-troll thingy!
The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:
> Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
and codomain sets.
Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.
BTW: This here works also, you can read Exy as x in y.
Can we prove the same in DC Proof?
∀x(∃y(Eys ∧x=f(y))→Ext)↔∀x(Exs→Ef(x)t)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x%28~7y%28Eys~1x=f%28y%29%29~5Ext%29~4~6x%28Exs~5Ef%28x%29t%29
Now with different Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain,
namely Dan-O-Matik domain s and Dan-O-Matik codomain t.
The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:
> Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
and codomain sets.
Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.
BTW: This here works also, you can read Exy as x in y.
Can we prove the same in DC Proof?
∀x(∃y(Eys ∧x=f(y))→Ext)↔∀x(Exs→Ef(x)t)
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x%28~7y%28Eys~1x=f%28y%29%29~5Ext%29~4~6x%28Exs~5Ef%28x%29t%29
Now with different Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain,
namely Dan-O-Matik domain s and Dan-O-Matik codomain t.
Dan Christensen
Jan 5, 2022, 10:53:26 AM1/5/22
to
On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 6:45:11 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Now DC Proof is the Nut-job uber-troll thingy!
> The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:
>
> > Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
> proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
> and codomain sets.
>
> Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
> Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.
>
You are making JG here look like a genius, Jan Burse! HA, HA, HA!!!
> Now DC Proof is the Nut-job uber-troll thingy!
> The standard DC Proof response for anything mathematics:
>
> > Is f supposed to be a function? If so, in most textbook math
> proofs you would have to at least attach names to its domain
> and codomain sets.
>
> Even if there is a Dan-O-Matik domain and codomain.
> Looks like an aggravated form of Autism.
>
Dan
Mostowski Collapse
Feb 10, 2022, 8:17:14 AM2/10/22
to
Compared to DC poop, John Garbriel is harmless.
At least he is not selling a fake theorem prover.
Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
At least he is not selling a fake theorem prover.
Dan Christensen schrieb am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 04:52:03 UTC+1:
Mathin3D
Feb 10, 2022, 8:19:49 AM2/10/22
to
D. C. 💩
Mathin3D
Feb 10, 2022, 8:21:30 AM2/10/22
to
Oh, and The New 💩
LOL
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:17:14 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
LOL
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:17:14 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
Dan Christensen
Feb 10, 2022, 10:36:00 AM2/10/22
to
So cute the way you, ahem... "stick up" for your little buddy and fellow troll here, Jan Burse.
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:17:14 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse (aka Jan Burse) wrote:
> Compared to DC poop, John Garbriel is harmless.
Jan Burse hates that he cannot make "dark" inferences in DC Proof about functions outside their domains. Really quite wonky.
Dan
On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 8:17:14 AM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse (aka Jan Burse) wrote:
> Compared to DC poop, John Garbriel is harmless.
Dan
FromTheRafters
Feb 10, 2022, 3:25:51 PM2/10/22
to
Mathin3D explained :
> D. C. ?
Dan Christensen is constructing a quasi? set theory prover he calls DC
Proof.
Mostowski Collapse has issues with it.
> D. C. ?
Proof.
Mostowski Collapse has issues with it.
sergio
Feb 10, 2022, 4:41:09 PM2/10/22
to
Was ist das 💩 ? der neue Kalkül 💩 ?
0 new messages