This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 24)

[Paul Budnik uunet!mtnmath!paul]

In article <2b16cs$9...@galaxy.ucr.edu>, ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
> [...]
> If one wants to know why people make such a fuss about quantum gravity,
> one could not do better than to start here. There are many approaches
> to the project of reconciling quantum mechanics with gravity, all of
> them rather technical, but here Isham focuses on the "prima facie"
> questions that present themselves no matter *what* approach one uses.
> He even explains why we should study quantum gravity - a nontrivial
> question, given how difficult it has been and how little practical
> payoff there has been so far!
> [...]

Of course it is good to study and think about any problem. However it is
important to be realistic about what you are likely to accomplish and what
we understand now. One can get some perspective on this by keeping in mind
that this year's Nobel prize in physics was awarded for an experiment that
provided indirect evidence for gravitational waves. General relativity is
a theory whose validation is still in question and that is almost
certainly false in its predictions about singularities.

Quantum mechanics is the most accurately validated theory in history but
there are good reasons to doubt its accuracy at the scale where gravitational
effects become significant and reasons (nonlocal predictions) where some
doubt its predictions at ordinary time and distance scales.

History teaches us that physics is not possible without a combination of
experiment and theory. That does not mean that speculative and
philosophical ideas do not play an important role. It does mean that such
speculation cannot crystalize into physics without the help of
experimental results. It is difficult enough to do experiments to
effectively validate general relativity. Experiments to validate a theory
of quantum gravity are beyond any plausible near term technological
developments. This leads one to suspect that any study of quantum
gravity now is likely to be little more than a mathematical
exercise. It may be a fascinating exercise but it has no more
chance of producing physics than do the writers for Star Trek.

The real physics (the kind that stands the test of time) is
likely to come from focusing on experiments we can do in the near
term and theory that deals with these.

Paul Budnik

[Moderator's note: I posted this to sci.physics rather than
sci.physics.research as Paul had requested for a number of reasons that
should be obvious from the charter of s.p.r. - jb]

[Paul Budnik uunet!mtnmath!paul]

John Baez writes:

> [Moderator's note: I posted this to sci.physics rather than
> sci.physics.research as Paul had requested for a number of reasons that
> should be obvious from the charter of s.p.r. - jb]
>

The reasons are not obvious to me or I would not have posted it. I am
curious what you think they are. I do not recall that my article was
repetitive with things posted to s.p.r. It was hardly crackpot. It
was a strongly worded attack on the scientific judgement of anyone who
thinks they have much chance of creating physics that will stand the
test of time in an area as speculative and as far removed from experiment
as quantum gravity. I do not see how that can be construed as a personal
attack.

What is obvious is that is a violation of both the charter of s.p.r and
of netiquette to post an article submitted to s.p.r to an unmoderated
group with a `moderator's note' attached without the author's
permission.

It is hardly something you should be drawn and quartered for given
that you have promised not to do it again. It does suggest that your
evaluation of this article was as much emotional as objective. Perhaps
you should have a different moderator evaluate strongly worded articles
that take exception to your postings.

Paul Budnik

[john baez]

In article <1993Nov02....@mtnmath.UUCP> pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik uunet!mtnmath!paul) writes:
>John Baez writes:
>
>> [Moderator's note: I posted this to sci.physics rather than
>> sci.physics.research as Paul had requested for a number of reasons that
>> should be obvious from the charter of s.p.r. - jb]

>The reasons are not obvious to me or I would not have posted it. I am
>curious what you think they are. I do not recall that my article was
>repetitive with things posted to s.p.r. It was hardly crackpot. It
>was a strongly worded attack on the scientific judgement of anyone who
>thinks they have much chance of creating physics that will stand the
>test of time in an area as speculative and as far removed from experiment
>as quantum gravity. I do not see how that can be construed as a personal
>attack.

Rather than arguing about this, I propose that in the future I will pass
your articles on to someone else if they happen (with probability 1/4)
to come to me when you post to sci.physics.research, unless I feel they
deserve to be posted. While I still feel my reasons for not posting it
to s.p.r., were good, it is clearly impossible for me to be objective
about this. Passing it on to sci.physics was a clear mistake for which
I apologize.

>What is obvious is that is a violation of both the charter of s.p.r and
>of netiquette to post an article submitted to s.p.r to an unmoderated
>group with a `moderator's note' attached without the author's
>permission.

>It is hardly something you should be drawn and quartered for...

With great relief,
John Baez

[SCOTT I CHASE]

I'd like to ask others to comment upon Paul's complaint. My detailed
reply follows below his text. But I have a few general comments first:

I have come to believe that the moderation of s.p.r. has not been consistent
with the "lightly moderated" group which is described in the charter, and for
which I thought I was voting.

Lest this criticism be taken too personally by my friends, I want to add
that I think that they are doing a diligent and quality job, which few
would be willing to do. For that I thank them. But I think that some
change in strategy might be in order.

Without being able to site any specific examples right now, I can say
that it appears that the moderators have been overly quick to invoke
cloture, forcing threads into E-mail after only one or two exchanges,
and overly quick to reject articles in general. Overall, s.p.r., for
all its usefulness, has not become the group for which I had hoped.
And I am concerned that the moderation policy is partly responsible.

In article <1993Nov02....@mtnmath.UUCP>, pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik uunet!mtnmath!paul) writes...

>John Baez writes:
>
>> [Moderator's note: I posted this to sci.physics rather than
>> sci.physics.research as Paul had requested for a number of reasons that
>> should be obvious from the charter of s.p.r. - jb]
>>
>
>The reasons are not obvious to me or I would not have posted it. I am
>curious what you think they are. I do not recall that my article was
>repetitive with things posted to s.p.r. It was hardly crackpot. It
>was a strongly worded attack on the scientific judgement of anyone who
>thinks they have much chance of creating physics that will stand the
>test of time in an area as speculative and as far removed from experiment
>as quantum gravity. I do not see how that can be construed as a personal
>attack.

The part about how quantum gravity researchers are no more likely to do
good physics than the writers of Star Trek might be construed by some
to be an unnecessary slam. After all, such a comparison is not exactly
a cogent criticism of the physics involved.

That having been said, I think that John may have been too harsh in rejecting
your post on this basis. (Although he may have had other objections. I just
picked the one example that seemed the strongest to me.) He opened up
the discussion himself by bringing up the issue of why we should study
quantum gravity given the extreme difficulty and low payoff so far.

Your reply was directed, for the most part, at this issue. In fact, I
tend to agree that most of your criticisms are serious ones which anyone
working in the field needs to grapple with. It might have been more
appropriate if you had addressed *Isham's* arguments, to which JB
referred, rather than using the opening merely to get on the soapbox
and give your own opinion. But this, at least on USENET, is picking nits.
You are not required to conform to the highest standards of discussion
here.

After a close reading of the charter, I am inclined to say that if I
had made the decision, I would have allowed it. (On the other hand,
thank goodness I am *not* the moderator.) It is obviously related
to current physics research, is non-repetitive, and not "clearly
inappropriate." Given that the group is supposed to be "lightly
moderated," I think you were given unduly harsh treatment.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "The question seems to be of such a character
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV that if I should come to life after my death
and some mathematician were to tell me that it
had been definitely settled, I think I would
immediately drop dead again." - Vandiver

[Archimedes Plutonium]

SAVE// In AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, I discuss EM connections in series and in parallel. And I focus in on one sore contention, that as you wire in Parallel and add more resistors, the overall resistance goes down. This is counterintuitive.

However, I believe this is required when you see New Ohm's law as being V = CBE rather than V = CR. I have seen analogies to toll booths on highways to try to ease the discomfort of this counterintuitive. But a better explanation is that Old Physics Ohm's law V = CR is just plain wrong. When we include Resistance = Magnetic field X Electric field the parallel circuit with added resistors making overall resistance go down is now easily explained.

