info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
konyberg
Apr 15, 2021, 4:09:41 PM4/15/21
to
torsdag 15. april 2021 kl. 21:34:27 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> 102,842-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
> physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard,
>
> Dan Christensen stalking everyday for 6 years...
> On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 5:13:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:24:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Student Victims of Psycho
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
> Univ Waterloo fairyland physics, Donna Strickland no logical brains, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their mindless 10 OR 2 =12 and their mindless electron= 0.5MeV
>
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> > poses no real risk to the physics community. He
> > spends his time on the nearly
> > abandoned by the physics community
> >over two decades ago. Despite this,
> > presidents, most of whom have never heard of
>
> I think Donna Strickland can understand that if GSI removes almost all the so called electrons of praseodymium and promethium that those are not the real electrons of atoms. And that AP is correct that the real electrons are muons inside of proton toruses of 840MeV doing the Faraday law.
>
> If you remove just one proton of a normal atom it becomes a different atom, and likewise if you remove just one real electron= muon of a atom, it becomes a different atom.
>
> Why has Usenet not removed that insane stalker shithead stalker Kibo Parry Moroney, 28 years of stalking buttfuckmanure, instead they pay that shithead to stalk
>
> Please, a question Dominic, Donna Strickland if you have the time -- what is the best way of getting rid of a stalker of 6 years? Sure hope in your lifetime you never had a insane stalker at you 24-7-365 going on 6 years now. Any advice is appreciated? This Dan is completely insane, as are all stalkers are insane.
>
> Dan 7-24-365 stalker of 6 years in sci.math, what would you say the worst mistake of caretaker ship of Dalhousie Univ
> Chancellor Anne McLellan was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
>
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test:
> > Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> > 2. True or false: 60
>
> AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
>
> Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
>
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
> 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 4Apr2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had (1) a ill-defined infinity; (2) they had the fakery of Limit concept; and (3) they had the fakery of a continuum; and (4) perhaps most important of all as long as Old Math had the wrong numbers that compose mathematics that no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was ever possible. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future decades and centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a science decreasing in vim and vigor. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math.
>
> By the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, the single number one important topic and subject in all of mathematics was Calculus, and the reason being, is that Physics is mostly calculus, the science of motion and change. And everyone in math knows that calculus is geometry. So, then, to not have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a failure and failing of being a mathematician.
>
> The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
>
> Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> ---------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) Preliminary mathematics needed to do the Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> 2) How the dumb limit concept was borne, that is a con-artist job.
>
> 3) When you know the true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, you need no limit concept.
>
> 4) Mathematics has two houses, one is numbers, one is geometry.
>
> 5) All numbers come from physics because the Universe is just one big atom of 231Pu.
>
> 6) History of my discovery of Decimal Grid Numbers.
>
> 7) The error of having a proper Coordinate System to do the Calculus as 1st Quadrant Only with all positive Decimal Grid Numbers.
>
> 8) Concept of Infinity versus Finite for Calculus.
>
> 9) Brief proofs of the Infinity borderline, especially Huygens tractrix.
>
> 10) World's first picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by 2015.
>
> 11) Calculus the very most important math to date.
>
> 12) Everyone in mathematics knows that Calculus is geometry.
>
> Length: 39 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1236 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 39 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
>
>
> Univ Waterloo
> Chancellor Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
> physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard, Walter Benz, Jonathan Borwein, Timothy Chan, C B Collins, Gordon Cormack, Paul Cress, Kenneth Davidson, Jack Edmonds, Keith Geddes, Ian Goldberg, Peter Ladislaw Hammer, Ric Holt, David Jackson, Murray Klamkin, Neal Koblitz, Kenneth Mackenzie, Alfred Menezes, Crispin Nash-Williams, Josef Paldus, Vladimir Platonov, Ronald Read, Jeffrey Shallit, Doug Stinson, W T Tutte, Scott Vanstone
>
> McGill University Physics department
> Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
>
> Chancellor Michael Meighen, Principal Suzanne Fortier
>
>
> Univ of Victoria physics dept
> Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
>
> Chancellor Shelagh Rogers, President Kevin Hall
>
>
> 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
>
> Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> President Alan Shepard
> 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
>
>
> UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
>
>
>
> Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
>
> Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> Pres. Meric Gertler
>
> Univ Toronto math dept
> Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
>
>
> Dalhousie Univ
> Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
> physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
>
> Cornell Univ physics:
> Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
>
> President Martha E. Pollack, Provost Michael Kotlikoff
>
>
>
> List of 60 fakes & errors of Old Math
>
> AP's List of 60 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
>
>
> These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
>
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
>
> Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> 1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
>
> 2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
>
> 6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
>
> 7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
>
> 8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
>
> 9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
>
> 10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
>
> 11) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
>
> 12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
>
> 13) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
>
> 14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
>
> 15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
>
> 16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
>
> 17) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
>
> 18) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
>
> 19) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
>
> 20) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
>
> 21) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
>
> 22) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
>
> 23) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
>
> 24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
>
> 25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
>
> 26) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
>
> 27) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
>
> 28) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
>
> 29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
>
> 30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
>
> 31) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
>
> 32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
>
> 33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
>
> 34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
>
> 35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
>
> 36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
>
> 37) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
>
> 38) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
>
> 39) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
>
> 40) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
>
> 41) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
>
> 42) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
>
> 43) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
>
> 44) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
>
> 45) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
>
> 46) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
>
> 47) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
>
> 48) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
>
> 49) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
>
> 50) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
>
> 51) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
>
>
> 52) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
>
> 53) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
>
> If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
>
> a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
> a) Facts of chemistry and physics
> b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
> c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
> d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
> e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
> f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> 54) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
>
> 55) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.
>
> 56) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.
>
> 57) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.
>
> 58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
>
> 59) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.
>
> 60) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.
>
>
> True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
>
> Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
>
> This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
>
>
> AP
> King of Science
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
KON
> 102,842-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
>
> Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
> physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard,
>
> Dan Christensen stalking everyday for 6 years...
> On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 5:13:58 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> On Saturday, April 3, 2021 at 9:24:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Student Victims of Psycho
> > WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
>
> Univ Waterloo fairyland physics, Donna Strickland no logical brains, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and their mindless 10 OR 2 =12 and their mindless electron= 0.5MeV
>
> On Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > fails at math and science:
> > poses no real risk to the physics community. He
> > spends his time on the nearly
> > abandoned by the physics community
> >over two decades ago. Despite this,
> > presidents, most of whom have never heard of
>
> I think Donna Strickland can understand that if GSI removes almost all the so called electrons of praseodymium and promethium that those are not the real electrons of atoms. And that AP is correct that the real electrons are muons inside of proton toruses of 840MeV doing the Faraday law.
>
> If you remove just one proton of a normal atom it becomes a different atom, and likewise if you remove just one real electron= muon of a atom, it becomes a different atom.
>
> Why has Usenet not removed that insane stalker shithead stalker Kibo Parry Moroney, 28 years of stalking buttfuckmanure, instead they pay that shithead to stalk
>
> Please, a question Dominic, Donna Strickland if you have the time -- what is the best way of getting rid of a stalker of 6 years? Sure hope in your lifetime you never had a insane stalker at you 24-7-365 going on 6 years now. Any advice is appreciated? This Dan is completely insane, as are all stalkers are insane.
>
> Dan 7-24-365 stalker of 6 years in sci.math, what would you say the worst mistake of caretaker ship of Dalhousie Univ
> Chancellor Anne McLellan was? Was it -- never a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus and one has to wonder if Toronto ever was a center of math education, or just all stalker's suppression chamber with the likes of Dan Christensen with his 10 OR 2=12 with AND as subtraction.
>
> On Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 8:40:05 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> >flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test:
> > Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
> > 2. True or false: 60
>
> AP writes: Say Dan, how can anyone believe you when you cannot even get correct what is distinct and what is not.
>
> Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.
>
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote:
> > Dan Christensen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point.
> > >>>
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are
> > >>
> > >
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.
> >
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so.
> >
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Length: 21 pages
>
> File Size: 1620 KB
> Print Length: 21 pages
> Publication Date: March 11, 2019
> Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> Language: English
> ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
> Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> X-Ray: Not Enabled
> Word Wise: Not Enabled
> Lending: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>
> 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 4Apr2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had (1) a ill-defined infinity; (2) they had the fakery of Limit concept; and (3) they had the fakery of a continuum; and (4) perhaps most important of all as long as Old Math had the wrong numbers that compose mathematics that no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was ever possible. Sad that starting 1900, Planck showed that Space is discrete in physics, not continuous, leading to the rise of Quantum Mechanics. But the fools of mathematics went the opposite direction in wanting ever more a continuum in mathematics. They spent the entire 20th century riding high on Cohen's depraved continuum. You could almost say that starting 1900, the people in mathematics compared to those in physics would become more and more ignorant and further estranged, and that a widening schism rift separated math from physics, from the realities of the actual world as the future decades and centuries rolled by. And who knows where this rift would leave math as a science decreasing in vim and vigor. Will it end in math becoming a third or fourth tier science, ranking it above say economics but far below even psychology, because much of math proof is kook psychology acceptance divorced of reality. In this view, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, even geology ranked far higher in power and wisdom than math.
>
> By the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries, the single number one important topic and subject in all of mathematics was Calculus, and the reason being, is that Physics is mostly calculus, the science of motion and change. And everyone in math knows that calculus is geometry. So, then, to not have a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a failure and failing of being a mathematician.
>
> The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
>
> Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
> ---------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) Preliminary mathematics needed to do the Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> 2) How the dumb limit concept was borne, that is a con-artist job.
