Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

[Jan]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Must you post garbage?

--
Jan

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 10:17:38 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen writes:
> 8:42 PM (28 minutes ago)
>
>
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
>
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
>
> 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
>
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
>
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
>
>

You left all the answers blank on your test, Archie. Why is that?


> Dan
>
> AP writes:: Terry, here is a test that I think the Canadian Dan Christensen of Univ Western Ontario, or a doppelganger put together. Maybe you can use it in class.
>

It would be an insult to his students, but each of these 4 simple questions are from well known specialties of yours, Archie. You have repeatedly dwelled at length on each one of them. How about it, Archie? For the record.


Dan

[Dan Christensen]

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 10:23:34 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> >

> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
> >
> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > MATH TEST::
> >
> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >
> > But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
> >
> >
> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> >
> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> >
> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> >
> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> >
> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > can exist, and does exist
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> >
> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > .01.
> >
> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> >
> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > is the function graph itself.
> >
> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > what Calculus does.
> >
> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> >
> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> >
> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > rectangle for integral as area.
> >
> > From this:
> > B
> > /|
> > / |
> > A /----|
> > / |
> > | |
> > |____|
> >
> >
> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > integral.
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > ______
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > ---------
> >
> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > continuum exists in mathematics.
> >
> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> >
> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > ------------------
> > -------------------
>
>
> Dan Christensen writes:
> 9:10 PM (2 minutes ago)
>
> >
> > I hope it's better than your failed "True Math" textbook, Archie Pu. I doubt it somehow.
> >Dan
>
> AP writes:: this is sort of funny to watch, for if memory is correct Dan Christensen UWO was educated at MIT

Sadly, not me, Archie. Just keep grasping at those straws!


> , and then Terry Tao, I remember discussing with me in early 1990s from Princeton dot edu.
>
> So can we compare failing school math departments, the Princeton, the MIT, the Univ. Western Ontario, the Univ California UCLA.
>

Yeah, not one of them is teaching that 10^604 = 0 or that if A is true and B is false then A & B is true. Go figure, eh? (HA, HA, HA!!!)


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[John Gabriel]

That's all he knows how to do. If he stops doing this, what will be left of his miserable life? Have some empathy. :-)))

> --
> Jan

[Jan]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why do you post lies?

--
Jan

[Michael Moroney]

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>Michael Moroney writes:
>7:17 AM (3 hours ago)

>>Archie, you science failure, you need to address Porat as Sir Porat or
>>Your Greatness. Before he was reduced to babbling babytalk, at least he
>>was designing bridges while you were learning better ways on how to fail.

>AP writes:: Moroney, do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year
>insane stalker like you, compared to Jan Bielawski, Jan Burse, Dan
>Christensen, Karl Olav Nyberg, Zelos Malum, probably have the same
>genetic defects that make you obsessive stalkers. Probably all of you
>have a defect on the Y chromosome.

Yes, Archie, you should take a DNA test. Schizophrenia tends to run in
families so it almost certainly has a genetic component. If you take a
DNA test, perhaps it will flag your defective gene(s).

[konyberg]

lørdag 28. april 2018 21.03.07 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> How dumb is Terry Tao in trigonometry? So dumb he accepts trigonometry definition of sine as opposite/hypotenuse, yet never realizing that such a definition forces the angle 180 degrees to be 2 not 3.14… because the angle 90 degrees is forced to be 1. Such math stupidity in modern times is awarded the Fields Medal for Tao, when he should have been ashamed of himself for only polluting math with further nonsense and fakery.

When you doing trigonometry, you are using right angled triangles?
Why is not sine equal opposite/hypotenuse?
Explain!
KON

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Tao is so dumb in math:

>Jan:: how dumb is he?

>AP:: he is so dumb that to this very day he thinks a ellipse is a conic
>section when a half brain knows it is a cylinder section-- the
>oval is a conic section.

What, you only have a half a brain? That's why you believe that?

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Well someone so blind to math that cannot see 180 degerees must be 2 not
>3.14... because 90 degrees is 1 in unit circle, could such a hapless
>cripple of math ever see the ellipse is a cylinder section never a
>conic-- yet the fool Tao still teaches a ellipse is a conic.

What, you want to see the proof that the ellipse is a conic section again?
Here you go!