----Quoting from the web---
It is clear from observing the indicator bulbs in the above diagrams that the addition of more resistors causes the indicator bulb to get brighter. For parallel circuits, as the number of resistors increases, the overall current also increases. This increase in current is consistent with a decrease in overall resistance. Adding more resistors in a separate branch has the unexpected result of decreasing the overall resistance!
(snipped)
The Tollbooth Analogy
The effect of adding resistors is quite different if added in parallel compared to adding them in series. Adding more resistors in series means that there is more overall resistance; yet adding more resistors in parallel means that there is less overall resistance. The fact that one can add more resistors in parallel and produce less resistance is quite bothersome to many. An analogy may help to clarify the reason behind this initially bothersome truth.
--- end quoting from the Web ---

AP does not like counterintuitiveness in science. So whenever counterintuitive rears its ugly head, means there is probably something wrong in theory, or something missing in theory. And no analogy is going to rectify the problem, since it is a theory in error.

So it is my hunch that the "Decrease in overall resistance" is because Old Physics Ohm's law has V= CR when it really is V = CBE.

But it is late at night and will work on this tomorrow....

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So in Old Physics there Ohm's law was R = V/C while in New Physics we have resistance has two components of magnetic field B and electric field E where R= BE and thus BE = V/C. So in New Physics we have E = V/(CB) and we have B = V/(CE).

So can we begin to see that as you increase the number of resistors of B and E, you cause a decrease in R. Not quite yet.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP requires for John Baez to go to UC Riverside student newspaper publishing a apology, that he was a dumbo in thinking the slant cut in single cone was a ellipse, not realizing the single cone has just 1 axis of symmetry and thus, never possible to produce a ellipse, but the slant cut in cylinder is always a ellipse. So John needs to apologize to all those young students for his mindless geometry mistake.

Mind you, 2 cones connected in this manner <> can yield an ellipse at slant cut and is the reason I keep putting the phrase "single cone".

So John, grow up and be a real mathematician and admit your mistakes, just as you would grade students who make errors.


The 169th book of Science by AP// 4 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions, (4) dimensions.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:35:35 AM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
The 228th book of Science for AP// Harmonic series of Oresme corrected and where the numerical value of 0.5MeV for monopole comes from// by Archimedes Plutonium

> Decimal 10 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
> The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0
>
> Decimal 100 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
> The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.
>
> Decimal 1000 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
> The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.
>

Alright, so the curious argument I am going to make is that in the True Numbers of Mathematics, the Decimal Grid Numbers we have a amplification of numbers whose prefix digit is either 5 or 1 and being scale numbers

1, 10, 100, 1000, ....

or

5, 50, 500, 5000, .... only with the 5 prefix it is a bit more than all zero digits after the prefix 5.

In physics we need to explain why the Dirac Magnetic Monopole is 0.5MeV actually in experiments it is 0.51MeV, but since 0.5 and 0.51 are in 2% Sigma Error we can drop the 0.51 and use 0.5.

So we have the monopole at 0.5MeV and the proton at 840MeV with a muon inside of 105MeV totaling 945MeV within sigma error of 938MeV from experiments or the neutron at 940MeV, better yet in sigma error.

So I was not going to write a whole new book, unless I could connect and tie into physics and that is exactly what ended up.

We know the Pair Production requires a gamma ray of 1MeV to split in two particles of 0.5MeV of positron and of monopole.

So, another Physics explanation is that electricity and the magnetic monopole are the summation of all fractions of the EM spectrum of Waves. And, were the summation of all energies in a specific Grid is another value of the 5 prefix.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 2:37:50 AM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 10, 2022, 9:35:45 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
More to Add on this book:

Yes, so I need not have to write a new book on the fallacy of Old Math's divergence and convergence of series. When you have fake numbers for math, and you have fake ideas like continuum, and like the concept of infinity, you are bound to run into crazy conclusions. Crazy conclusions like that of adding up tiny numbers between 0 and 1 will lead to infinity itself. As if you ever more cut a cherry pie into smaller portions and then think of adding up all the tiny fractions that you will end up with a cherry pie larger than what you started with and a cherry pie that stretches to infinity, all from tiny little pieces. Here the Old Math mathematicians went off the cliff of crazy math in a big glorious manner.

In New Math, the only true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers, and these are discrete numbers meaning empty space in between one number and the next number. The smallest Decimal Grid System is the 10 Grid and it has exactly ten decimal fractions of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, .. 0.9, 1.0 if we count 1 as a fraction and never count 0 as a decimal fraction.

So for small fraction numbers in 10 Grid we have just 10 numbers to add and that sum is 1.45.

And 1.45 is not a 10 Grid number but a 100 Grid Number. But, 1.45 is in between 1.4 and 1.5.

So here we define Convergence and Divergence for 10 Decimal Grid as being convergence when the sum is a number that exists in 10 Grid or is a number between x and x+0.1 in 10 Decimal Grid where both x and x+0.1 are in 10 Grid. We define Divergence as the sum goes beyond the largest number in the Grid system which is 10 and we view 10 as being infinity borderline so if we add up all the numbers of whole numbers they lie beyond 10 and so that sequence diverges. Or adding up all the numbers from 1.0 to 2.0 diverges to infinity in 10 Grid for it is larger than 10. Notice we do not have to bother with beyond microinfinity in 10 Grid for that is 0.1, for in series we add and the smallest we can add is 0.1+0.1.

You see Old Math never defined what the hell does the concept infinity mean? And in New Math, infinity means a borderline between finite numbers and infinite numbers. Using the Huygens tractrix we nail down, or locate this borderline as being 1*10^604 and for microinfinity the inverse 1*10^-604. Any number larger than 1*10^604 or smaller than 1*10^-604 are infinite numbers and not belonging to mathematics. Yes, I mean what I say, we have departed mathematics when we deal with infinite numbers in the 10^604 Grid. Our conclusions of mathematics are no longer deduction conclusions but probability conclusions. For it is fair to say that mathematics as a science starts to breakdown in the infinite numbers.

So we play a pretend game with 10 Grid that 0.1 is microinfinity and 10 is macroinfinity.

Now we see in every Grid system from 10 to 10^604 that adding up the Fractions in that system all Converge.

And this makes absolute commonsense in Math and Physics for we want not to break Conservation laws in physics the conservation laws of energy which our cherry pie cut into smaller and smaller fractions then adding up all these small fractions, ends up being, in Old Math, larger than infinity.

Now we proven that the sum of all fractions in 10 Grid converges, and by math induction prove that all Decimal Grid Systems converge of their fractions.

The TAKEAWAY--

The takeaway in all of this is that Old Math had several opportunities to see it was all flawed and needed massive overhaul. Old Math could not do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, should have alerted everyone in Old Math starting with Newton and Leibniz that Old Math was terribly flawed. Old Math could not understand that in Physics it is all discrete and no continuum-- yet the idiots of Old Math ignored quantum mechanics and ventured into more and more absurdities of Cauchy limit analysis in calculus, of Cantor infinities, of continuum hypothesis with Cohen.

Add another to that list of absurdities is the Oresme divergence of fractions, which I just discussed and informally proven Oresme wrong.

No, AP needs not have to write a whole new book on the Oresme divergence of fractions in a sequence, for AP just needs to include this post in his Mathopedia causing there to be 77 huge mistakes and errors and flaws of Old Math.