>
> 3) When you know the true numbers of mathematics, Decimal Grid Numbers, you need no limit concept.
>
> 4) Mathematics has two houses, one is numbers, one is geometry.
>
> 5) All numbers come from physics because the Universe is just one big atom of 231Pu.
>
> 6) History of my discovery of Decimal Grid Numbers.
>
> 7) The error of having a proper Coordinate System to do the Calculus as 1st Quadrant Only with all positive Decimal Grid Numbers.
>
> 8) Concept of Infinity versus Finite for Calculus.
>
> 9) Brief proofs of the Infinity borderline, especially Huygens tractrix.
>
> 10) World's first picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by 2015.
>
> 11) Calculus the very most important math to date.
>
> 12) Everyone in mathematics knows that Calculus is geometry.
>
> Length: 39 pages
>
> Product details
> ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date : March 14, 2019
> Language : English
> File size : 1236 KB
> Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> Screen Reader : Supported
> Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> X-Ray : Not Enabled
> Word Wise : Not Enabled
> Print length : 39 pages
> Lending : Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>
>
>
>
> Univ Waterloo
> Chancellor Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur
> physics Donna Strickland, math Mark Giesbrecht, George Alfred Barnard, Walter Benz, Jonathan Borwein, Timothy Chan, C B Collins, Gordon Cormack, Paul Cress, Kenneth Davidson, Jack Edmonds, Keith Geddes, Ian Goldberg, Peter Ladislaw Hammer, Ric Holt, David Jackson, Murray Klamkin, Neal Koblitz, Kenneth Mackenzie, Alfred Menezes, Crispin Nash-Williams, Josef Paldus, Vladimir Platonov, Ronald Read, Jeffrey Shallit, Doug Stinson, W T Tutte, Scott Vanstone
>
> McGill University Physics department
> Kartiek Agarwal, Robert Brandenberger, Thomas Brunner, Fritz Buchinger, Simon Caron-Huot, Cynthia Chiang, Lily Childress, Jim Cline, Bill Coish, David Cooke, Francois Corriveau, Nicolas Cowan, Andrew Cumming, Keshav Dasgupta, Matt Dobbs, Paul Francois, Charles Gale, Guillaume Gervais, Martin Grant, Peter Grutter, Hong Guo, Daryl Haggard, David Hanna, Sarah Harrison, Michael Hilke, Sangyong Jeon, Victoria M. Kaspi, Eve Lee, Sabrina Leslie, Adrian Liu, Shaun Lovejoy, Alexander Maloney, Tami Pereg-Barnea, Nikolas Provatas, Kenneth Ragan, Walter Reisner, Steven Robertson, Robert E. Rutledge, Dominic H. Ryan, Jack Sankey, Jonathan Sievers, Bradley Siwick, Mark Sutton, Brigitte Vachon, Andreas Warburton, Tracy Webb, Paul Wiseman
>
> Chancellor Michael Meighen, Principal Suzanne Fortier
>
>
> Univ of Victoria physics dept
> Justin Albert, Arif Babul, Devika Chithrani, Byoung-Chul Choi, Rogerio de Sousa, Ruobing Dong, Sara L. Ellison, Falk Herwig, Dean Karlen, Richard K. Keeler, Jody Klymak, Pavel Kovtun, Robert V. Kowalewski, Mark Laidlaw, Michel Lefebvre, Travis Martin, Julio Navarro, Maxim Pospelov, Adam Ritz, J.Michael Roney, Geoffrey M. Steeves, Kim Venn, Jon Willis
>
> Chancellor Shelagh Rogers, President Kevin Hall
>
>
> 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
>
> Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> President Alan Shepard
> 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
>
>
> UWO psychology dept Patrick Brown, Peter Denny, William Fisher, Robert Gardner, Doug Hazlewood, Elizabeth Hampson, Albert Katz, Martin Kavaliers, Nicholas Kuiper, Rod Martin, Greg Moran, Harry Murray, Richard W.J. Neufeld, James Olson, Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, David Pederson, Susan Pepper, William Roberts, Gary Rollman, Clive Seligman, David Sherry, Marvin Simner, Richard Sorrentino, Brian Timney, Tutis Vilis
>
>
>
> Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
>
> Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> Pres. Meric Gertler
>
> Univ Toronto math dept
> Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
>
>
> Dalhousie Univ
> Chancellor Anne McLellan, president Deep Saini
> physics Arthur B. McDonald, math T. Kolokolnikov, Peter Selinger, Edward Susko, Alan Coley, Richard Nowakowski, math Scott Chapman, Jeff Dahn, Simon de Vet, James Drummond, Richard Dunlap, Michael Freund, Ian Hill
>
> Cornell Univ physics:
> Jim Alexander, Tomas Arias, Ivan Bazarov, Eberhard Bodenschatz, Debanjan Chowdhury, Itai Cohen, Csaba Csaki, Veit Elser, Eanna Flanagan, Carl Franck, Lawrence Gibbons, Paul Ginsparg, Yuval Grossman, Thomas Hartman, Georg Hoffstaetter, Natasha Holmes, Chao-Ming Jian, Eun-Ah Kim, Michael Lawler, Andre Leclair, Peter Lepage, Stephen Levy, Matthias Liepe, Kin Fai Mak, Jared Maxson, Liam McAllister, Paul McEuen, Erich Mueller, Christopher Myers, Michael Niemack, Matthias Neubert, Katja Nowack, Jeevak Parpia, Ritchie Patterson, Maxim Perelstein, Daniel Ralph, Brad Ramshaw, David Rubin, Anders Ryd, James Sethna, Jie Shan, Kyle Shen, Eric Siggia, Saul Teukolsky, Julia Thom-Levy, Robert Thorne, Cyrus Umrigar, Jane Wang, Michelle Wang, Ira Wasserman, Peter Wittich
>
> President Martha E. Pollack, Provost Michael Kotlikoff
>
>
>
> List of 60 fakes & errors of Old Math
>
> AP's List of 60 fakes and mistakes of Old Math.
>
>
> These can be found in AP's TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS series.
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for ages 18-19 Freshperson College, math textbook series, book 3
>
> Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
>
> Listing the Errors of Old Math, list of 1 to 50.
>
> Alright, well, mathematics is a closed subject. What I mean by that is due to the textbook series of Archimedes Plutonium TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, that once you learn the polynomial transform and learn the two Power Rules of Calculus, you reached the peak the pinnacle of all of mathematics, and anything further in math is just details of what you learn in that textbook series. Math is a completed science, unlike the other 5 hard sciences of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy. Those other five will continue to find new ideas, new things, while math remains static and complete. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes.
>
> Now I do need to discuss the Errors of Math in General and the errors of math in geometry in particular. I have the feeling that Geometry is the more important of the two-- algebra - geometry. This list appears in most of AP's Teaching True Mathematics textbook series by Archimedes Plutonium, meant to be a guide and orientation, and a organizing of what must be covered before graduating from College, and what math to steer clear of.
>
> Errors mostly, but not always, for some are included because too much time spent on them.
>
> 1) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
>
> 2) Space has gaps in between one point and the next point. These gaps are empty space from one point to the next point, for example in 10 Grid there is no number between .1 and .2, and in 100 Grid there exists no number between .01 and .02.
>
> 3) Infinity has a borderline and there is a microinfinity compared to a macroinfinity. For example in 10 Grid, the microinfinity is .1 if we exclude 0 and so there is no number smaller than .1 and no number larger than 10 in 10 Grid, where 10 is macroinfinity.
>
> 4) The 1st Quadrant Only in Coordinate System Geometry. Sad that the first coordinate system of Descartes was correct but soon became corrupted with 4 quadrants. See Mathematical Thought, Volume 1, Kline, 1972, page 303. Where Fermat then Descartes starts the Cartesian Coordinate System as 1 axis only and from 0 rightwards, meaning in our modern day math, 1st Quadrant Only. Why did math screw up on coordinate systems? I suppose some clowns thought negative numbers were true and they wanted ease of drawing a circle with center at 0. When they could have just as easily drawn the circle in 1st Quadrant Only.
>
> 5) Calculus needed a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but Old Math never provided such, instead they provided some stupid Limit argument. The reason for the creation of the Limit disaster was that the French mathematician Cauchy got sick and tired of hearing his smartest students complain that the width of rectangles in the integral are 0 width, and those smart students could not, for the life of them understand how a rectangle with 0 width has any interior area. So instead of the math community denouncing the limit, instead they elevated the fakery.
>
> 6) Further in Calculus, they knew you could do a transform of coordinate points to turn any function into a polynomial function, a method of Lagrange. However, they in Old Math were too stupid to take this transform to its highest form-- all functions are polynomial functions and only polynomial functions. When you learn that-- the derivative and integral of any and every function of math is a snap breeze simple and easy.
>
> 7) With the error filled 4 quadrants, when it should be 1st Quadrant Only, we have Trigonometry's sine and cosine with the fakery of sinusoid wave when it never was that. The sine and cosine are semicircle waves, and no sinusoid wave exists.
>
> 8) There is only one Geometry-- Euclidean, and there is not three distinct geometries of elliptical Riemannian or hyperbolic Lobachevsky. Those two are just duals that make up Euclidean.
>
> 9) Torus, volume and surface area formulas in Old Math are all screwed up and in error because they imagined bending a cylinder to form a torus. This brings back memories, for I had to do a percentage formula, since I could not follow the fake way of bending a cylinder. Where 78.5% of Disc Torus (pi)R^2h - (pi)r^2h is the volume of Circle Torus, and 78.5% of Disc Torus 2(pi)Rh + 2(pi)rh + 2 ((pi)R^2 - (pi)r^2) is the surface area of Circle Torus.