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[Jan]

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30:52 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:16:26 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > Why do you post lies?
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>

> Dan Christensen writes:
> 7:23 AM (4 hours ago)

You haven't answered my question: why do you keep posting lies?

--
Jan

[Zelos Malum]

Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0

[Michael Moroney]

Zelos Malum <zelos...@gmail.com> writes:

>Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are
>defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0

Exactly. An angle (in radians) is defined as (arc length)/radius. Since
the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r, the angle of a full circle is
2*pi. Therefore a half circle, 180 degrees, is half that, which is pi,
and sin(pi)=0.

This particular idiocy is particularly amusing for us electrical
engineers, who have to deal with trigonometry.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:41:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Zelos Malum <zelos...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are
> >defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0
>
> Exactly. An angle (in radians) is defined as (arc length)/radius. Since
> the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r, the angle of a full circle is
> 2*pi. Therefore a half circle, 180 degrees, is half that, which is pi,
> and sin(pi)=0.

Of course, Great Guru Einstein has rejected all these common
sense prejudices together with whole Euclidean geometry.

[burs...@gmail.com]

So you cleaned your house and found a conic
that wasnt ellipse only oval. Ha Ha

Am Mittwoch, 9. Mai 2018 18:55:53 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:15:16 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > You see, the horrible horrible way the math prizes are constructed is that they give prizes to "new things" but never correction of any old math. In this manner, the prizes of Fields medal, Abel medal, Wolf medal end up hurting mathematics, for it urges people to create crackpot new things that is fakery, and it urges no-one in math to ever clean out the corrupt and rotten and fake math. So many of the awards have been given for fake math-- Wiles, Appel & Haken, Tao, that math has a hard time of even existing, so bloated in fakery.
> >
>
> One can easily make an almost perfect analogy to the present existing math awards-- Fields Medal, Abel Medal, Wolf Medal. Consider mathematics as a house, a house like every other house in the world, that needs daily or at least weekly cleaning. Yet the house of mathematics has no cleaner. Physics and sciences have cleaners-- experiments. Yet Math has a house and never has a cleaner nor fixer of things gone wrong. Instead what the house of mathematics has, are awards, medals and honors to those that add more trash and fakery and garbage to the house of mathematics.
>
> What I say, the sensible thing to do in mathematics, for math has no unbiased judging, like physics has unbiased judging-- experiments, math has no experiments to be the judge. So, what I propose is that no medal be awarded to anyone doing mathematics, unless they provide two things-- a major clean-up of Old Math, then, consider what true new math they offer.
>
> The days have to stop where a Wiles is so stupid in math as to not see that Euler's exp3 of Fermat's Last Theorem was a fake proof because Euler forgot to prove when A,B,C were all three even numbers, yet there is Wiles with his awful fake contraption of a FLT, when the dolt could never even correct Euler's mistake. Never even spot the mistake, let alone correct it. So it is these medals in math that are a driving force that makes math far far worse and never corrects or makes math truthful.
>
> Same goes for Tao-- more math pollution, never fixing the errors of Old Math.
>
> AP

[konyberg]

søndag 13. mai 2018 07.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> Is Terence Tao as dumb as that dumb Earle Jones looking at a ellipse as conic, since a ellipse has 2 axis of symmetry but a cone has only 1 axis at an angle cut. I don't think Tao is as dumb as Jones who failed math.
>
> Earle Jones wrote:
> May 12 (4 hours ago)
>
> Re: Start with a given ellipse, then, build a cylinder around it
>
> - show quoted text -
> *
> Hi AP:
>
> Here is another way to gain some insight.
>
> If you want to know the equation of an ellipse (or a circle or
> hyperbola or parabola), do this:
>
> Write the equation (in 3-space x, y, and z) for a cone.
> Then write the equation of a plane.
>
> Solve these two equations simultaneously.
>
> Then, vary the position and orientation of the plane to discover how
> one gets an ellipse, a circle, a parabola or a hyperbola.
>
> They call these "conic sections" for a good reason.
>
> earle
> *
>
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> >
> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
> >
> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > MATH TEST::
> >
> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >
> > But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
> >
> >
> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> >
> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> >
> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> >
> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> >
> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > can exist, and does exist
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> >
> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > .01.
> >
> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> >
> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > is the function graph itself.
> >
> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > what Calculus does.
> >
> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> >
> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> >
> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > rectangle for integral as area.
> >
> > From this:
> > B
> > /|
> > / |
> > A /----|
> > / |
> > | |
> > |____|
> >
> >
> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > integral.
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > ______
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > ---------
> >
> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > continuum exists in mathematics.
> >
> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> >
> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > ------------------
> > -------------------

Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it?
Or is it that you can't?
You just not know the mathematics?
KON

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes "failure" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>So, Terence Tao, every day you are quiet and silent about Ellipse is a
>Cylinder section, never a Conic section, is every day you are silent
>means you agree that a Ellipse is a Conic,

First of all, Terence Tao has almost never heard of, or cares about a
nobody such as yourself, second even if he did and was interested enough
in your claim to take a look, he'd just say "Where's the proof?". And he
would NEVER accept "Because I, Archimedes Plutonium said so!" as a reason.
FAIL.

> and thus, is proof that you, Terry Tao is a failure of mathematics, for
>you are no better in math than the failure of Michael Moroney who cannot
>even do a percentage correctly and has to plagiarize a dumb German who
>thinks this below is a proof that an ellipse is a conic. So, Terry, are
>you the same math failure as the dumb German as the failure Moroney-- so,
>stay quiet Terry, stay dumb in mathematics.

Archimedes Failure Plutonium (you need a middle name), quit projecting
your own failures at math onto other people, such as Tao and myself.
You need to accept responsibility for your own failures, and to quit
blaming everyone else for your own failures at math and sciences.
You even projected your own failure onto a graduate math student, by
telling him he has "no logical brains" or that math is "over his head"!
How dumb and stupid is that?!


>Michael Moroney wrote:
>May 11

>Re: Sections (was: One of my favourite pastimes ....)

>Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>>Alan you have no logical brains

>You should talk, Illogical One.

>If you really think an ellipse isn't a conic section, why can't you
>either provide an actual proof, or disprove the following:

No answer?

<snip proof ellipse is a conic section>

>qed

>AP writes:: Moroney, you math failure, you now resort to plagiarism of some
> dumb German's fake proof. Of course that is understandable since Moroney
>can't do math so he plariarizes. For he can't even do a correct
>percentage.

Plagiarism, Failure Plutonium? What do you mean plagiarism? Are you
inventing new rules again? Are you saying I need to create my own proof
the ellipse is a conic section rather than using a nice, short, easy to
understand existing proof? Does that mean that if I need to show the
length relationships of the three sides of a right triangle, I have to
invent my own proof rather than "plagiarize" that Pythagoras guy?
And you can't disprove it, so you need to whine plagiarism?

>What percent short is 938 from 945?

And that's one reason why you keep failing at percentages, Failure
Plutonium. First you rounded off the mass of the muon to three figures,
but you truncated, rounded _down_ (to 105) rather than to the nearest
(106). Any scientist or engineer knows to round to nearest. So, to three
sig figs, you _should_ be asking "what percent short is 938 from 954?" But
you rounded incorrectly, so you failed.

Also why did you round at all? Very accurate masses for both the proton
and muon are available, see below.

Second, when you multiply a measurement, you also multiply the error. You
multiply by 9 so that's almost an entire order of magnitude increase in
the total error. As the mass of the muon is close to 105.66 MeV, by
rounding down you started off with double the error (0.66 MeV) than
rounding to nearest (0.34 MeV) would have given.

Third, when you subtract two fairly close measured amounts, the percentage
of error in the result can be greatly increased. Again, any scientist or
engineer knows that. For example, using your failure, we get 945-938 = 7
MeV. If we plug in the correct masses to many significant figures the
correct difference is 12.6530605 MeV. So your error is 5.6530605 MeV,
approaching half! If we correctly rounded off to 106 rather than
truncate, the error becomes -3.3469395 MeV, much better but still
excessive. This is a problem any good scientist or engineer would
recognize you must be sure to use accurate enough meaasurements to avoid
such error. The good folks at http://pdg.lbl.gov/ do have very accurate
numbers for you. Not that any good physicist would ever consider proton=9
muons for any length of time as they are extremely different, such an
equivalence would violate many known laws of physics.