Thanks, I seemed to have forgotten that the Harmonic series does in fact Converge and needs be added to Mathopedia.
>
> Oresme obviously had not the true numbers of mathematics of Decimal Grid Numbers, instead he had the mindless ignorant Reals with its poppycock continuum, the worst hidden assumption in centuries of mathematics.
>
> When you realize the true numbers of mathematic are Discrete and decimal Grid Numbers then the harmonic series always converges.
>
> The mindless divergence of Harmonic series is a math proof of how banal kooks can become even more banal, and enjoy it.
>
> This would be Mathopedia's 77th fake math.
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 76 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Preface:
> A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
>
> The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
>
> The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
>
> Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
>
> I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
>
> ----------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ----------------------------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
> 3) Appendix
>
> ---------
> Text
> ---------
>
> 1) Introduction
>
>
> 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 because it has this "peak of calculus", 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 to its peak of calculus understanding. Mathematics is finished complete as far as a science goes because the peak of math is going nowhere. And even though Physics will find new science such as how the proton toruses inside of atoms are configured in geometry, the geometry and calculus used in that configuration, that new science does not change nor does it create or require a new math peak/summit to handle the new physics.
>
> 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 partial form 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.
>
> The listings in Mathopedia of errors, mistakes and fakes is based on the idea that Calculus is the supreme achievement of all of mathematics for it is the essential math of doing Physics electricity and magnetism. And in order to have a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, we must clean up and clean out all the mistakes, fakes and errors of Old Math, erstwhile, we have no Calculus. So calculus is the consistency maker for the rest of all of mathematics.
>
>
>
> 2) List of 76 errors, mistakes and fakes of Old Math.
>
>
> 1) Calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, a proof that derivative and integral are inverses of one another, just as addition and subtraction are inverses, or, multiplication and division are inverses. The only way to obtain a geometry proof is to clean up and clean out all the fakes, mistakes and errors of Old Math, such as their fake numbers-- the Reals. Their fake definition of function allowing anything be a function. Their fakery of a continuum when even physics by 1900 with Planck onwards in Quantum Mechanics proving the Universe is discrete Space not a continuum, yet by 1900 onwards those in mathematics following the idiotic continuum in the Continuum Hypothesis with even more avid interest, when they should have thrown the continuum on a trashpile of shame.
>
> 2) The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers, because you have to need and apply one mechanism only to obtain the true numbers of mathematics-- Mathematical Induction. In Old Math they had just a tiny few intelligent mathematicians, Kronecker, who emerged from the gaggle crowd of kooks to notice that Naturals all come from one single mechanism-- Mathematical Induction. But Old Math never had a crowd of mathematicians with logical brains to say-- all our numbers need to come from the one mechanism of Mathematical Induction.
>
> 3) The true numbers of math have empty space between successor and predecessor numbers. For example the 10 Grid is 0, .1, .2, .3, . . . , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0. Where no numbers exist between .1 and .2, etc. Only discrete numbers allow us to give a proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
>
> 4) All functions of mathematics must be a polynomial, and if not a polynomial, convert the offering to a polynomial over a specific interval.
>
> Where is that stupid thread in sci.math, poising as a puzzle problem when it had no functions only pretend functions?
>
> A few days back, 11Aug2021 appeared a stupid puzzle problem here in sci.math. Of someone pretending he had 3, 4 even 5 or 6 functions and wanting to prove equality.
>
> Then I stepped into the conversation saying he had no functions at all, until they are converted into polynomials over a specified interval, then you can do calculus on those true real functions.
>
> So, the world wide math community has got to begin to learn, no function is a function, until, and unless they are polynomials. This is an axiom of math and is proven true by the geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. You cannot have a FTC, if you have functions that are not polynomials.
>
> So there is a trade off-- does math want calculus or no calculus? If you want calculus, all your functions have to be polynomials. This has to do with the concept of discrete geometry, not a continuum, for polynomials are discrete.
>
> 5) Space is discrete and all lines in space are strings of attached straight lines.
>
> 6) No curves exist in Geometry, only finer and smaller straight line segments attached to one another.
> We can still keep the name "curve" as long as we know it is a string of fine tiny straightline segments strung together in what looks like a smooth curve. If curves exist, then the Calculus in Fundamental Theorem of Calculus cannot be proven and thus Calculus does not exist. We all know that we have to have Calculus, and so we throw out onto the trash pile the curve of Old Math. And this is reasonable because starting in 1900 in physics there arose the Quantum Mechanics of Space being discrete. And a discrete space has no continuum, has no curve of Old Math.
>
>
> 7) 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.
>
> 8) Limit analysis was an insane fakery in Old Math, concocted because Old Math needed the excuse of some proof, so they invented the monster con-artist trick that a limit analysis would divert the fact it is no proof at all, but a Non Sequitur argument. Limit analysis is juju totem witchcraft dance around a desire to prove the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Just as idiotic as dancing around a sick person of a virus is going to cure the person.
>
> 9) 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.
>
> 10) 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.
>
> 11) 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.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 1:50:22 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I caught myself in a huge mistake below. Only now did I catch myself for the sum of 0.1+0.2, +.. ,+ 0.9 +1. is not the paltry 1.45 but is the 5.5. I caught that mistake just now in figuring out the fraction summation in 100 Grid and remembering how Gauss computed that as 101 x 50 would be 50.50 which if true, and I made no further mistake would suggest that 1000 Grid would be coming further down in value than is 50.50.

This would suggest that 1000 Grid fractions would be 1001x50 = 50.050. Bringing the total down more than 100 and 10 grids as a percentage of the assumed macroinfinity of those Grids.

So if true would mean a convergence of the fractions the higher the Grid we go. But too tired to compute


> AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 11:43:44 AM (15 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, more mistakes until I am in the clear. The 1000 Grid would be 1001 x 500 = 500.5 and not 50.05.

When the True Numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid numbers what we have is that the Fractions are all concentrated between 0 and 1. There is no Oresme open ended fractions to infinity. There is just a finite set of fractions.

Here is a synopsis of the first three Decimal Grid systems, 10, 100, 1000.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

Now, in the True Numbers of mathematics, the decimal Grid Numbers we do not come upon a fraction of 2/3 until about the 100 Grid with 0.66 and made more sharper in 1000 Grid with 0.666 and more sharper in 10000 Grid with 0.6666, etc.

In Old Math, they were brainwashed by Reals, where they had infinite supply (ill-defined infinity) of Fractions all the time.

So that Physicists could actually prove the Old Math mathematician was a numbskull, saying to the Old Math mathematician. Look, if you have an infinite supply of fractions all the time you violate the Conservation Laws of Physics with your fractions summing up more than infinity itself.

In New Math, we have the Fractions summed up in any Decimal Grid System as being no-more than a little over 1/2 the largest number in that system, so that 5.5 is a little over 1/2 of 10, and 50.5 is a little over 1/2 of 100, etc. So we also see that a convergence of Fractions to a little over 1/2 of the value of the largest number in that specific Decimal Grid System.

Now, this add-on to my book Mathopedia, need not be a full new book, provided and unless the recurring number sequence of 5.5 , 50.5, 500.5, .... does not show up as any Important Constant of Physics. If it shows up as a important constant of physics, then I am obliged and forced to write a whole new separate book on this topic.

In physics I would start or begin to look at the magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV. Several experiments have placed that value at 0.510 MeV.

If I can tie together the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.510MeV with the summation of Fractions of Decimal Grid Systems, then I am forced to write a whole new book on this topic.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 8:26:30 PM (6 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now the Sigma Error of 0.51 to 0.5 is 2% and that is easily acceptable. So I will make an enter new book on the Harmonic series Oresme fakery and the AP decimal Grid Numbers convergence of all fractions in mathematics.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 11, 2022, 11:18:35 PM (3 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:25:55 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now the Sigma Error of 0.51 to 0.5 is 2% and that is easily acceptable. So I will make an enter new book on the Harmonic series Oresme fakery and the AP decimal Grid Numbers convergence of all fractions in mathematics.
>

Yes, I am going to make the arguement that the EM spectrum of which the magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV are a part of, that the number 0.5MeV for Dirac magnetic monopole is a summation of fractional EM waves.

As I pointed out-- the first three Decimal Grid Systems converges to the summation of all the possible fraction values-- those between 0 and 1, including 1 itself, converges to approx, 5, 50, 500, 5000, etc etc.

For many years I was troubled in seeing where a 0.5MeV comes from for the monopole. No trouble in seeing that the muon is 105MeV and proton is 840MeV with proton+muon = 945MeV. No trouble in seeing where those number values come from.