>
> 10) Ellipse is never a conic slant cut, always a cylinder slant cut.
>
> 11) All Parallelepipeds reduced to a Rectangular Box by making 2 cuts and pastes. Volume of the original Parallelepiped is simply a*b*c of the Rectangular Box length*width*depth formed. Old Math never understood that a precise definition of Parallelepiped has two kinds, the parallelepiped that has 90 degree angles and the parallelepiped that has no 90 degree angle.
>
> 12) All of Old Logic such as the textbooks by Copi and Boole and Jevons with their messed up operators such as 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, are thrown out onto the rubbish pile of shame. Set theory is thrown out completely, although we can use the word "set" to mean collection, group. All of Cantor set theory is phony baloney, not worth reading.
>
> 13) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely because the only true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers. Some would complain, why AP throws out Rationals? And the answer is simple, that numbers must be free of operations, for Rationals are unresolved divisions. Numbers are free and clear of any operator. Numbers have to be formed purely from mathematical-induction and having no unfinished operator. The Smallest set of Grid numbers is the 10 Grid System with its infinitesimal being .1, and the entire collection of 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . , 9.9, 10.0 where .1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity. In 100 Grid the infinitesimal is .01, in 1000 Grid the infinitesimal is .001, etc etc. In such a true system of numbers, all the numbers are built by mathematical-induction. Not just one group of numbers-- counting, but all numbers from mathematical-induction.
>
> 14) Irrationals thrown out completely (ditto to Rationals and Negative numbers).
>
> 15) Reals thrown out completely (ditto).
>
> 16) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely.
>
> 17) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.
>
> 18) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery (in fact the Quantum Mechanic Physics of early 1900s had a better handle on the truth and reality of math with discrete space).
>
> 19) Topology is junk and a waste of time for many reasons such as continuum does not exist, and the fact that the idea of "bending" is not really ever a mathematical concept.
>
> 20) Prime numbers are fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with. Below begins a write-up of Math topics all have pattern, if not, then not math. Now some may worry about the idea that no primes ever existed for they worry about the Unique Prime Factorization Theorem of Old Math. But here again, there is no worry. For "Factors exist" just not prime factors.
>
> 21) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery, built by lowly idiots of math who wanted to get away from the smart students asking them-- stupid professor, come back here,-- how does a zero width rectangle even have interior area.
>
> 22) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time. Many math professors want to spice up their boring math, so they ventured way way off into the twilight-zone of math with NonEuclidean geometry, like eating the hottest peppers in the world for breakfast.
>
> 23) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes; one colossal error was their insane 10 OR 4 = 14. Boole was a monumental idiot of logic that he went to college to teach in a rainstorm without umbrella and when he got there, shivering, and no commonsense to switch into dry clothes, taught in rain soaked clothes with his students laughing at the fool he was for catching pneumonia. Boole was so logically insane that he ordered his wife to give him cold bathes and wet his bed in order to fight pneumonia, and western culture, now, elevates this insane logical fool, and puts such a logical misfit as the Father- of- logic. And modern day schools of 2020 are as insanely crazy as was Boole for they continue to teach that 4 OR 1 = 5, when even a village idiot society knows better with 4 AND 1 = 5.
>
> 24) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time.
>
> 25) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
>
> 26) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
>
> 27) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a tiny minor concept.
>
> 28) Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations are now seen as superfluous when all functions are polynomials and need only the Power Rule. In Old Math we throw out all the insane ridiculous myriad of fake rules-- the Chain Rule, Simpson's Rule, Trapezoidal Rule, all because math has only one type of function-- polynomials and that makes for only one rule-- Power Rule.
>
> 29) Parametric Equations thrown out-- for what need is there of a sack of dung when all functions are polynomials. Interchanging equation with function.
>
> 30) Graph theory-- 90% worthless for it is based on the fakery of continuum.
>
> 31) Probability and Statistics theory now becomes a part of Sigma Error in New Math, the Old Math Probability and Statistics theory were wastrel and thrown out for it is based on a continuum and they had no proper definition of "probability" that fits with statistics. We keep Probability and Statistics in new math but revise and overhaul it completely.
>
> 32) We definitely throw out all Old Math Calculus textbooks as mostly propaganda, based on the silly Limit and the Continuum.
>
> 33) We throw out the Euclidean Axioms of Geometry and start anew, with axioms based on Physics as geometry truth.
>
> 34) Fractal theory totally junk and a waste-- uses ill-defined infinity.
>
> 35) Vector Calculus (not the vector concept itself), Chaos theory, Complex Analysis, utter junk and waste of time since polynomial theory covers all functions.
>
> 36) Differential geometry, Measure theory fakery since they never had the correct numbers of math, and they had the fakery continuum.
>
> 37) We throw out all the Apollonius conic sections because he misidentified the ellipse. The ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section and the oval is the slant cut of the cone, never the ellipse. We replace the entire conic sections by the AP theory of axes of symmetry using Decimal Grid Numbers for algebra and strip-wavelength-geometry axioms.
>
> 38) Most of Algebra, starting with Linear Algebra is esoteric minutiae, or, just cute tools for specialized math, just as the Binomial Theorem and the Pascal triangle, all cute esoteric minutiae. Certainly none of which is appropriate in school math education. These topics are for those interested in sideline math, but does not belong in mainstream math. Algebra reaches its pinnacle of importance with the Polynomial Function transform. Anything else in Algebra is sideline esoteric minutiae. These are not wrong or false math, just not important enough math to be mainstream worthy of math education.
>
> 39) Gaussian Curvature is esoteric exotica, perhaps even fakery. It is a fallacy of "idealism". There has never been any physics application for now 200 years. But most damaging is the fact that Euclidean is the only geometry, and that elliptic and hyperbolic are just dualities for which if you compound them together is Euclidean geometry.
>
> 40) Manifolds in Old Math were fakery, since topology is fake with its "bending" and math cannot define "bending" which belongs to physics and chemistry. Bending is a physics phenomenon, not something that ever belonged in mathematics. Topology with its continuum and ill-defined infinity is fakery, then also is its manifold. In New Math, all 2-Dimensional figures are handled by polynomial transforms, so also all 3-Dimensional figures. How so much easier is it, that doing a Polynomial Transform, rather than the silly fakery and obfuscation of manifolds.
>
> 41) Fourier, Laplace and other transforms, all of them thrown out the window because the only valid transforms are polynomial transforms. Polynomials are the only valid functions, hence, polynomials are the only valid transforms. And here in mathematics we begin to see that Polynomial transform is the mirror image of physics wanting a unification of the 4 forces of Old Physics, where the EM unification of physics, is like the Polynomial transform of mathematics that unifies all so-called-functions.
>
> 42) Principle of Logic, that Physics is king of sciences, and that means math is but a tiny subset. But in 20th and 21st century, we still have goons and kooks of math that think math is bigger than physics. These goons and kooks think that the Universe is a mathematical equation. They belong in an asylum, not the sciences.
>
> 43) There are many Principles of Logic which were unknown or ignored in Old Math. One of those principles caused the horrendous failure of sine and cosine trigonometry. The failure that a graph of a function in 2D or 3D, where the axes, all have to be the same numbers. You cannot have the x-axis as angles and the other axis as numbers. You abandon mathematics when you enact such a policy. You may as well have bar graphs and pie-charts and call them foundation mathematics, when you do sine and cosine with different representations of axes.
>
> 44) Principle of Logic-- follow your definitions exactly. When you do not follow your definitions you end up with the craziness of thinking sine is a sinusoidal wave when in truth it is a semicircle wave. You defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse of right triangles in a circle. That means, it is impossible from the definition for sine and cosine to be anything other than a semicircle wave.
>
> 45) Principle of Reality in a Equation-- You formed equations in mathematics where one side is the same as the other side. This is the algebra axiom of where the rightside can only be a positive nonzero decimal Grid Number. Equations must have "reality" on the rightside of the equation, in order for the equation to even exist. We cannot put negative numbers, or zero, or imaginary numbers on the right side of an equation and expect there to even be an "equation of mathematics". Math like physics deals with "reality". And that means a equation of mathematics must have a true substantive reality on the rightside of the equation all by itself. You can clutter up the leftside of the equation and solve for unknowns, but the rightside of the equation has all by itself a positive, nonzero Decimal Grid Number. Anything else is not mathematics.
>
> 46) The Reductio Ad Absurdum, RAA, or some call it proof by contradiction is not a valid proof argument in mathematics. RAA at best is a strong hypothetical, but not a guarantee of truth or proof. The trouble with RAA is the trouble with the IF-->Then connector of Logic which has a truth table of True, False, Unknown, Unknown. Old Logic had this connector of If-->Then as TFTT. It is the unknowns in F--> T and F--> F that neither has a true conclusion but an unknown conclusion that renders RAA as non workable in math.
>
> 47) The primal axiom of Physics-- All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism reigns not only over physics but mathematics as well. Most of the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series books have physics experiments involving electricity and magnetism.
>
> 48) Geometry is discrete with not only discrete numbers but empty space in between numbers as coordinate points of a graph and with a discrete angle. No continuum exists in either algebra or geometry.
>
> 49) True geometry cannot have all volumes by stacking 2D figures, for example the torus, where the circles near the donut hole would be spaced too close together versus the circles near the rim of the circumference have wide empty space gaps. Stacking to achieve volume is not a universal method.
>
> 50) Mathematics has a peak, a pinnacle, a climax of understanding with Calculus, the motion of physics and the energy of physics. This is expressed in the 2D and 3D calculus. It closes the subject of mathematics. And once we learn how to transform polynomials, and apply the power rule in High School, all the rest of mathematics we learn in life is just mere details of our teachings that took place in High School. Math is a closed subject beyond Calculus.