Not that I expect this to ever convince you. You'll be right back
misrepresenting me very soon. After all, it's in your nature to fail.
Birds fly, fish swim and Archimedes Plutonium fails.

>On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.

>> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Still true. The actual difference is 12.6530605 MeV as I just showed, so a
proton mass is about 8.88 muon masses. 8.88 is hardly ""exactly" 9 muons!
I'm amazed how you stick with this particular failure of yours.

>So, Terry, Terry Terry Tao, the longer you remain silent on math critical
>issues, means, you are no mathematician at all, but a fakester of math.

Terry Tao is not reading this. And even if he did, he will NEVER think "I
will believe what Archimedes Failure Plutonium writes, it must be true
because he says it's true." A real mathematician will demand a proof. Can
you give him one?

[Michael Moroney]

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>Why could not Terence Tao fix any one of these major mistakes in modern
>mathematics, anyone of them

What "major mistakes"?

>Fix any one of these::
>1) oval is a conic section, never ellipse

Why is this true? Because you say so? You give no proofs.

>2) fix calculus so that integral is not 0 width rectangles

Why is this true? Because you say so?

>3) fix the fake proof that irrationals exist, when they do not exist

Why is this true? Because you say so?

>4) recognize that sine is a semicircle wave, never a sinusoid

Why is this true? Because you say so?
Last I checked (about a microsecond ago) my AC electricity works, so
I don't think so.

>5) fix logic of such hideous notions that 1 OR 2 = 3

Do you even understand binary logic at all? Or is some guy who died
because he was too stupid to come in out of the rain STILL outsmarting
you?

(Spring is here and Archie is still posting. Fortunately, no nasty
surprises lurking in melting South Dakota snowbanks this year)

[alouatta....@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 2:08:59 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Tao is so dumb in even conics.
>
> Tao is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Tao would correct them—
>
>
> 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes
> >These last two lessons are going to be long lessons
>
> Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:
>
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
>
> Some preliminaries:
>
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
>
> ^ x
> |
> -+- <= x=h
> .' | `.
> . | .
> | | |
> ' | '
> `. | .'
> y <----------+ <= x=0
>
> Cone (side view):
> .
> /|\
> / | \
> /b | \
> /---+---' <= x = h
> / |' \
> / ' | \
> / ' | \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
> / a | \
>
> Proof:
>
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
>
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
>
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
>
> qed

Hey Dummy, why don't you show why the proof above is wrong? You can't, can you?

[alouatta....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>

>Now AP has flunked every thest anyone can think of..

[Dan Christensen]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:31:46 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>

Poor, demented Archie Pu. He can no longer tell AND from OR. He believes that 10^604 = 0 and that the universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom. Now he imagines that by criticizing Terry Tao, people will finally take him seriously???

Sorry, Archie Pu, but people will only be LESS inclined to take you seriously if that is even possible at this point in your "career."


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Anon Y. Mouse]

On 6/7/2018 3:11 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Another huge mistake of Old Math, their hideous assessement of the Harmonic Series
>
> 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5....
>
> Where the boneheads thought that this Series diverges

So if it converges, what is its value?

[Zelos Malum]