A massive problem in seeing where 0.5MeV comes from.

But also, besides the Summation of fractional energies in the EM spectrum is the 1MeV particle, the gamma ray with 1MeV that decays in Pair Production to two 0.5MeV particles. And of course 1 is the units value. And we can see this sequence in the Decimal Grid System sequences,

10 Grid is of course 10
100 Grid is of course 100 etc

Just as the 5's sequence of summation fractions, 5, 50, 500, 5,000 etc.

These are values of physics, values in motion, but consistently forming around 1 and 0.5.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 12:25:51 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now this certainly should be the case of when a person has the true numbers of mathematics, that the summation of all the small numbers then the summation of all the numbers would have the very same "prefix" of 5 digit value.
What I speak of, is the idea that the microscopic world of atoms and because the Universe the macroscopic world is one big atom itself that both should have the digit value be the same-- 5 digit value. And this is the case in Decimal Grid Systems, see below.

-Decimal 10 Grid
-The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
-The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 12, 2022, 9:41:13 PM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

One of the most beautiful exquisite tests of the CONSISTENCY OF MATHEMATICS, rivaling the test of geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

When Old Math cannot ever do a geometry proof of FTC, because it has to throw out the Reals, has to throw out continuum, has to throw out "ill defined infinity", has to well define function as being only polynomial functions and every other type has to convert into a polynomial. Is one TEST of consistency, because without the throwing out of garbage worthless mess of Old Math, you have no calculus at all.

But now, AP has found an even far far easier test of the Inconsistency of Old Math. It comes from series and especially the fake proof of Oresme with his Reals, his ill-defined infinite, his continuum.

SECOND TEST OF CONSISTENCY OF OLD MATH SHOWING OLD MATH to be a cesspool garbage of shit. Sorry for the harsh terms but in science they are needed as a slap in the face of ignorant people brainwashed by Old Math and continue to propagandize and brain wash young students.

SECOND TEST:

The second test merely notes that a Sound and Logical and Consistent Mathematics requires the Small Numbers to summation be containing only the DIGITS that the summation of all the numbers of math has. So when we add up all the Small Numbers in any Decimal Grid System there are only two digits involved the digit 0 and the digit 5, and no others. This tells us that Reals are a cesspool bag of shit. This tells us that the Decimal Grid Numbers are the only valid logical numbers to compose mathematics.

Decimal 10 Grid

The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

Now I should extend this analysis to include only the digits, 1, 0 and 5. And I have to define specifically what is meant by Small Number of a specific Decimal Grid System. A Small Number is one that exists and lies between 0 and 1 and includes 1 but not 0.

So in Old Math, those fools could never list all their numbers, never list all the numbers between any two numbers. Ask a idiot of Old Math to list all the numbers of Reals between 0 and 1 and the magnanmous fool cannot. He/she tries to get away with a list of about 6 numbers and then waves his hand as pretending that 6 suggests all the rest. Most of Old Math is what is commonly called in Logic as "hand waving".

In New Math, we define the true numbers as Decimal Grid Numbers and we define Small numbers as those that lie between 0 and 1, including 1 but not including 0.

We find that, thus, 1,0,5 are the only digits needed for sums of Small numbers, sums of all the numbers.

And this is not a coincidence that 1,5,0 are the digits needed, for to be a Consistent Mathematics demands the summation of small numbers directly related to summation of all the numbers.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 14, 2022, 2:39:20 AM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Sorry, I was busy revising my FIRST LIFE = Capacitor book and could not discuss my recent magnificent discovery in math that of a 2nd Consistency Test. But now have the time to discuss it.

Old Math never had Consistency tests. There was much talk, but never any actual consistency tests.

The greatest test of Consistency in Old Math was to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Of course there was never any valid proof of FTC in Old Math and their silly "limit analysis" is a pack of shit (sorry but that is the only way of getting attention to brainwashed math professors). Old Math never had a valid proof of FTC, they had limit analysis, analyze this analyze that, and analysis is never a proof. From Leibniz and Newton onwards, no-one had the logical brains to realize Calculus is geometry and required a geometry proof.

A limit analysis is not a proof but simply analyzing things. If I analyze a bee flying on a flower, I am not proving anything, yet this is how monsterously silly Old Math was for proving FTC. Analyzing yet not proving.

To prove geometrically FTC, requires you to throw out the Reals, to throw out the Continuum, to Modify what infinity means, to allow only Polynomial functions and no other type of function (if not polynomial, you must convert to polynomial before your piece of crap function is allowed in mathematics, to throw out all quadrants except 1st Quadrant only.

By doing all that throwing out, you thence can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

So that was Math's first and most spectacular Consistency Proof-- do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for it requires you to clean out the entire house of the decayed rotten Old Math.

But there was a more simple streamlined proof of the Consistency and lack thereof in Old Math. This second Consistency Proof takes a look at the Oresme obnoxious alleged proof that the Harmonic series diverges. Meaning that in Old Math, they believed fractions added up can exceed Infinity. Yes, hold your breathe before laughing. In Old Math they thought 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + .... + 1/n will exceed Infinity.

I did a book in Paleontology saying that the most ludicrous most laughable mistake that science ever endured and took serious was the sabre toothed tiger, never realizing that the teeth were from a walrus that the normal tiger preyed upon.

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? // Was the 4 tusked Gomphothere the 2nd joke? Paleontology series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

But here in Old Math, I could just as easily write a book on how laughably crazy are math professors who believed that adding up 1 + 1/2 + 1/3+ .... + 1/n diverges and exceeds infinity.

Which was the worst academic idiot? The paleontologist who could not fathom the walrus tooth laying by a tiger fossil was a different animal. Or the crazy math professor lecturing how small numbers, all smaller than 1 when added up exceed infinity.

We can all see why the Paleontology wants the story of a tiger with enormous teeth because that would rake rake rake in money. But no one can see why the idiot math professor wants to teach Harmonic series sums to infinity.

In my recent posts I showed that the true numbers of mathematics are Decimal Grid Numbers and that causes there to be this.

14) Of course the Calculus geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is a superb test of Consistency of Old Math. Testing whether the (1) numbers used are correct, (2) functions used are correct, (3) infinity correct, (4) continuum or discrete correct. Either all those elements to make a geometry proof of FTC are correct or we have to abandon calculus.

But there is a far more simple and easy measure of Consistency of Old Math numbers coming from the concept of Series addition sums. A far more easy test and it started with Oresme with a fake proof that the Series of small numbers of math, the fractions between 0 and 1 can sum up to be more than infinity itself. Imagine that for a moment, small numbers eclipsing the value of infinity. It defies imagination much like saying you can get energy from a vacuum to run a electric motor in physics.

What went wrong here is that Reals were never the true numbers of mathematics and Old Math had a screwed-up understanding of infinity, for Old Math never had a borderline between what is infinite and what is finite.


One of the most beautiful exquisite tests of the Consistency of Mathematics, rivaling the test of geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

When Old Math cannot ever do a geometry proof of FTC, because it has to throw out the Reals, has to throw out continuum, has to throw out "ill defined infinity", has to well define function as being only polynomial functions and every other type of so-called-function has to convert into a polynomial first before it is a function. Is one test of consistency, because without the throwing out of garbage worthless mess of Old Math, you have no calculus at all.

But now, AP has found an even far far easier test of the Inconsistency of Old Math. It comes from series and especially the fake proof by Oresme with his Reals, his ill-defined infinite, his continuum.

Second test of Consistency of Old Math showing Old Math to be a cesspool garbage. Sorry for the harsh terms but in science they are needed as a slap in the face of ignorant people brainwashed by Old Math and continue to propagandize and brain wash young students.

Second Test:

The second test merely notes that a Sound and Logical and Consistent Mathematics requires the Small Numbers to summation be containing only the DIGITS that the summation of all the numbers of math has. So when we add up all the Small Numbers in any Decimal Grid System there are only two digits involved for an answer, the digit 0 and the digit 5, and no others. Indicating that the Small Numbers are directly related to the sum total of all numbers. This tells us that Reals are a cesspool. This tells us that the Decimal Grid Numbers are the only valid logical numbers to compose mathematics.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.