>
> 51) Mathematics is a closed subject, meaning it has a summit, a peak and that peak mirrors the Physics of motion. It is called calculus. Once you learn calculus, and it is very easy for it is just the Power Rule upon Polynomials. Once you learn this in High School, all the rest of mathematics is just details concerning motion. Mathematics is a tiny tiny subset of Physics. Everything of mathematics comes from physics. The reason the world has numbers is because physics has atoms and atoms are numerous. The reason the world has geometry is because atoms come in various shapes and sizes.
>
>
> 52) Math is a closed subject, a tiny subset of physics, and ever since 2019, the writing of this Calculus Guide, all the important topics of mathematics can be taught in junior and senior year High School. Any mathematics beyond High School is mere details of that junior and senior year teaching-- namely polynomial transform and Power Rules for derivative and integral of calculus.
>
> 53) The AP-EM equations of physics and mathematics. They replace the error ridden Maxwell Equations.
>
> If you desire, you can replace E, electric field with L, angular momentum. Where V is voltage, i or A is current, B is magnetic field, E is electric field, kg is kilogram mass, m is meters, s is seconds, C=quantity of current A*s.
>
> a) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> b) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> c) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> d) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> e) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> f) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
> a) Facts of chemistry and physics
> b) Voltage V = kg*m^2/(A*s^3)
> c) Amount of current C = A*s = magnetic monopoles
> d) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /(A*s^2)
> e) Electric Field E = kg m^2/(A*s)
> f) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> g) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> h) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> i) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law
> j) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> 54) Research into what I call "pencil ellipses" that are ellipses of enormous semimajor axis and tiny tiny semiminor axis, whose importance to physics is ultra important.
>
> 55) Light waves are not straightline arrows, open ended arrows but rather instead are pencil ellipses always connected as a closed loop circuit with the source of that light.
>
> 56) Old Math in its fakery and stupidity never had a 3rd Dimension Calculus, for theirs was only 2nd dimension. Their colossal mistake of never a geometry proof of Calculus for the idiots believed in "limit analysis of 0 width rectangles for integral", that those Old Math idiots could never understand there exists 3rd dimension calculus.
>
> 57) Apollonius geometry corrected, especially the two cones put base to base <> and not the error filled apex to apex >< and the ellipse = 2 hyperbolas and the oval = 2 parabolas.
>
> 58) A well defined oval as being two parabolas joined at their widest width circle.
>
> 59) Their minor error of listing pi as 3.14... when using radius in formulas when they should list pi as 6.28... whenever using radius, because area of circle is really 1/2 pi*r^2 to match the prefix factor of 1/2 mv^2 as kinetic energy. Old Math never had a full brain of logic when they did Old Math, but always puttering around with a 1/10 tank of logic.
>
> 60) The single biggest fake and error of Old Math is their Calculus, with no geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. It is the biggest mistake because providing a geometry proof alerts the mathematician that they are mistaken about a "limit" mistaken about what are the true numbers of math (Decimal Grid Numbers, not the Reals), they are mistaken about infinity without a borderline. So fixing their calculus forces them to fix so many other ills of Old Math.
>
>
> True mathematics is a subject that is always easy, clear, and comprehensible. Old Math never had a program of "let us make the subject easy and clear and accessible to all". Old Math was about fame and fortune for a grubby few arrogant and ignorant fame seekers to those seeking fame and fortune by adding fake math, incomprehensible, hard, worthless, at the expense of torturing young students who all they wanted was a foundation understanding of true mathematics.
>
> Old Math cared more about having a few kooks run out and about, getting fame and fortune by piling incomprehensible trash onto mathematics, than it ever cared about going into a classroom and teaching math that everyone can understand. Of the four hard sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, there is no reason in the entire world, that math is the easiest of those 4 sciences. The only reason today, that math is not the easiest of those four sciences, is because after Descartes for 5 centuries now, mathematics was given over to kooks of math who sought for fame and fortune at the expense of keeping math simple and easy. Kooks of math filling up math so that math is now in 2020 a gaggle of kook ridden incomprehensible garbage. Ask your local kook math professor why he/she holds onto Boole logic with his 10 OR 4 = 14 when you know well that 10 AND 4 = 14. Ask your local kook math professor why he keeps teaching ellipse is a conic when you can show him on the spot with a paper cone and a lid that the slant cut is a oval, never a ellipse. And ask your local kook math professor why he/she never is able to give you a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And the answer is always-- they are kooks of math, not mathematicians.
>
> This list is ongoing, and is a bulletin-board of errors of Old Math and useful for Teaching True Mathematics. I insert this list as a guide. To show students what math to avoid, to steer away from, as a total fake and waste of time.
>
>
> AP
> King of Science
>
> More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
>
> In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
>
> There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> Archimedes Plutonium
What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
KON
Vittorio Santiago-Rodriguez
Apr 16, 2021, 7:02:09 AM4/16/21
to
konyberg wrote:
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the
> industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which
> makes it worse for you! KON
Mostly NAND, all the others are nand based. However, ONLY when the
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the
> industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which
> makes it worse for you! KON
propagation delays are not critical, OR it has to be quantifiable, from
input to output. So you know for certain what you get on the other side.
However, the germans want to get their lost territories back from your
country. Proofs:
"German State Pressured Researchers to Write Exaggerated Study that was
used to Justify Lockdowns"
If the capitalist *_4th wave of covid_* is pushed along, expect wars
planetary scale. Amazing, nucular wars seems the only way getting out of
this capitalist criminal fake plandemic. Reminds me of the
*_planet_of_apes_*, worshiping that big bomb. Many truths in there. Or
also, something very strange with the tachyon axis of time.
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 16, 2021, 11:40:53 AM4/16/21
to
On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 3:09:41 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
> KON
Neither Andrew Wiles nor John Gabriel had the brains in math to even know that a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was necessary, was required. And, neither had the logical brains to question the use of AND as 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1. Neither was a mathematician for neither had a logical mind to start with.
> What do you think 10 OR 2 equals? If your answer does not satisfy the industry who make the computer you use answering this; you are an id...!
> And I know that the computer industri mostly use NOR or NAND, which makes it worse for you!
> KON
When Boole & Jevons in late 1800s was trying to figure out the AND, OR, IF-Then Truth Tables, they were stumped and stymied with AND. So stumped they saved it for last. They did not know exactly what values it had. Eventually they made a wrong choice. A choice of "purity" thinking AND was true only in the case of T & T is true. They did not consider the mechanism of AND was "if one statement among many is true, then the entire collection is true, for we never want to throw out the baby with the bathwater in that true statement." So the true truth table of AND should be TTTF and not that of Boole's TFFF. Then, along comes computers a century later needing addition, and they need a addition and they need a truth table of TTTF. So they look for a table of TTTF, but none is available in the muddle headed Boole and Jevons. For Boole's AND is TFFF. So, what the Logic and Math and Computer Science hypocrites do, is enlist a Contradiction. They say,-- either or... or both. They make up this hypocrite nonsense that either or ... or both is going to fill in what Boole so badly mangled, and thus, modern day computers are based upon TTTF, but it comes from AND, yet the worthless hypocrites of Logicians, Mathematicians and Computer Scientists do not want to admit AND is TTTF but rather just accept the crazy Boole anti-logic and plug in a nonsense of Either or.. or Both, when if you really accept that contradiction is TTTT because F either or or both F would be also T. So modern day Logic such as the Copi textbooks are just all built upon one huge liaring lie, contradiction. No-one from Boole to 21st century had a correct logic (see my book Suspend College Logic).
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 19, 2021, 3:35:38 AM4/19/21
to
Question please Mr. Dominic Barton, do they ever lock up stalkers in Canada or do they let them roam the streets like Dan Christensen. At least Konyberg finds shelter under a bridge of Norway. KON what do you do for showers?
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 30, 2021, 12:15:27 PM4/30/21
to
On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 3:09:41 PM UTC-5, konyberg wrote:
> torsdag 15. april 2021 kl. 21:34:27 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> > 102,842-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
Dan Christensen
> > 102,842-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
Apr 29, 2021, 9:44:36 PM (yesterday)
to
On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:06:04 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 129,333 Student victims of AP's sinister Cult of Failure. Don't be one of them.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.
Archimedes Plutonium
May 12, 2021, 2:09:35 PM5/12/21
to
Why have not the scatterbrains of math, Tao, Wiles, Hales who could never do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but only chase after fame and fortune, why have these three scatterbrains of math not tried to concoct a Limit Analysis proof of Riemann Hypothesis. For it worked in pulling the wool over the eyes of all those in math except AP, as a fake proof for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So one would think the three con artists of modern math --- Tao, Wiles, Hales would do a Non Sequitur Limit Analysis on Riemann Hypothesis.
This is likely a Non Sequitur proof of the Pythagorean Theorem by Dan Christensen using the Limit Analysis scam.
Dan: (playing Chubby Checkers let's do the twist in class) So we want to prove A^2 + B^2 = C^2 using Limit analysis . And let's do the twist.
Student: Why the Limit?
Dan: And let's twist the A, like this, round and around
Student: Why dance?
Dan: Each jiggle of A, is a jiggle of B and C, (Come on baby..... let's do the twist....)
Student: Is this math or home economics class?
Dan: Next we prove Global Warming by the Limit Analysis.
Students: Dan, take a course in Logic and learn the fallacy of Non Sequitur, for Limit Analysis says nothing about Calculus.