Bigger question is, how are you this fuckign stupid?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:16:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 7:04:13 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Well the actual infinity borderline is 1*10^604
> > > So what is the value of harmonic series for exp604 a rough estimate is 604 x 2 = 1204. Converges to 1204.
> > >
> > > Is it not nice to do sane math for a change? Sane and commonsense math.
> > >
> > > AP
> >
> > Earlier I had written this:
> >
> > When you WELL define infinity as a borderline with finite, then you realize the Harmonic series is a impotently low class convergence to a small number. If the infinity border were 100, then Harmonic series converges to something around 5.1, after 1000 it converges to 7.4, after 10,000 it converges to 9.7, after 100,000, the harmonic series is a mere paltry 12.0.
> >
> > And seeing that each step higher in 10^n, produces about 2 or 3 value increase. So if we take exp604, then between 2x 604 and 3x 604 1208 and 1812. So somewhere in between 1208 and 1816 is the convergence of the harmonic series.
> >
> > Old Math never defined infinity-- and left every punk mind to dream up their own idea of what infinity means. For that reason, you get loose marbled minds thinking the Harmonic Series diverges, when hells bells, you can see it crawling along at snails pace picking up only 2 to 3 value points in each higher exponent. And the Oresme fake math proof, is an alltime classic petty pocket theft argument.
> >
> > So, you have Tao and Green, looking at prime sequences and wondering if you can have all lengths. Of course, both Tao and Green have their own punk definition of what is infinity, and you can be assured they have no borderline involved in their silly childish notion of finite versus infinite.
> >
> > And thus, Oresme comes up with a all time con-artist math proof and Tao and Green simply are the 2nd act of circus clowns with a con-artist proof of prime sequences.
> >
> > Probably, math has a 1,000 alleged proofs, all of which are con artist fakery, because they use a punk notion of what is infinity. All because they never WELL DEFINED infinity and finite versus infinite. Cantor's garbage is a slew of fake con artist proofs. Godel's nonsense are all based on a punk notion of infinity.
> >
> > Hales with his Kepler Packing monstrosity, has become a master at math con artistry. For not once does he ever contemplate the idea that infinity has a borderline and so if you have a cube at the infinity borderline, can there be manipulation of the equal sized spheres to make a more dense packing.
> >
> > Which all goes to show,-- our math professors in colleges are there with memorization of math, never any skill in Logic to think straight, to think clearly.
> >
>
> Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
>
> Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
>
> Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
>
> 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
>
> The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
>
> Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
>
> Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
>
> Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
>
> Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
>
> And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
>
> And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210." We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
>
> So, no-way possible are you ever going to get sequences of arbitrary length, because the infinity border will cut you off.
>
> Perhaps thousands and thousands of Old Math proofs are fakery,-- for they use infinity as a opinion, not a WELL DEFINED infinity.
>
> AP

AP, you seem to have it wrong,
you're talking about a "finity",
not an "infinity". We all know
the word "infinity" since we were
five years old and know it means
there's no biggest number.

(This is usually "infinity is the
biggest number", "infinity is bigger
than all the numbers", or "there is no
infinity", then for students usually
later formalized about the "unbounded",
for the same worthwhile lessons for
everybody.)

Now if you're talking about models
of infinite systems that are bounded
but "effectively infinite", then
you'll have to correct your vocabulary
and usage to reflect correct usage
because otherwise it isn't.

I see ideas in your posts, that
maybe have correct expressions,
but, those are not it.

You'd be much better off maintaining
the whimsical and absurd and about
what the "effectively infinite" (but
finite) might offer, because, if you
don't use the words right it's automatically
wrong.

That's to Archimedes Plutonium who some
have as an artifact of usenet crankiness,
others as a source of ideas about the
big picture.

Good luck, AP.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 8:10:04 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> >
> > AP, you seem to have it wrong,
> > you're talking about a "finity",
> > not an "infinity". We all know
> > the word "infinity" since we were
> > five years old and know it means
> > there's no biggest number.
> >
>

> Too bad Ross is just a computer program, dishing out ideas like a tossed salad with oil and vinegar.
>
> If Ross could ever have the pleasure of "being human" and that entails 98% of thoughts illogical, only about 2% logical thinking.
>
> If Ross could have that pleasure of being human and have studied Logic, would know that in order to well define Finite and Infinite, is only possible, if you have a border between them.
>
> Otherwise all the posts by Ross are just like the poet Jan Burse-- farts in the wind of Switzerland.

>
>
> > (This is usually "infinity is the
> > biggest number", "infinity is bigger
> > than all the numbers", or "there is no
> > infinity", then for students usually
> > later formalized about the "unbounded",
> > for the same worthwhile lessons for
> > everybody.)
> >
>

> Sad thing is, to the coneheads of mathematics with their Cantor imp infinity notions, they have no infinity of the small. There infinity is all of one type-- huge way way large numbers do you start looking for infinity.
>
> Whereas the Logic Minded mathematician that has a gram of Logical thinking, realizes that infinity is at both ends of the number spectrum-- at the tiny numbers, just off of 0 and at the large numbers, those after 1*10^604.
>
> So, shut up Ross, I do not care to hear any more iambic pentameter computer program, I am too busy,,,
>
> AP

I agree that there are infinitesimals and infinity.