Now I should extend this analysis to include only the digits, 1, 0 and 5. And I have to define specifically what is meant by Small Number of a specific Decimal Grid System. A Small Number is one that exists and lies between 0 and 1 and includes 1 but not 0.

So in Old Math, they could never list all their numbers, never list all the numbers between any two numbers. Ask a fool of Old Math to list all the numbers of Reals between 0 and 1 and the magnanimous fool cannot. He/she tries to get away with a list of about 6 numbers and then waves his hand as pretending that 6 suggests all the rest. Most of Old Math is what is commonly called in Logic as "hand waving".


In New Math, we define the true numbers as Decimal Grid Numbers and we define Small numbers as those that lie between 0 and 1, including 1 but not including 0.

We find that, thus, 1,0,5 are the only digits needed for sums of Small numbers, sums of all the numbers.

And this is not a coincidence that 1,5,0 are the digits needed, for to be a Consistent Mathematics demands the summation of small numbers directly related to summation of all the numbers.

AP is exploring the fact that the rest energy of the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV, what Old Physics thought was the electron of atoms, but turns out the muon is the true electron of atoms at 105MeV rest mass. So this idea of the Series sum of all fractions is always of a form value involving just digits 5 and 0 is investigated further.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 14, 2022, 1:51:06 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, far far more on this CONSISTENCY Test of Old Math and Old Math really stinks for you have to throw out Reals, continuum, their dumb and stupid notion of infinity, their -- everything qualifies as a function (only polynomials are functions in true math) their mindless negative numbers and 4 quadrants when only 1st Quadrant exists.

So in Old Math, no-one is able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Simply impossible with all the fakery and junk and errors of Old Math. You have to clean out all the trash of Old Math before you can even get started on a geometry proof of FTC.

And Old Math felt the symptoms of their nauseous and banal corruption of the truth of mathematics, for they had to come up with some form of proof of FTC, seeing that they could not have a geometry proof. So what happened, in the 1800s a Frenchman named Cauchy invented the obnoxious and worthless Limit Analysis, preaching that making an analysis is the same as proving FTC. And only the people who take mathematics for "getting a grade" but never learning the truth of calculus buy into that nonsense of a Limit analysis.

For the smart students of math realized almost immediately that Cauchy's obnoxious and error filled limit analysis was saying that a rectangle of 0 width has interior area, defying what we all know that 0 times anything is still 0. For Old Math calculus was summing up rectangles -- all of which were 0 width.

But, but, there is a Geometry proof of FTC provided we clean up many errors of Old Math. One of those huge errors is this notion of the Reals as Numbers, for they are a collection bag of hobbled and cobbled together trash for numbers. You can never tell how many fractions exist between 0 and 1, and Oresme came up with a thoroughly obnoxious error filled proof (fakery spelled in capital letters) Oresme thought he proved that if you add up just the Harmonic series 1+1/2 + 1/3 + ... +1/n+.... That this series of smallest of the numbers on the number line, that Oresme and all later borne mathematicians thought they proved that these small numbers add up to larger than infinity itself. I mean, talk about dunce idiots of mathematics. We all thought the idiots of physics were ones who proclaimed that they could power their electric car from the electricity of a battery out of a lemon. Well, here in mathematics, math professors believe that the Tiny numbers of math add up to more than infinity.

But AP shows us that Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics and in the first three decimal Grid Systems which is a proof by math induction that the smallest numbers when added up equal a tiny tiny bit more than a value of half of infinity for in 10 Grid 10 is the borderline to infinity and the sum of fractions is 5.5, about halfway.


Decimal 10 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0

Decimal 100 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.

Decimal 1000 Grid
The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.


SO THIS TEST OF TRUE MATHEMATICS NUMBERS, is a test that reveals, the total sum of fractions, smallest numbers must be directly related to the total sum of numbers in a Decimal Grid System. Notice the fractions have only the digits 5 and 0 as well as the Total Sum of numbers in a specific Grid System. That is the DIRECT RELATIONSHIP, the mirror image. that the Sum of Fractions reflects the Sum of all the Numbers, for both have only digits of 5 and 0.

But today I want to talk more about the Consistency of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and combined with this Test of summation of Series of Fractions. I want to combine the two tests of Consistency.

In the Geometry proof of FTC, we are required a Midpoint between intervals, so for 10 Decimal Grid System we have these numbers to contend with. We are required of the midpoints for that is how the Derivative is constructed geometrically by reforming the rectangle in the interval at its midpoint and lifting up the right-triangle whose vertex is where the derivative lands on.

0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, . . . 0.9, 0.95, 1.0, 1.05, 1.1, ...... 10

Now, those midpoints of intervals do not exist in 10 Grid, no, they exist in 100 Grid, the next higher level Grid System.

But, if we are doing Calculus and using 10 Grid, we are forced to borrow from the 100 grid those midpoints.

If we deal only with 10 Grid strictly, our Series sum is exactly 5.5.

But, now if we add up all the midpoints we have another value of 5.0 exactly

And if we add 5.5 with 5.0 we get a number that is beyond the last finite number in Decimal 10 Grid. We get 10.5, an infinity number within the 10 Grid.

We find that all the other Decimal Grid Systems when summing their Midpoints in Intervals add up to Half of the value of the Grid System working in.

Now this requires careful interpretation, very careful interpretation. If the sum had been 10 outright for 10 Grid and not 10.5, the interpretation would have been immediate, that the sum of the smallest numbers and their midpoint add up to the largest finite number of that Grid system. Unfortunately it adds up to a tiny bit more. Of course we we get to the 10^604 Grid, the summation of fractions and midpoint CONVERGES to the largest finite number of that Grid System.

So in 10 Grid, there is the ominious sum of 10.5 but in 10^604 Grid the summ is virtually the same as the number 1*10^604 itself as we see that tiny dribble spill leftover of a "5 digit".

What I am saying here, is that the TRUE NUMBERS OF MATHEMATICS have to mirror reflect its smallest numbers with the total set of numbers. Reals cannot do any of this because Reals are a "bag of shit".

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:04 AM (18 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 1:38:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, far far more on this CONSISTENCY Test of Old Math and Old Math really stinks for you have to throw out Reals, continuum, their dumb and stupid notion of infinity, their -- everything qualifies as a function (only polynomials are functions in true math) their mindless negative numbers and 4 quadrants when only 1st Quadrant exists.
>
> So in Old Math, no-one is able to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Simply impossible with all the fakery and junk and errors of Old Math. You have to clean out all the trash of Old Math before you can even get started on a geometry proof of FTC.
>
> And Old Math felt the symptoms of their nauseous and banal corruption of the truth of mathematics, for they had to come up with some form of proof of FTC, seeing that they could not have a geometry proof. So what happened, in the 1800s a Frenchman named Cauchy invented the obnoxious and worthless Limit Analysis, preaching that making an analysis is the same as proving FTC. And only the people who take mathematics for "getting a grade" but never learning the truth of calculus buy into that nonsense of a Limit analysis.
>
> For the smart students of math realized almost immediately that Cauchy's obnoxious and error filled limit analysis was saying that a rectangle of 0 width has interior area, defying what we all know that 0 times anything is still 0.
>
> But, but, there is a Geometry proof of FTC provided we clean up many errors of Old Math. One of those huge errors is this notion of the Reals as Numbers, for they are a collection bag of hobbled and cobbled together trash for numbers. You can never tell how many fractions exist between 0 and 1, and Oresme came up with a thoroughly obnoxious error filled proof (fakery spelled in capital letters) Oresme thought he proved that if you add up just the Harmonic series 1+1/2 + 1/3 + ... +1/n+.... That this series of smallest of the numbers on the number line, that Oresme and all later borne mathematicians thought they proved that these small numbers add up to larger than infinity itself. I mean, talk about dunce idiots of mathematics.
>
> But AP shows us that Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics and in the first three decimal Grid Systems which is a proof by math induction that the smallest numbers when added up equal a tiny tiny bit more than a value of half of infinity for in 10 Grid 10 is the borderline to infinity and the sum of fractions is 5.5, about halfway.
> Decimal 10 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.1+0.2+..+0.9+1.0 in 10 Grid is 5.5
> The summation of all numbers of 10 Grid is 101x5.0= 505.0
>
> Decimal 100 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.01+0.02+..+0.99+1.0 in 100 Grid is 50.5
> The summation of all numbers of 100 Grid is 10001x50.= 500050.
>
> Decimal 1000 Grid
> The summation of all Fractions 0.001+0.002+..+0.999+1.0 in 1000 Grid is 500.5
> The summation of all numbers of 1000 Grid is 1000001x500.= 500000500.