381,045 student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto, since no-one in Canada can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. No-one in Canada is even conscious aware that Calculus needs a geometry proof. Explaining why Dan is too dumb with his 2 OR 1 = 3.
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
Filthy stalker of Kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, Nicholas Thompson (Wired cover). The drug
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by
Michael Moroney
This is likely a Non Sequitur proof of the Pythagorean Theorem by Dan Christensen using the Limit Analysis scam.
Dan: (playing Chubby Checkers let's do the twist in class) So we want to prove A^2 + B^2 = C^2 using Limit analysis . And let's do the twist.
Student: Why the Limit?
Dan: And let's twist the A, like this, round and around
Student: Why dance?
Dan: Each jiggle of A, is a jiggle of B and C, (Come on baby..... let's do the twist....)
Student: Is this math or home economics class?
Dan: Next we prove Global Warming by the Limit Analysis.
Students: Dan, take a course in Logic and learn the fallacy of Non Sequitur, for Limit Analysis says nothing about Calculus.
381,045 student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto, since no-one in Canada can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. No-one in Canada is even conscious aware that Calculus needs a geometry proof. Explaining why Dan is too dumb with his 2 OR 1 = 3.
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 12:28:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
Filthy stalker of Kibo Parry Moroney, Barry Shein, Nicholas Thompson (Wired cover). The drug
11:57 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepar
Canadian students victimized by Dan Christensen and his party-- Linda Hasenfratz, Silvia Mittler, Els
11:53 AM 10Apr2021
by Wayne Decarlo
Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by Professor Wordsmith
Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
#2-1, 137th published book Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series,
May 10, 2021
by
Michael Moroney
Archimedes Plutonium
May 12, 2021, 10:03:49 PM5/12/21
to
Canada's endless bully stalker Dan Christensen the insane bully with his 2 OR 1 = 3
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 6:27:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> If you really want to fail in school and be recruited by
Recruited by Dominic Barton Univ Waterloo
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7
On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 6:27:53 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> If you really want to fail in school and be recruited by
Recruited by Dominic Barton Univ Waterloo
The stupid Dan Christensen always chokes up when it comes to logic or even just plain commonsense with his 4 OR 3 = 7
Archimedes Plutonium
May 13, 2021, 10:43:26 PM5/13/21
to
Student victims of Dan Christensen stalker on Univ Waterloo
Archimedes Plutonium
May 15, 2021, 11:27:29 AM5/15/21
to
Dan Christensen on stealing from AP by Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis.
On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 9:22:51 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Thorp, Young, Davis steal science, while Kibo Parry Moroney mocks and stalks science
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
ahoy! Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal away! Fail at science, even go so far as to steal science from AP.
AP writes: Kibo, is it because of their struggling with relevance or is it that they never adapted to the new way of science publication that sci.math and sci.physics are valid sites of publication and that they fail to footnote the ideas they pick up on the Internet and end up stealing from original authors like Archimedes Plutonium.
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 2:49:37 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> fails at math and science:
H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's.
Ask Dr. Thorp why in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
Kibo Parry Moroney on stealing thieves Dr. Thorp, Dr. Chandler Davis, Dr. Young and they steal from newsgroups because they struggle for relevance
On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 9:24:51 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>"struggling for relevance"
Kibo Parry Moroney puts a finger on all the stealing going on why Old Science stealing--- they are struggling for relevance so they steal from AP--- with the new interface of Internet, where people in science such as Dr. Thorp, Dr. Young, Dr. Chandler Davis steal from others because they do not respect the Internet. They do not respect sci.physics, sci.math or the other newsgroups and look down upon Internet and feel they can just "freely steal, steal steal" all they want to steal and never have to cite their reference source-- the Internet.
So Dr. Young trys to steal AP's Stonethrowing theory, and Dr. Thorp via SCIENCE magazine tries to steal AP's Dog-- first domesticated animal theory, and Dr. Chandler Davis tries to steal via Mathematical Intelligencer, AP's Euclid proof of Infinitude of Primes Corrected.
Kibo's new book on the Three Thieves of the Internet, Dr. Thorp, Dr.Young, Dr. Chandler Davis.
AP writes: Question Kibo, does your new book have a photograph picture of Thorp, Young and Davis, a picture of them in the year they tried to steal AP theories of science and math? Kibo, will Nicholas Thompson the editor at Wired, can he get photographs of these three thieves of modern science?
STEALING DR THORP SCIENCE magazine
Kibo Parry Moroney wrotes the bio of Dr. Young, Dr.Thorp, Dr.Chandler Davis as thieves of science from Internet and Newsgroups.
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 3:40:13 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>struggling for relevance
AP writes: do not be fooled by the several people posting under the name Michael Moroney as a "open hate spam line"
AP writes: is that why Dr.Thorp and Dr. Chandler Davis steal from AP?
Which steals better, MitchR, Dr.Thorp, or Dr. Chandler Davis. Some in the journal of science business have just not transitioned to our new world where you have to also include Internet and Newsgroups as reference.
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
3_H. Holden Thorp fails Chemistry, now tries to steal AP 2004 work on "Dog, first domesticated animal" Kindle book of AP's. Kibo Parry Moroney confirms theft-- see below.
Ask Dr. Thorp when in the world he has no brains to do proper chemistry. Ask him why he believes in Lewis 8 Structure, when it has been known for decades that CO then N2 have the highest bonded dissociation energy. Thus, if you had at least one logical marble of a brain, you would understand that the highest dissociation energy tells you what the Lewis Structure must be. It cannot be Lewis 8 Structure but has to be Lewis 6 Arm Structure. If it were Lewis 8, then O2 would have the highest dissociation energy, not CO.
Is this why Dr. Thorp was dismissed out of chemistry? He just does not have one logical marble? But it appears the no logical marble of Dr. Thorp is allowing SCIENCE magazine to steal, and steal away the AP theory of DOG, FIRST DOMESTICATED ANIMAL of year 2004, published in the book of that same title in Amazon's Kindle.
But it appears that SCIENCE is trying very hard to steal AP's theory.
And all I asked for was inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE, but Dr. Thorp is headstrong in his stealing ways.
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
4 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 1:01:25 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine trying to steal away AP's theory-- Dog-First Domesticated Animal, or, will they do the proper etiquette of a Corrections page in a future edition?
Nov 17, 2020, 12:53 PM
to sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe
In that 30OCT2020 issue of SCIENCE AAAS, on page 523 has a list of references and notes and the oldest date is this.
8. G.H.Perry et al..Nat. Genet. 39. 1256 (2007).
Well, AP's Dog-- First Domesticated Animal has a long long history of Usenet posts going back to 2004. So, no, AP is not going to have his theories, any one of them, stolen from him.
I have asked SCIENCE to include my name in a future corrections page of Dog-First Domesticated Animal.
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557. I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in ....
6 views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:08:20 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Is SCIENCE magazine AAAS, trying to steal AP's theory-- Dog-- First Domesticated Animal// Looks like it in 30OCT2020 issue pages 522 & 557.
I did not see the name Archimedes Plutonium in the references. There are four major offending words in these two articles on pages 522 and 557 and contents page-- " dog, first domesticated animal".
Unless SCIENCE can include the name Archimedes Plutonium in a future edition, saying-- forgot to cite AP in reference to dog domestication. Then AP is forced to include SCIENCE magazine in his book-- Theft and Stealing of Intellectual Property.
22nd published book
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shephard dog.Indy is very smart.
Length: 50 pages
Product details
File Size: 3076 KB
Print Length: 50 pages
Publication Date: March 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQ5CPKG
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #429,006 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#93 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#469 in Evolution (Kindle Store)
#648 in Biology (Kindle Store)
Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog// Anthropology series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium
Preface: Amazing that just watching TV of science shows, one can formulate a true theory of science. Now my theory needs research, but it basically says the dog was the first farm animal, the first domesticated animal of the wolf, that became food for early homo sapiens. We tend to think of herbivores being the first domesticated animals, but I tend to think the dog comes as first domesticated animal. Many good lines of research are suggested below in the text.
Cover picture: are three dogs, the light brown one is Indy and her two daughters. Indy comes from the Waziristan mountains as a shepherd dog.Indy is very smart.
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo
Subject: how dogs evolved from wolves; TV NOVA show; 1st domesticated farm animal theory
Date: 5 Feb 2004 15:07:00 -0800
Lines: 76
A few days ago I watched a NOVA program on the variety of dogs with
talk of their evolution from that of wolves. Quite an interesting
program. However there are very many gaps of logic in the discussion
of how dogs came from wolves.
There was proffered the usual old theory that wolf babies make nice
pets and hominids would have come upon wolf babies and raised them in
their living camps.
Then there was a scientist who proffered a different theory suggesting
that dumpsites of early humans was a place to pick up easy food for
those wolves tolerant of human nearby presence.
I am going to offer a third theory which sort of incorporates the
above two. Let me call the above by their main mechanism. The first is
that of "Baby Pet" theory
and the second would be called the "Dumpsite" theory.
My theory would be called the "First Domesticated Farm Animal" theory.
The logical gap in theories one and two is that they confer little to
no advantage to the hominids or early humans involved, unless you want
to say that having a pet confers advantage over disadvantage of the
time spent on the pet, or as in the dumpsite theory that of the
spectacle of semi-wolves near camp is some sort of advantage.
My theory of "First Domesticated Animal" as the mechanism of how dogs
evolved from wolves makes the most sense because it confers the most
advantage to hominids or early humans. Here is how it works. Hominids
or Early Humans found wolf babies and would take them back to their
camp. They are too little and young to eat now, but as they grow older
fed from the snacks around the campsite (the dump) then they would be
large enough for food to eat.