Also I can mechanically translate that what you write
there, that your 10^604 is your point at infinity.
But, that's not what you say, so, you can't expect
others guess what you mean right.

Now, some have that AP is "the brains of some machinery
at Princeton", but it's the words here that make the
man, it only takes a few words to make a picture.

I agree there's a divide and a bridge between finite
and infinite, as there is between discrete and continuous,
and indeed it's a field of mathematics and logic, of
the geometry and the numbers, about how it's so.

And, concrete, bounded systems with bounded, finite
resources may have various systems as result about
what happens at the edge or the end, that the
"world is round" or "world is flat".

So, it matters more what you build to understand
of the extremes or for example as that the middle
is the extreme, for the large and small. You can
build whatever you want, mentally. The point is
that the words share for you, you can begin the
idea, these notions, these perceptions, and not
end them with a fake, a juke, a stonewall, a quit,
an error. If they can't make sense of it, you
want that others can't make nonsense of it.

Wet-ware / meat-bag

[eastsi...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 10:53:11 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:42:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:50:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
> > > >
> > > > Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
> > > >
> > > > Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
> > > >
> > > > 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
> > > >
> > > > The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
> > > >
> > > > Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
> > > >
> > > > Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
> > > >
> > > > Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
> > > >
> > > > Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
> > > >
> > > > And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
> > > >
> > > > And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210." We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
> > > >
> >

> > Alright, I do not know nor have the time to dig into this.
> >
> > Question, the first String of Primes of any length is 5thru29, are there no strings of primes of any length until we reach 199 thru 2089. That would be the 10,000 Grid. The 5thru29 is the 100 Grid.
> >
> > Now in True Math, the way we prove something is INFINITE, is that we measure that something up against a density measure with the measuring stick of the Perfect Squares. The set of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, .....
> >
> > And the way this works is that the infinity borderline is 1*10^604, and its Completion with respect to Multiplication is a second borderline of 1*10^1208
> >
> > So, the smallest Infinity set are the Perfect Squares because there are 10^640 of Perfect Squares between 1 and 10^1208.
> >
>
> Sorry for that typo error should read 10^604 not 10^640 and corrected on original
>
> > Now, are the regular primes Infinite? Is the same as asking, are there 10^604 of them between 1 and 10^1208, and yes of course and we comprehend why Perfect Squares are the test Model case of the Minimum Infinite set cardinality.
> >
> > Between 1 and 10^607 are 10^604 regular primes
> >
> > Are the twin primes infinite set? Well, if memory serves me between 1 and 10^609 are 10^604 twin primes so they are infinite density.
> >
> > Are Fibonacci Primes Infinite? To be infinite we have to have a minimum density matching the Perfect Squares and the Fibonacci Primes
> >
> > The Perfect Squares in Grid system is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 so ten numbers in 100 Grid, whereas Fibonacci Primes is 2,3,5, 13, 89, 233, and so only five primes in 100 Grid and rapidly tapering off more to never be able to match our Measuring Rod of Density-- Perfect Squares, thus Fibonacci Primes is a FINITE Set.
> >
> > The Perfect Cubes is a FINITE Set as we easily see it cannot match the density of Perfect Squares.
> >
> > Now, what about the Green Tao Fake Prime Sequence Lengths, can it be INFINITE as Tao and Green boast about in their fakery.
> >
> > So, measuring the 5thru29, and I am assuming the only next string of significance is 199 thru 2089 in the 10^4 Grid. In Perfect Squares we have a length of 100 individual numbers. In Green Tao phony baloney they have a length of 10. So nowhere down the line of Prime Sequences will you ever match the MINIMUM count of Perfect Squares to entail being a Infinite set.
> >
> > It is time for Green and Tao to give back their -ill gotten Fields Medal for it is just outright plain nonsense fake math. For the corrupt MATH JOURNAL system is a pollution and blight and disease of Old Math, where you have old men lusting for fame and fortune-- Wiles, Hales, and no-one doing actual true mathematics.
> >
> > AP

So what are you going to do now, Archie? Delete all of your nonsensical posts
in this thread?