I am slow to interpret this of Summation of Small Numbers with Midpoints.

It would be a easy interpretation if the sum were to equal the last finite number in value but for 10 Grid that sum is 10.5, for 100 Grid that sum is 100.5, for 1000 Grid that sum is 1000.5, for 10^604 Grid that sum is ---- add on a 0.5.

In this sense we can say the Sum of Fractions plus Midpoints is the value of the largest finite number plus tack on a 0.5.

Now I been thinking on this all day long, on and off. And one idea is that a 0.5, is the starting midpoint of the First Infinity Number Interval. Here I have flashbacks to the 1990s where I wasted so much time on P-adics. But here, perhaps, this 0.5 tack on is somehow the first number for Infinite Numbers, sort of like the P-adics going around in a circle, a circuit and coming to -2 which is 9999... 9998 then -1 which is 9999.....99999 and finally 0 and then 0.5 for a new p-adic circuit. Of course, in new true mathematics p-adics and negative numbers are nonexistent.

Anyway, if I fail to make any better of an explanation or interpretation than this, I still have succeeded in showing that the Reals are fake numbers because they are impossible to relate their small numbers with their total numbers.

Decimal Grid System as the true numbers of mathematics, directly relates all the numbers between 0 and 1 and the final largest finite number in that specific Grid System.

And, the most interesting part of this story is a direct link up to physics and the Dirac magnetic monopole of 0.5MeV, of course the gamma ray of 1MeV that in Pair production creates the positron and the antipositron (careful, it is not the electron, for that is the muon).

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
7:04 PM (now)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I am going to push this book up as being my 169th published book of Science, for I have enough material already to publish. So instead of being 228th, it now becomes 169th.

And the title should be 3 TESTS of Consistency of Mathematics (1) calculus (2) harmonic series (3) valid functions.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 15, 2022, 7:44:38 PM (6 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I discussed in length the primal greatest consistency test of Old Math-- was-- can it give a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?? And the resounding answer was-- not unless you throw out the Reals, all functions but polynomials, all numbers except for Decimal Grid Numbers, throw out continuum and its stupid silly limit analysis, throw out all negative numbers and all quadrants except for 1st Quadrant Only, throw out the silly nondefinition of infinity.

My, a lot of throwing out of trash of Old Math.

Then a second consistency test arises in Old Math having to do with the Oresme fakery of a harmonic series diverges. Imagine the ludicrousness of thinking very small tiny numbers can exceed infinity. The resolution of Series of small numbers is obtained by noting that the True numbers in mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. And once you accept these as the true numbers of mathematics, you no longer have the absurd result of Small Numbers added up exceeds infinity.

Now I need a 3rd Test of Consistency of Old Math. A test involving what are valid functions. Throughout Old Math, we see a history of utter lousy logic applied or worse yet, no logic at all. In the history of mathematics, shows a pattern of "acceptance of everything that comes down the road" and never a logical interrogation. Never a test of logic as can be seen by the numbers in Old Math, for even as late as the 20th century we have con-artists with "new silly and stupid numbers" the surreals. And the whole of the numbers of Old Math were a hobgoblin collection of bags of numbers-- junk numbers all accepted and tossed into a huge pile called Reals, and as if that was not good enough to collect trash, they invented complex and p-adics and more.

Where the truth be known, math had only one set of true numbers all along-- Decimal Grid Numbers.

So in this third test of Old Math we examine up close the polynomial functions. And compare them to all the other functions.

Comparing is a form of Consistency testing.

And we quickly note something hugely, hugely important about polynomial functions. Something I learned in college freshman calculus at Univ Cincinnati in 1968. Something I marveled at, and something I held dear, even to this day.

For when you take calculus and doing the derivative or the integral, there is one function and one function type only that is supereasy to solve. Supereasy to solve over all other functions. (And this so much reminds me now of how I solved the unification of the 4 forces of physics-- pick out the one force that is the most perfect force, and then the other 3 forces have to be a form of that perfect force-- the EM force)

Here in math calculus, there is one form of function that is a perfect form for its derivative and integral all follow a simple Power Rule. And once you learned the Power Rule, you never have any trouble with derivative or integral.

So, well, the polynomial functions are the easiest functions as a class of functions to do calculus. This implies that all other functions are likely to be fake functions, until they are turned into polynomials over a prescribed interval.

And there is another beautiful feature of polynomial functions. They are such that you can take a few coordinate points on a graph and turn them into a polynomial function called the Lagrange transform.

Now we ask, do any other class of functions have a transform to turn all other different types of function into this type? The answer is no. Only the polynomial functions have a built in feature of turning any other function into a polynomial.

And now, finally, we have to ask, is the Polynomial function the only valid function and what is its relationship to the Decimal Grid Numbers?

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 15, 2022, 9:48:18 PM (6 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So here now, I have not dug deep into whether the Polynomials as functions, the only valid functions is intimately related to Decimal Grid Numbers with their holes and gaps in between one number and the next number. A straight line in 1st Quadrant Only is a polynomial function and does a straight line need and require discrete numbers?

I have not proven that, but I have proven the geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. With that proof of FTC, then I can safely say, that Polynomial functions require a Discrete Number System.

And I should not have been the only mathematician in the world in 1968 to notice the ease with which polynomials did all of calculus. That if we threw onto the trashpile every function except polynomials, the world of mathematics would be a thousand times better off. I should have not been the only mathematician to see the absolute ease with which polynomials glide through calculus. And this is alarming because the entire rest of the math community was making mathematics a higher and higher trash pile. As the teenager saying goes of math professors PhD, piled higher and deeper.

The ease, utter utter ease of derivative and integral of a polynomial function, yet only AP notices this in 1968. And the utter agony of doing derivatives or integrals of so called other functions that are not polynomials.

And again, the fact that their is a Transform, the Lagrange transform of turning any coordinate points into a polynomial function, yet nothing for other types of functions, should have been clear to everyone in math who does math as a career, that something is peculiar with polynomials as being special. So special they are the only Valid Functions.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 16, 2022, 3:17:31 PM (5 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let us make it 4 TESTS of consistency, and this is likely to be the easiest test, even far more easy than that of harmonic series testing of consistency. Because in this test we simply note that 3rd dimension covers all of geometry. There is no 4th dimension or higher.

This test covers the need for Calculus to be 1st Quadrant Only, and no 4 quadrants in 2nd dimension, with no negative numbers. Of course the delusional Complex numbers with Imaginary numbers are the furthest reach into insanity. And then we note that Imaginary and Complex and negative numbers stupidity and insanity could have all be staved off if Old Math had simply realized a Axiom of Algebra that they missed-- YOU CAN NEVER HAVE A VALID EQUATION OF MATHEMATICS UNLESS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION HAS A POSITIVE NONZERO NUMBER THERE, ALL ALONE, AT ALL TIMES.

If Old Math had realized this is a crucial axiom of algebra, then much of what inflicts Old Math with its terminal diseased culture of phoniness, would have been abated.