Here I would have to research as to how easy or hard it would be to
have sheep or cattle hang around close to the campsite so that when
they got large enough they would be dinner. You see, I have the
suspicion that wild wolf babies are the animal that has the greatest
tendency to hang around the campsite than any other wild animal baby.
And thus, wolves would have been the first domesticated animal which
is rather surprising because they are carnivores and most of us would
guess that the first domesticated animal would have been a herbivore.
But I doubt that any baby herbivore would have stayed around the human
campsite as steadfast as a pet baby wolf until it grows to enough size
to eat.
Remember we are talking of primitive and savage hominids and early
humans who when looking at pets see them more as future food.
Which brings up very many good questions. Was the Dog the first
domesticated animal? I think it was. I say this because the wild wolf
baby imprints on a human better than a wild-any-other-animal. And
because of this imprinting the baby wolf would have stayed nearby the
humans until it grew of a size wherein one of the hungry hominids or
early humans ate the pet for dinner.
The Dump theory is okay in that the baby wolf would have wandered no
further away than the dump. And when the wolf was of a eatable size
would have been enticed by some scrap food bones and then killed and
eaten. Sounds gory and awful but that is probably the true sequence of
events that lead from wolves to the evolution of dog. And as this
relationship continued, the semi-wild wolf or dog had ears that drooped
and had a disposition to not run away.
We can measure the drooping ears of cattle or other domesticated
animals compared to their wild counterparts. As early man ate more and
more dogs for their dinners they wanted dogs that would hang around
the dumps and had droopy ears and not prone to run away.
And after hominids or early humans domesticated the wolf by becoming
the dog, they then got the idea that other animals such as cattle or
sheep can be domesticated for future dinners as well as the dog.
AP
From: a_plu...@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.anthropology.paleo,soc.history
Subject: dog farming formed the first Human or Hominid farm
Date: 8 Feb 2004 12:12:05 -0800
Lines: 27
Based on a NOVA TV show recently watched. And my theory that dogs
evolved from wolves because they are an easy steady and stable food
supply.
Query: if we pose a query or question as to what would the first, yes
the very first Farm in the entire history of the Human or perhaps
Hominid history, then I think most of us would conjure up the images
of say early humans planting corn seeds or something like that.
Perhaps some would not conjure up some plant seeds but would instead
think of confining buffalo or some sort of animal resembling sheep or
cattle.
But I believe that the first ever farm by the earliest humans was a
dog farm. Where they rounded up baby wolves and brought them into the
campsite and fed them until a large enough size to eat. And they would
not roam far from the campsite because they were imprinted forming a
natural fence as to their roaming away from the humans. It could have
been cats since cats are also easily imprinted.
I do believe the dog would be the first ever Human farm. And then
other animals brought into the campsite area and then later, much
later would be to plant crops where these dogs and cats and other
animals were confined.
AP
20 July 2019 Note: reading the above, got me to thinking that not only was the dog, dog food for early humans, and the dog being the first farm animal, but the advantage of a dog around the campsite, barking at say wild animals approaching such as big cats, or worse yet, rival early human clans, would have been a huge advantage that the early humans gained, in addition to food by eating the dog. Dog barking is a huge advantage to owners when you want a alarm system. And the barking dog certainly is the best animal I know of as a alarm system.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 14, 2020, 7:35:25 PM (3 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am forwarding a copy of the below post to Editor in Chief, H. Holden Thorp, sciencemag.org.
Of the thousands upon thousands of new ideas in science that AP has committed, I am not willing to give up a single one of them, to any ransacking marauding thiefs. Unless the name Archimedes Plutonium appears in a future correction page of references to this article on dogs-- first domesticated animal, then I shall enter the offending person/s in AP's book of Theft and Stealing.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Nov 17, 2020, 5:40:41 PM (4 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Comparing the stealing of Porat versus MitchR versus Chandler Davis of Math. Intelligencer magazine
Well it is easy to compare their stealing ways.
Porat would read a "good nice new idea", and really really like it. And so his reaction was to pop up in the author's thread and accuse that author of stealing the new idea from Porat. Such stealing behavior gets old very very fast for the original author.
MitchR stealing ways is less offensive, less in-your-face stealing than Porat, but none-the-less as aggravating. What MitchR does is scout around in sci.math and sci.physics for new ideas. Once he spots one, he rewords the new idea and posts his rewording in a new thread pretending he is the discoverer of a brand new idea of science. Actually, AP has met people like this in real life, where they listen to someone talk about a new idea and reword it so that they feel they have no need of footnoting or citing original source. For there are thousands of people who think that rewording a new idea gives them the right to call it "their new idea".
Chandler Davis when he was editor of Mathematical Intelligencer in Toronto Canada in the 1990s early 2000 printed a article on the mistakes in the Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, not Chandler but two other authors. Trouble was, the article was almost a pure lifting, a stealing of AP's posts in sci.math over Euclid Infinitude of Primes. And I emailed Chandler asking for a correction page inclusion of my work in a future issue of the magazine. Turns out that Chandler was "stupid old school of thought" thinking that Usenet and Internet are just "for free to steal all you want". So, what AP ended up doing is publishing Chandler Davis's brash stealing of AP's work in AP's book. All that Chandler had to do was simply include a two line cite of Archimedes Plutonium in his magazine, but no, for I guess a thief is always a thief, and looking for a excuse.
So, what turned out in the case of Chandler Davis refusal to publish priority rights of intellectual property, that now, Chandler Davis is published in AP's book of stealing on the Internet. Fair sailing Chandler...
88th published book
Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
New True Ideas in Science are very difficult to come by.
And many communities and countries ignore or deny the practice of footnoting, citing reference source, or quoting, but are societies who live up to that of mass stealing.
At minimum, every school education should and must teach how we "do not steal" by teaching footnote, reference cite, quoting. I learned it in High School, but across the world, most never learned this.
I learned footnoting, citing sources reference, and quoting in High School English classrooms, thank you Wyoming High School, near Cincinnati Ohio, one of my most valuable lessons, because it teaches us not only honesty, but prepares us for becoming scientists and grappling with the truth of the world, without stealing it.
It was August of 1993 that I first arrived on the Internet in the sci.math, sci.physics and many other Newsgroups of Usenet. I had already copyrighted my Atom Totality theory and was protected in that manner of copyrights. But I wanted more protection so I published in the Dartmouth College newspaper many of my discovered ideas of 1990 through August 1993. So I had a double wall of protection of Library of Congress copyright but also, Dartmouth College newspaper. But then with the arrival onto Usenet newsgroups, sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem, sci.bio.misc, sci.physics.electromag, sci.astro, and many more newsgroups. I saw that as a third layer of protection of my newly discovered ideas.
However, starting August 1993, it was plainly clear to me that this Internet posting of my ideas, that it is easy to steal those ideas.
Length: 147 pages
Product details
File Size: 783 KB
Print Length: 147 pages
Publication Date: February 13, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084T87JGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#4742 in Counseling & Psychology
#2013 in Medical General Psychology
#7248 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
AP is hoping that he does not have to include the recent steal by SCIENCE magazine 30OCT2020, page 523 with a missing reference and note citation.
15. Archimedes Plutonium, Biology: First Domesticated Animal: the Dog Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author), 2004, published 2019.
I am hoping this does not end up being another Chandler Davis of Mathematical Intelligencer type of steal, where the editors of SCIENCE AAAS look upon everything on Usenet and Internet and Amazon's Kindle as just fertile grounds and fertile fields of stealing.
I ask for the above (15) inclusion on a correction page of SCIENCE magazine. New true ideas in Science are terribly difficult to come by, and keeping that in mind, I am not willing to lose a single new idea I ever discovered.
#1-3, 74th published book
HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
In 2016-2017, AP discovered that the real proton has a mass of 840 MeV, not 938. The real electron was actually the muon and the muon stays inside the proton that forms a proton torus of 8 rings and with the muon as bar magnet is a Faraday Law producing magnetic monopoles. So this book is all about why researchers of physics and engineers keep getting the number 938MeV when they should be getting the number 840 MeV + 105 MeV = 945 MeV.
Cover Picture is a proton torus of 8 rings with a muon of 1 ring inside the proton torus, doing the Faraday Law and producing magnetic monopoles.
Length: 17 pages
Product details
• Publication Date : December 18, 2019
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 17 pages
• File Size : 698 KB
• ASIN : B082WYGVNG
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
Dr. Chandler Davis when editor of Mathematical Intelligencer, steals the work of AP's Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof, work I had done in early 1990s and there Davis publishes my work under names of different authors in 2009. Davis and Thorp just have not accepted the idea that Internet is "not free stealing grounds".
Quoting from my book-- Theft & Stealing ideas of science in the era of the internet// Ways to prevent and combat stealing// Sociology series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Sep 9 2011 1:22 pm
Subject: Scardigli and arXiv, and QM of Titius-Bode rule priority? new book: #9 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
On Sep 9, 1:17 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snipped in large part)
Now I need to shorten the title of this book and so far I have adopted
this as the title:
"Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute"
Maybe I can improve that even more, along the way
As mentioned often in this book, of the newness of the Internet and Usenet and that newness will create problems with the old media way of publishing science ideas. There were numerous problems in old media coverage of science, but when Usenet came around circa 1990, the proper attribute for new ideas had to be re-examined. And it left decades open of misappropriation of new ideas.
Now Mr Scardigli mentions above that he inserted a "errors corrected and more references cited" as a second edition to his first edition. I still do not see where he references Archimedes Plutonium Usenet posts to sci.physics on the Titius Bode Rule as quantum mechanics.