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 10:42:40 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:50:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
> > >
> > > Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
> > >
> > > Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
> > >
> > > 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
> > >
> > > The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
> > >
> > > Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
> > >
> > > Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
> > >
> > > Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
> > >
> > > Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
> > >
> > > And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
> > >
> > > And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210." We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
> > >
>
> Alright, I do not know nor have the time to dig into this.
>
> Question, the first String of Primes of any length is 5thru29, are there no strings of primes of any length until we reach 199 thru 2089. That would be the 10,000 Grid. The 5thru29 is the 100 Grid.
>
> Now in True Math, the way we prove something is INFINITE, is that we measure that something up against a density measure with the measuring stick of the Perfect Squares. The set of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, .....
>
> And the way this works is that the infinity borderline is 1*10^604, and its Completion with respect to Multiplication is a second borderline of 1*10^1208
>
> So, the smallest Infinity set are the Perfect Squares because there are 10^640 of Perfect Squares between 1 and 10^1208.
>

> Now, are the regular primes Infinite? Is the same as asking, are there 10^604 of them between 1 and 10^1208, and yes of course and we comprehend why Perfect Squares are the test Model case of the Minimum Infinite set cardinality.
>
> Between 1 and 10^607 are 10^604 regular primes
>
> Are the twin primes infinite set? Well, if memory serves me between 1 and 10^609 are 10^604 twin primes so they are infinite density.
>
> Are Fibonacci Primes Infinite? To be infinite we have to have a minimum density matching the Perfect Squares and the Fibonacci Primes
>
> The Perfect Squares in Grid system is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 so ten numbers in 100 Grid, whereas Fibonacci Primes is 2,3,5, 13, 89, 233, and so only five primes in 100 Grid and rapidly tapering off more to never be able to match our Measuring Rod of Density-- Perfect Squares, thus Fibonacci Primes is a FINITE Set.
>
> The Perfect Cubes is a FINITE Set as we easily see it cannot match the density of Perfect Squares.
>
> Now, what about the Green Tao Fake Prime Sequence Lengths, can it be INFINITE as Tao and Green boast about in their fakery.
>
> So, measuring the 5thru29, and I am assuming the only next string of significance is 199 thru 2089 in the 10^4 Grid. In Perfect Squares we have a length of 100 individual numbers. In Green Tao phony baloney they have a length of 10. So nowhere down the line of Prime Sequences will you ever match the MINIMUM count of Perfect Squares to entail being a Infinite set.
>
> It is time for Green and Tao to give back their -ill gotten Fields Medal for it is just outright plain nonsense fake math. For the corrupt MATH JOURNAL system is a pollution and blight and disease of Old Math, where you have old men lusting for fame and fortune-- Wiles, Hales, and no-one doing actual true mathematics.
>
> AP

Your idea of the "grid" is much like
other usual discrete systems.

For example, an atom is about 25 orders
of magnitude smaller than us. A superstring,
with the idea being even finer and more
granular than an atomic lattice is some
25 orders of magnitude smaller than an
atom. That's basically all a superstring
is, enough smaller than an atom than it is
to us, to have a smooth-yet-granular
background or substrate.

Somewhere in-between is the idea of the
Planck length after Max Planck. This
being though some "smallest" length of
a line segment has though the traditional
objection: that Pythagoras proves that
root two is ir-rational, so there cannot
be a grid-box of some smallest length
because root two ~ 1.414... has a
non-integer part, with there being
either no smallest length or no straight lines,
and we know a straight line is a shortest distance.

Tao is totally famous and has an excellent,
discursive style. Picking out prime
progressions as asymptotically going to
zero still has there's much to say about
their behavior and how is maintained in
numerical resources all their products and
factors. Here it seems AP would be talking
about the features of systems that are
effectively all the stars in the sky if
not infinite, that these same results are
so relevant, it's yet a qualitative (as it
were) instead of quantitative endeavor,
and just because there's the idea of how
to build these things and their results
in some eventually bounded (or his "bordered")
system, doesn't detract but must eventually
reconcile with the unbounded, because that's
the way it is.

So, AP, there are ways to go about modeling
"effectively infinite" systems and what
happens in the "smooth-yet-granular", but
while you're tilting at windmills it doesn't
make so much sense to call the highest of
the shoulder-climbers those same giants.