The insanity of 4th dimension and higher even spilled over into physics with their multi dimensions, where even some goon clod physicists believe in a 11th dimension.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 17, 2022, 1:31:49 AM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now I believe strongly there is this 4th test of Consistency that you can have only 3 dimensions.

And I suspect there is a direct proof out of the 6 EM laws of physics (what was formerly called the Maxwell Equations, only corrected of its many errors).

A direct proof that you cannot have a Faraday law of physics if you had 4th dimension. Something on those lines.

This is not the first time I thought of proving 3rd dimension is the last dimension, for years ago I have been wondering about this. Maybe now I can actually prove it.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 17, 2022, 2:11:33 AM (4 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

Yes, I did solve it years ago, and even included it in several of my books on physics.

It is not the Faraday law or Ampere-Maxwell law or Coulomb law or but is rather the New Ohm's law the Voltage = current x magnetic field x electric field.

That is an equation of V = iBE and is a equation of volume in math. To say there is a 4th dimension is tantamount to saying that Volume does not capture all the volume of a prescribed region. That there is something more in geometry than volume, which is not true.

Only I am afraid, dumb people cannot buy that argument. Dumb people want something they cannot understand and hear it from other dumb people that it is true. Take for example Godel's or Cantor's nonsense in logic or math or Hawking's nonsense of black holes or Einstein's nonsense of General Relativity, for dumb people accept that wholeheartedly because they cannot understand it, and hear everyone around them saying-- it is true.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 18, 2022, 1:58:52 AM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, now I am fully working on completing this book. It started as 2 tests of consistency of Old Math, (1) a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme's Harmonic Series that diverges when it should to any common sense reasonable mind converge.

But I added on two more Consistency challenges to Old Math--- 3rd test-- the polynomial function is the only valid function in mathematics.

And yet a 4th test-- 3rd dimension has to be the last dimension, otherwise Volume in Old Math is no longer all encompassing of Space. Oh, yes, I know, kooks in physics thought of "curled up dimensions" but even here, requires volume. So if you want 4th or higher dimension, you destroy volume of geometry.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 18, 2022, 1:32:31 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
I decided to place this book in my logic section, rather than mathematics. Mathematicians are far too dumb to correct their field of knowledge, so dumb are they, that they do not require any formal course in logic to learn how to think straight and clear, instead, they can go through college and earn a degree in pure math without ever having to study logic formally.

And this lack of training in Logical Thought-- how to think straight and clear is evident in math history from Leibniz and Newton onwards. That no-one in mathematics realized a slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse for a single cone has but 1 axis of Symmetry yet a ellipse to be created from a sectioning requires 2 axes of symmetry such as a cylinder slant cut.

This utter inability to think straight and clear is evident in the entire mathematics community of 2022, where not a single one of these oafs of mathematics is willing to acknowledge the slant cut of single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Ken Ribet, Jill Pipher. Not a single one of them is worth 10 cents in mathematics for not a single one of them has any abilities in Logic-- think straight and think clearly.

And so this book needs to go in the Logic section of AP's science book portfolio.

For the opposite of Logical Reasoning prevailed from Leibniz and Newton's invention of the Calculus around 1670 until AP cleans up Mathematics by 1991-2022 as the writing of this book. No-one in mathematics could think straight and clear that a single cone has 1 axis of symmetry and could never possibly give a ellipse which requires 2 axes of symmetry. And so the opposite of Logical Thought occurred in mathematics history-- the cobbling together of all sorts of junk and silly and stupid ideas, cobbled together into one huge rucksack called mathematics. AP calls it Old Math, for it is mathematics bereft and barren of logical reasoning.

This was the Method of Old Math-- anyone with junk and fake math was accepted into the inner circles of mathematics and this junk and failed and crazy math offerings were accepted and made Old Math, more of a waste dump site than a science of precision. Take a look at Old Math's numbers system, for they cobbled together the Naturals, then tacked on Rationals, then tacked on Irrationals, and not satisfied yet with the garbage collection, they tacked on imaginary numbers and extended it to Complex numbers, and even yet the sewage that was Old Math numbers was not yet satisfied for they took aim at Surreal garbage and P-adics garbage, and then finally along comes AP and says, the only true numbers in mathematics-- all those numbers have to come from a principle of Mathematical Induction, just like the Naturals are produced by mathematical induction. Of course, Old Math was not all losers and fools and idiots of mathematics for there was a Dr. Kronecker who stood up and said-- Naturals were made by God and all the other (crazy numbers) were manmade-- or words to that effect.

But the way Old Math created the Reals, their cesspool collection of numbers is symptomatic of how Old Math treated all subjects of mathematics--- allow everything, because no-one in Old Math had a logical brain of reasoning. No-one in Old Math was forced to train in formal logic. No-one in Old Math understood Logical Thought and Logical Reasoning. And this is proven by Boole and Jevons who in the late 1800s established formal logic but tragically, their system was all error ridden and outright crazy with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND connector being subtraction. Yet of course no-one in the mathematics community could ever even spot this tragic error of Boole logic, for mathematics was braindead towards logic. In mathematics history from Leibniz and Newton to AP, the mode of operation was Memorization and Add-on to the mountain of errors. No-one had a sharp logical mind from Newton to AP. Just the reverse where Cauchy tries to invent the Limit Concept to justify rectangles of 0 width, possessing interior positive area for integral. No-one from Leibniz and Newton to AP had a logical brain worth more than 10 cents. Not even those in Logic, had a Logical brain for we see that Cantor and Russell and Whitehead, Turing and Godel doing the Tack and Add on more garbage to the mountainous cesspool sewage that Old Math had become. For if one asks-- Cantor, Russell, Whitehead, Godel were comfortable and happy with Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. So stupid were they-- Cantor, Russell, Whitehead, Turing, Godel in logic that they not only could not see slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, but so stupid in logic that they bought into the mindless idiocy of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction as the foundation of their logical thought and used the mindless 2 OR 1 =3 in all their math proofs.

Even today the foolish math idiots of Wiles, Hales, Tao, Pipher, Ribet, Stillwell think in terms of Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

So, what AP is going to do with his new book of Mathematics Consistency, is place it in the section of Logic. For Old Math was one huge colossal failure of thinking straight, thinking clear.

As Kronecker noted that Naturals were made by God and all the rest by humanity. AP in correcting Old Math, found that All the True Numbers of Mathematics should be like the Naturals,-- made by God. And that is what the Decimal Grid Number System is all about-- for every number is created by Mathematical Induction.

And only the Decimal Grid Numbers can do a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 19, 2022, 12:39:09 AM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


While watching the Usenet newsgroup of sci.math, a group I have followed ever since late 1993, I saw a post about Oresme's so called proof that the Harmonic Series diverges to infinity. The Harmonic series is 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + . . . + 1/n.....



Now most people when they come upon this series and its so called or alleged proof of divergence by Oresme in 1350, when they come upon this information for the first time in their studies, are usually set aghast in bewilderment, that the summation of ever tinier fractions when added up, is going to exceed beyond infinity itself. It is like in physics where some charlatan is entertaining us with a gadget that puts out more energy than put into the gadget.



But then no-one from Leibniz and Newton onwards to AP had a good mind of logical reasoning to put a stop to this nonsense of Harmonic series diverging to infinity.



In the case of Oresme, his so called proof is an error of logical reasoning for he reasoned that



1 + (1/2) + (1/4 + 1/4) + (1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8 + 1/8) +....

can be converted to this

1 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 +1/2 +.... where Oresme concluded that goes to infinity.



Can the reader spot the horrible mistake Oresme and all mathematicians after Oresme made in that argument and its conclusion?



It is a delightful and lovely mistake that a person with Logical brains should find it easy to uncover.