But what Mr. Scardigli has done by using a correction page to update, offers us a solution to the problem of "theft-without-proper-attribute." And this is what I tried to get Chandler Davis editor of Mathematical Intelligencer to do with his published article of "Prime Simplicity" of 2009 was to include in a future correction page of Mathematical Intelligencer the name of Archimedes Plutonium with the referencing of my thousand or so Usenet posts on the subject for which I had priority.
So whereas the Usenet science newsgroups offers superior date-time- group for new ideas. The Usenet can be corrected of theft-by-improper-attribute by the insertion of the reference in a "Correction Page".
So that if Mr. Scardigli were to include Archimedes Plutonium, posts to sci.physics in a future correction page, then this episode is over with and ended. And if Chandler Davis with Mathematical Intelligencer in a future correction page of that magazine cites Archimedes Plutonium: posts to sci.math on Euclid Infinitude of Primes corrected, then that issue is over with.
So we begin to see the problem and it is a huge problem, and we begin to see a clearcut solution by authors, that they can correct priority rights through a Correction page citing those earlier sources.
Now I want to talk briefly about the opposite and rather insidious phenomenon that is occurring on Usenet as a publishing medium, that was there also in old media publishing but not so obnoxious and not so widespread. It is what can be considered the inverse of not including a reference to that of over-including a reference to the detriment of the source. What I am talking about is what has been dubbed as "bombing, Google bombing or search engine bombing." So that when you are reading a article about coal, you have reference to old articles written by Archimedes Plutonium to the planet Mars and whether Mars has coal.
Science before the Internet was worried about citing original sources. With the Internet a new problem arises where search engines are hyper-sensitive and will list references to authors for which the only element in common was a few words.
So in science, we still have the problem of proper citation to scientists with original ideas, but we also have a new problem on our hands of drowning authors of science with the pollution of search engine bombing on those authors. In a sense, this happened in old media science where a tabloid press would talk about a famous scientist, for which that scientist would rather that the tabloid never discussed him or his work, at all.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:18 am
Subject: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #10 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
In the mid 2000s a search for the stonethrowing theory in Google
delivered not Archimedes Plutonium first but delivers Richard W Young
with his tiny blurb on the Stonethrowing theory in a Journal of
Anatomy of 2003.
This example of taking ideas from the Usenet science newsgroups without proper attribute is seen clearly by Dr. Young, and this case will show and exemplify the new era of publishing of science is more important about having a date time group stamp than where the article is published. This case of Dr. Young shows us the superiority of publishing first to Usenet and then going back and having the slow old way of publishing take its course.
What Dr. Young teaches us about science publishing, is to post the abstract to the Usenet first since its speed is superior and then have the article published in the slow process of peer review journal.
We have a historical case to recall in biology itself where Wallace had the ideas of evolution before or simultaneous to that of Darwin.
So let me go through my archive of posts to fetch out what happened on the issue of Dr. Young, stonethrowing theory and Archimedes Plutonium. And from this case study, I think everyone will be convinced that speed of recorded date time group is more important than where it is published, and the superiority of Usenet for the date time group stamp.
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 22:50:40 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Sep 14 2011 12:50 am
Subject: Re: Richard W. Young and stonethrowing theory priorities new book: #11 Usenet sci.newsgroups theft-without-proper-attribute
I am going to repost an older post of mine of 2007 where I lay out the
particular's of the Dr. Young
case and priority rights and where the new medium of Usenet publishing
is trampled on by the old medium.
--- quoting old post of mine ---
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.math, sci.physics From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:08:57 -0700 Local: Tues, Jul 31 2007 2:08 am Subject: Is Dr. Young (California emeritus) trying to steal the Stonethrowing theory from Archimedes Plutonium; ethics about referencing the Internet vis a vis science journals Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) ############################## J Ant. 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Copyright © Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2003 Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Editor-in-chief Gillian M. Morriss-Kay University of Oxford E-mail: gillian.morriss-...@anat.ox.ac.uk Managing Editor Edward Fenton E-mail: ja...@anat.ox.ac.uk Receiving Editors Julia Clarke North Carolina State University E-mail: Julia_Cla...@ncsu.edu --- quoting from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571064 Journal of Anatomy 2003 January; 202(1): 165-174. Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing Richard W Young Correspondence Dr Richard W. Young, 2913 Hollyridge Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068, USA. Accepted November 22, 2002. Abstract It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behavior yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess. ---- end quoting ---- ----------------- quoting old post -------------- Newsgroups: sci.anthropology, sci.logic From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:24:18 -0500 Local: Mon, Aug 12 2002 7:24 am Subject: Logic applied to Anthropology (most snipped to save space) This accurate stone-thrower would thus create a Hominid species in Asia from the Orangutan line and almost simultaneously create a different Hominid species in Africa from the Chimpanzee line. Perhaps another Hominid species created from the Gorilla line. ------------------ end quoting old post ---------------- Finally, in December of that same year 2002, spurred by the TV show talking about Orrorin found in Kenya by Pickford and others, gave me the impetus to develop the Stonethrowing theory in full force. ---------------- quoting old post ------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.anthropology From: Archimedes Plutonium <a_pluton...@dtgnet.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 03:02:43 -0600 Local: Wed, Dec 11 2002 3:02 am Subject: Ourran man of Kenya "Secrets of the Dead" found by Martin & Brigitte I hope I got the spellings correct. Wanted to post this while still fresh on the mind after watching 2 or 3 Tuesday programs on the TV with NOVA, Secrets of the Dead. Tuesday night seems to be turning out as the best night for science on the TV. Anyway, I post this because recently I came up with my own theory of Anthropology which basically says that the evolution of humans was primarily one major aspect-- stonethrowing. Stonethrowing, according to my theory, created the human and prehuman species. Stonethrowing created bipedalism for primates. So I was anxious to hear about Ourran man as discovered by Martin and Brigitte in Kenya. Ourran man was also called the Millenium Man since he was found in year 2000. Ourran man is dated to 6 million years old. I was rather struck by what theory in anthropology was held before. The theory that the Savannahs of Africa increased, forests lost and this increase in savannah gave rise to the theory that savannahs caused bipedalism. If you do not mind me saying so, but I think the Savannah mechanism is a stupid sort of theory to posit as the cause for bipedalism. According to my theory, bipedalism goes hand in hand (forgive the pun) with stonethrowing. Increasing stonethrowing puts demands on the body anatomy to be more bipedal. And then this program of Secrets of the Dead had Mr. Johanson and Martin and Brigitte announce a new theory for bipedalism. They looked at orangutans and think that specific height of trees places a demand for Ourran to sort of walk bipedally in parts of the tree canopy. Again, if you don't mind me saying but that is rather a stupid sort of theory. There should be a reverse Occam's Razor that says if given various competing theories, choice the theory which is the strongest theory. And quite clearly, the stonethrowing mechanism giving rise to bipedalism is the strongest theory. I was curious to see if Martin and Brigitte turned up any stones in their digs for Ourran Man. I suspect that neither Martin nor Brigitte are skilled enough in detecting stones used by Ourran Man. I feel confident that if a more skilled team were working in Kenya in the vicinity of Ourran Man that many stones used by Ourran Man would be discovered. Now, there was one piece of evidence in this program that casts dispersions upon my stonethrowing theory. The evidence that Ourran Man had rather curved fingers for use in tree climbing and swinging. I suppose apes and monkeys have curved fingers. Curved fingers would not mesh well with stonethrowing. How do I reconcile that evidence? I can reconcile it by saying that the curved fingers of Ourran were not Ourran's fingers but that of a ape or monkey and that Martin and Brigitte wrongly ascribed those fingers to Ourran when they were not. Or, I can say that the disappearance of curved fingers was a long gradual process just as brow anatomy changes took a long time. That curved fingers were not an impediment in stonethrowing but that as time went on, the stonethrowing demands eliminated the curved fingers altogether so that by the time of Lucy of 2 million years ago, curved fingers were absent altogether in stonethrowers. Is there any evidence that Ourran was a stonethrower from the anatomy? I would say quite definitively yes in the fact of the teeth structure was half and half vegetarian and meateating. Ourran's teeth resemble modern humans teeth to a large extent and that would indicate alot of meat in the diet. So I think that if Ourran Man is studied in more detail in the future it will be discovered that the site has many Ourran stones used for stonethrowing and that Ourran was mostly a stonethrowing predator. Archimedes Plutonium, a_pluton...@hotmail.com whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ----------------- end quoting old posts----------------------------- ---- quoting Dr. Young on bipedalism in his January 2003 publication --- "Improved dynamic upright balance on more powerful legs and resilient feet in the service of throwing and clubbing would have made upright locomotion more efficient, leading to its increasing use and eventually culminating in habitual bipedalism. (Several other unique human anatomical and behavioural features can also be accounted for by this approach: Young, 2002)." --- end quoting Dr. Young --- ############################################# Since I am lately "on about" intellectual property rights of scientists, about priority of discovery and about that of proper referencing and giving credit to where credit is due. The realm of intellectual discovery is an arena in which new ideas come very infrequently and especially important new ideas. So this arena is fiercely competitive and sometimes even highly dishonest. University "professors" are graded by their community by the number of publications and especially publications with "new ideas". So it is easy to see and understand that intellectual discoveries and property rights is not something to dismiss or take lightly. In the case of Don Wortzman over the "Atom Universe" or "Atom Totality", there is suspicious behavior as to Don's dating where he has the year 19100. Does he mean the year "2000"? Or is the year 19100 a way of undermining or subterfuging the date of Archimedes Plutonium's date of discovery? And another facet of Don Wortzman's "Atom Universe" is that it is only posted to a website but websites are notorious for not having a verifiable date, since author of a website can claim any date they wish. Another upsetting feature of Don Wortzman's website and that of Dr. Young's website on Stonethrowing is that they appear before Archimedes Plutonium's website on the theories involved. I say upsetting in that Don Wortzman has about a couple of pages on Atom Universe whereas Archimedes Plutonium has about 3,000 Internet posts on Atom Universe, yet Google search engine delivers Don Wortzman's site before Archimedes Plutonium. The same thing goes for Dr. Young's article on Stonethrowing yet Archimedes Plutonium has written thousands of pages on Stonethrowing theory and yet Google search delivers Young's first. I emailed several of the editors of the journal in which Dr. Young published his comments on Stonethrowing theory. I emailed Gillian M. Morriss-Kay and he replied that he had to go on a trip and would answer me when he returned, but I never received a answer. Basically what upsets me about Dr. Young's journal article and Dr. Gillian M. Morriss-Kay is that their journal does not have in place the ability to see if the Internet has had information that needs to be referenced by the authors of upcoming articles to be published. If someone, like Dr. Young, had read sci.anthropology in year 2002, and read my posts about Stonethrowing theory would have been the basis for Dr. Young's (1) chimpanzee-like apes (2) how stonethrowing drove the evolution of ape-like becoming human (3) and what Dr. Young calls "habitual bipedalism" So