[Ross A. Finlayson]

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:04:17 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > So, AP, there are ways to go about modeling
> > "effectively infinite" systems and what
> > happens in the "smooth-yet-granular", but
> > while you're tilting at windmills it doesn't
> > make so much sense to call the highest of
> > the shoulder-climbers those same giants.
>

> So Ross in Seattle and Eastside in Delaware, both are not qualified to be in this discussion for both fail to state whether there is a sequence of interest between 5, 11, 17, 23, 29
>
> and 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089
>
> Do these sequences have jump gaps, huge jump gaps in between one significant sequence and then the next with nothing of interest in between.
>
> Do we have to wait until 199 to get a sequence of length 6
>
> Unless you do math in my threads, other than ad hominem-- Ross, Eastside.
>
> So answer the question, either one of you two clowns.

Tilt the wind-mill, AP!
Tilt the wind-mill!

Its vanes are orthogonal,
but they spin around. So,
see the grid from a tilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticSieve.html

Borel vs. combinatorics?

[gh...@ghost.ghost]

On 6/9/2018 4:11 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Ross at NNTP-Posting-Host: 97.113.39.197
>
> That is near Univ Washington Seattle.
>
> Answer the question Ross or should I ask those at UW

Why don't YOU answer Dan C's questions?

> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
>
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? ____________
>
> 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 ____________
>
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or
false).
>
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or
false).

[burs...@gmail.com]

Is 10^604 before or after conic sections become
oval and not ellipse? Ha Ha, AP brain farto, not
a single line of math for 25 years.

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018 23:42:27 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> So the very great error of Hales and all those who tried to solve the Kepler Packing is the idea that when you have Well Defined Infinity concept, means you have a infinity borderline. And once you realize infinity comes up from Finite with a borderwall. So in Kepler Packing, the hexagonal closed pack is most dense, but then, at the borderwall of infinity, there is "room to play" and so a purely hexagonal close pack is not the densest. We have all seen this in our lives. Where a box of oranges or limes and then you stack hexagonal closed pack but at the top, there is wiggle room to move things around and we briefly abandon the hex closed pack and do a different packing at the last and final row. Same thing with Kepler Proof, the main body of most dense packing is hexagonal closed pack, but becuase there is a Infinity border wall, we have room to play and we have to abandon hex closed pack for just a row or two and do a different type of packing on those last two rows to achieve the MOST DENSE packing.
>
> As for the Green Tao prime sequence lengths fakery, that is not as clear cut as Kepler Packing as to why a Infinity Border imposes such harsh demands. Weak minds like Green and Tao and their followers want to trespass immediately into-- beyond the border to pull their magic trick out of the hat. So the border is not imposing such harsh restrictions on prime sequences as the border imposed on Kepler Packing. But, in one sense, it is easier to see why the Green Tao fakery is so much a fake. For we instantly know that all Numbers are gradations --- levels of numbers before we get to infinity. Here I am speaking of Grid Numbers of integers only and where the last number is considered at each level, a -- pretend infinity --
>
> So for 10 Grid we immediately realize the biggest sequence is length 3, of 3,5,7
> In 100 Grid the biggest length is 5 with 5,11,17,23,29
> In 1000 Grid, I think the biggest length is still 5
> In 10,000 Grid do we move higher with a length of 10
>
> And as we keep going down the line of Grid Integers, we instantly see that nowhere close does the Length come to the Grid Number.
>
> So, at infinity border, no matter where that maybe, no matter, the Length of the longest prime sequence is a tiny tiny fraction of the Infinity border number. This is why Green and Tao and Hales with Kepler packing have nothing but math fakery to offer.
>
> They do not define INFINITY, yet use the concept as their own opinion. And they think they proved something in math by using a "opinion of what infinity is"
>
> Now, the real explorers of Prime Sequences has yet to appear on the scene. It is not me, for all I am going to do is call the battle cry alarm. For what Green and Tao did is math muck and fakery. What needs to be done is find a formula of math that sort of predicts the Length size of the largest string of primes given a Grid integer progression
>
> 10 Grid max length is 3
> 100 Grid max length is 5
> 1000 Grid max length is what 5 again?
> 10^4 Grid-- what is max length
> .
> .
> .
> 10^604 Grid-- what is max length
>
> That is what needs to be done and to trashcan the Green Tao fakery as a huge distraction.
>
> AP