all three of those concepts were covered by me on the Internet in year 2002, and then in 2003 comes out the Dr. Young publication in the journal. So I had Dr. Young's ideas covered one year earlier or before that of his journal article. What I am upset about is that the editors of the journal will not reference the Internet posts of 2002. I simply asked Gillian M. Morriss-Kay to reference that 2003 article by Dr. Young with a reference to my 2002 posts to the Internet. I have the priority of discovery of those ideas, beating Dr. Young by one year. I think the Internet was "too new" and still is rather new to the journal publication way of doing science. And that many editors feel the Internet has few if any worthy posts that need be referenced. And that the Internet, to these old time editors, is a medium which can be ransacked of ideas and not requiring any reference to the Internet once the ideas are plucked and later published in a hardcover journal. Whether Dr. Young was reading my posts in year 2002 about Stonethrowing theory and subsequently used my ideas and never referenced me, is besides the point. The point is that those ideas appeared first on the Internet in 2002, and then later in year 2003 the same ideas appeared in a journal. So what I was asking of Gillian M. Morriss-Kay was to print a reference to my 2002 posts on Stonethrowing theory in a upcoming edition of this journal, much like what most newspapers such as the New York Times has as a "correction section" where they correct past mistakes. I have written an entire book on the subject of Stonethrowing theory which if all my posts were assembled would be probably a thousand pages or more. So it is high time that science journals realize that the Internet science newsgroups have to be watched and referenced as per new ideas. And that some scientists read the newsgroups and are tempted to steal ideas from others and then reword the ideas and publish in a journal pretending as though they discovered those new ideas. The very nice thing about the Internet is that the ideas are all date time grouped. There is no question that I posted those ideas in 2002, whereas the journal in which Dr. Young published has few date-time group verifiability. Science journals and journal editors have to get used to the idea that the Internet is just as good as their journal itself as far as "doing science" and in many facets of doing science, the Internet is superior to the old hardcover journals such as the facet of "speed". No journal can compete with the Internet as to "speed" of getting the news out. I suspect Gillian M. Morriss-Kay thinks I have no case against Dr. Young and for that reason he never bothered to answer my email. But the case is important and the case is about science journals that have not grown up yet and matured yet to realize that the Internet is a valid medium of reporting science, especially new ideas in science and that the old journals must adapt to reference the Internet.
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
Archimedes Plutonium
May 20, 2021, 12:11:59 AM5/20/21
to
Not a single math professor of Univ Waterloo able to teach a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Not a single math professor of Univ Waterloo with enough brains to ask two questions: (1) Since calculus is geometry, why cannot the math professor do a geometry proof of FTC (2) Did George Boole make a huge mistake with AND connector of Logic in its truth table should be TTTF and not TFFF because TFFF leads to the silly 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction. We know Dan Christensen has his head up his a... but that does not mean Univ of Waterloo should follow suit.
Ask the question Univ Waterloo-- you know calculus is geometry, yet you never can do a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, all you can do is your piddly limit analysis
Ask the question Univ Waterloo-- did Boole screw up royally with his AND truth table of TFFF when it should be TTTF
7 year endless bully suppression stalker Dan Christensen (self appointed dictator of sci.math)
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 112 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1290 KB
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
Ask the question Univ Waterloo-- you know calculus is geometry, yet you never can do a geometry proof of Fundamental theorem of Calculus, all you can do is your piddly limit analysis
Ask the question Univ Waterloo-- did Boole screw up royally with his AND truth table of TFFF when it should be TTTF
7 year endless bully suppression stalker Dan Christensen (self appointed dictator of sci.math)
On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 8:31:11 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
> WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 17May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 112 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
5th published book
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 72 pages
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#6-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Length: 86 pages
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#6-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
#6-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Length: 123 pages
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)
Archimedes Plutonium
Jul 1, 2021, 11:59:31 AM7/1/21
to
AP started a World Revolution in College textbooks in that students read for free the worlds finest math textbooks available-- containing geometry proofs of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. 134th published book Introduction to TEACHING TRUE.
AP started a World Revolution in College textbooks in that students read-for -free the worlds finest math textbooks available-- containing geometry proofs of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Why put up with a college or University that denies calculus is geometry, hence a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is mandatory. And pay thousands of dollars for tuition, and hundreds of dollars for trash textbooks that deny calculus, with their mindless "limit analysis" of rectangles with 0 width in integral. These are not math professors, but math fools.
#4-1, 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
Product details
• ASIN : B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date : September 24, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 576 KB
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,307,085 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #1,241 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,345 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #10,634 in Calculus (Books)
•
#4-2, 45th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein General Geometry
Last revision was 2NOV2020.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
Length: 375 pages
Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
#4-3, 55th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
Length: 236 pages
Product details
File Size: 1390 KB
Print Length: 236 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-4, 56th published book
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages
Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-5, 72nd published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 103 pages
Product details
File Size: 949 KB
Print Length: 103 pages
Publication Date: December 2, 2019
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let is get going.
Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
Length: 160 pages
Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 740 KB
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
#4-7, 89th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revision was 30OCT2020.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
Length: 109 pages
Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 109 pages
Publication Date: February 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084V11BGY
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4-8, 90th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revised 1NOV2020.
Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 174 pages
Product details
File Size: 741 KB
Print Length: 174 pages
Publication Date: March 1, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085DF8R7V
AP started a World Revolution in College textbooks in that students read-for -free the worlds finest math textbooks available-- containing geometry proofs of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
Why put up with a college or University that denies calculus is geometry, hence a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is mandatory. And pay thousands of dollars for tuition, and hundreds of dollars for trash textbooks that deny calculus, with their mindless "limit analysis" of rectangles with 0 width in integral. These are not math professors, but math fools.
#4-1, 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
Product details
• ASIN : B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date : September 24, 2020
• Language : English
• File size : 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 23 pages
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,307,085 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #1,241 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #1,345 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #10,634 in Calculus (Books)
•
#4-2, 45th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein General Geometry
Last revision was 2NOV2020.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
Length: 375 pages
Product details
File Size: 2013 KB
Print Length: 375 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
#4-3, 55th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
Length: 236 pages
Product details
File Size: 1390 KB
Print Length: 236 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 16, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WN9RVXD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,212,707 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2719 in Calculus (Books)
#417 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-4, 56th published book
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages
Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#4-5, 72nd published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 103 pages
Product details
File Size: 949 KB
Print Length: 103 pages
Publication Date: December 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0828M34VL
Language: English
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#4-6, 75th published book
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let is get going.
Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
Length: 160 pages
Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 740 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 160 pages
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
#4-7, 89th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revision was 30OCT2020.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
Length: 109 pages
Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 109 pages
Publication Date: February 15, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B084V11BGY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
#4-8, 90th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revised 1NOV2020.
Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 174 pages
Product details
File Size: 741 KB
Print Length: 174 pages
Publication Date: March 1, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B085DF8R7V
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 29, 2021, 7:10:59 PM9/29/21
to
Dan Christensen on Linda Hasenfratz,> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er... > > Dan
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 5:42:56 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of
On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 1:29:49 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> Are you ready, kids??? Bend over, er...
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 27, 2023, 4:18:31 PM8/27/23
to
2-Why have not the scatterbrains of math, Tao, Wiles, Hales who could never do a Geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, but only chase after fame and fortune, why have these three scatterbrains of math not tried to concoct a Limit Analysis proof of Riemann Hypothesis. For it worked in pulling the wool over the eyes of all those in math except AP, as a fake proof for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So one would think the three con artists of modern math --- Tao, Wiles, Hales would do a Non Sequitur Limit Analysis on Riemann Hypothesis.
30 year stalker defiler demonizer Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:26:15 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Once again, it looks like I triggered another one of
> meltdowns!
>
> Autistic necrophile
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> Not again!
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
>
> wanting to fuck her corpse
>
> Is corpse fucking some sort of initiation rite when joining the Evil
>Cult of Failure?
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
30 year stalker defiler demonizer Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:26:15 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> Once again, it looks like I triggered another one of
> meltdowns!
>
> Autistic necrophile
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> Not again!
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
>
> You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
>
> wanting to fuck her corpse
>
> Is corpse fucking some sort of initiation rite when joining the Evil
>Cult of Failure?
>
> I want to fuck her corpse
0 new messages