So Oresme argued that he could rearrange the terms in the series and by rearranging that he could generate a sum of all terms after 1 be that of 1/2 (or, even greater than 1/2, but Oresme was satisfied with just using 1/2. For example in rearranging you add 1/3 with 1/4, but Oresme was satisfied with just 1/4+1/4. Same goes for (1/8+1/8+1/8+1/8) where Oresme could have used (1/5+1/6+1/7+1/8). But Oresme was satisfied with just all being 1/8. And with Oresme's poor understanding of what Infinity means-- for the truth of the matter, infinity has a borderline, but no-one in mathematics realized that infinity has a borderline until AP discovered the infinity borderline using Huygens tractrix. If you define infinity as a borderline of 1*10^604 then you have the truth of the Harmonic series. That the addition of fractions is far far less than 1*10^604, for there are only 1*10^604 terms in every series. And since the only number with value equal to 1 is the first term in the Harmonic series and all the other terms are far far less than 1 especially 1/(10^604). Means the Harmonic series converges to a finite number somewhere between 1 and 1*10^604.



This is the problem in mathematics education, in that earning a degree in mathematics to become a professor of mathematics requires no courses or training in formal logic. Logic is the science that helps you think straight and think clear. But in modern day education, a mathematics major in schools is not required to take logic. And thus, in the opinion of AP, most math professors are zombies in logical thought. And not a ghost of a chance that mathematicians from Leibniz and Newton to AP would get the correct understanding of the Harmonic series.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 19, 2022, 2:05:37 PM (2 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe


Most students of mathematics who have not yet had their logical brain destroyed by a Old Math professor can read the below and figure out the silly mistake Oresme made-- for what Oresme did in his fake proof was allow the "terms of the harmonic series to be unbounded, while stifling the terms in the Truly Infinite Standard Series of Measure of 1+1+1+...... You see, the crux of Oresme's con art fakery is that he allows 1+1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 +........ He allows that series to have far far far more terms than he allows 1+1+1+1+..... to have terms. And thus, a con-art fake is born into mathematics and math education as mindless math professors bought into that magician trick of fakery. Which reminds me of the con-art fake in 1973. This is where Geller claimed to bend spoons from this brain waves. And Johnny Carson was himself a magician and invited Geller spoon bending on his show but knowing what the deception and fakery was of Geller, and throughout the show Geller was unable to perform his magic trick act.



But in the case of Oresme, the delusion or optical illusion is quite plain to see-- Oresme allows more terms for his fractions of Harmonic series than he allows for integer terms of 1 for infinity. Oresme's mistake and all the Old Math Professors after Oresme is their Dis-Comparison, they compare more terms for 1/2, 1/3,.... than they compare with 1,1,....



It is sad and silly that Old Math was full of con-art magic tricks than ever the truth of mathematics.



And it is sad and silly that math was hoodwinked, yet no physicist was hoodwinked by spoon bending. At least, spoon bending was never taught in physics classrooms.









Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 20, 2022, 3:03:57 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
First let me remark, that it is a blessing to write so many books of science for one just feeds off the other once you write 169 books of science. For example, just recently I wrote the book that dispels the myth that the cheetah was the fastest land animal on Earth, by proving the racehorse is the fastest land animal on Earth. You are never going to get a cheetah to run what Secretariat ran the 2.4km in 1.59 minutes, and that is with a weight of a jockey on Secretariat's back, not included in that ultimate speed of a racehorse compared to cheetah.

Anyway this book of 169th on science is about Consistency in Mathematics and one item of consistency is the fallacy of Old Math with their dimensions exceeding 3rd. For in truth, the 3rd dimension is the last and final dimension. And the easy Proof of Consistency is that of Volume, for if you had 4th or higher dimension, then your formula of Volume cannot be V= LWH, but must have an additional term beyond length, width, height. In other words, 4th dimension causes Volume to be wrong as LWH.

But, today, I have another stunning proof other than using volume but using calculus of Speed and Acceleration, just like the racehorse Secretariat. By the way I read some more on Secretariat and some people say he had 4 times the heart that a average racehorse has and another web site saying he had 2X the heart size. I have no way of untangling which is the more accurate.

So, now, it is indubitable that Speed equals meter/second and that acceleration equals meters/seconds^2.

If you look at the cover picture of my book on racehorses you see that Secretariat had the largest angle of a stride at 110degrees.

So in physics we can say that Speed is Stride divided by Time.

In physics we can say that in running we have a concept of 1/second^2 as a internal electric motor of the speed at which you through your forleg out and your hindleg pushing forward. So that 1/second^2 is a motor rotor.

I wrote another book explaining Angular Momentum and another book explaining what is 3rd Dimensional Calculus.

Here is where I can tie in all those books of science in explaining that 3rd Dimension has to be the last and final dimension of science or math.

To say that there is a 4th dimension would be saying there is something beyond acceleration. That there is more math beyond acceleration.

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 20, 2022, 3:33:07 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So what we have here is extremely fascinating and extremely important, because we all can see the derivative in 2 dimensional calculus is dy/dx.

And here is an opportunity for the first time to see Derivative in 3rd dimension where the motor rotor of a 1/second^2 is involved with the dy/dx of 2nd dimension. The motor rotor of a Distance/ motor rotor is acceleration.

So we see the 2nd dimension calculus of purely dy/dx.

But now we can see the 3rd dimension calculus-- acceleration --- as the dy/motor rotor.

In one of my books I explain 3rd dimensional calculus as being in fact the Faraday Law. But now, today, I can tie into that with acceleration is dy/motor rotor.

And the way we see or view this is our own running or the running of Secretariat. The dy for Secretariat is his 110degree forleg to hindleg-- the stride in the run. But now we have a 1/seconds^2 and that is what is called by me the motor rotor. Do we have a fast 1/sec^2 a fast motor rotor or do we have a slow motor rotor.

I myself as a runner knows I have a very fast motor rotor, the energy I can burst forth with throwing my legs out on a run. However, I lack a huge stride. If I had a huge stride along with my motor rotor, I would have in my youth probably won a Olympic medal in racing. But because I have a short stride, means I was never Olympic material.

So in running, there are two dynamics at play, there is the stride-- how far apart can you throw your front leg to hind leg, and Secretariat was champion of that with 110 degrees separation. But the other dynamic is how fast that internal motor of the runner is going, how fast or rpm's or motor rotor is the runner producing. And in Secretariat with his heart so much larger than the average race horse could have a high high rpm. And that is the reason Secretariat won the triple crown in his last of 3 races beating the field by 31 lengths. When you put a racehorse with a 110 degree stride and a motor rotor of Secretariat, he is going to win by 31 lengths.

And the point in all of this, is that just like Volume is all consuming of a measure of Space. So is Acceleration all consuming of calculus Derivative in 3rd dimension. There cannot be a 4th dimension for it destroys geometry. Which in proofs of Math Consistency, means geometry has contradictions if inconsistent. A 4th dimension causes geometry to be inconsistent.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 20, 2022, 7:08:16 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Physics had a concept for 1/seconds and called it frequency and called it rpm revolutions per minute (or seconds).

But physics had no concept for 1/seconds^2.

Sure, 1/sec^2 is the derivative of 1/sec, but physics had no developed concept for 1/sec^2 and no term for it.

So let me name 1/seconds^2 as being motor-rotor. The motor-rotor is the rate of change of 1/sec. This rate of change is 1/seconds times 1/seconds equals 1/seconds^2. Since rpm is in minutes we include 60 seconds in a minute and so the Motor-Rotor is rpm times rpm, also new to physics.

In Running whether human or racehorse there are two components, the stride is 1st component and the motor-rotor is the 2nd component. The stride is throwing your legs forward. The motor-rotor is a measure of the body to keep on throwing the legs forward. The fastest runners have a large stride and have a fast rotation of motor, some would call this the pace. So that if you as a runner can throw your legs 2 times against another runner with the same stride who throws his legs once to your 2 times, then your legs are faster than the other runner for you will have covered 2 times the distance.

There are four kinds of runners:
1) short stride and slow motor-rotor
2) long stride but slow motor-rotor
3) short stride and fast motor-rotor
4) long stride and fast motor-rotor

Someone running in place is short stride and fast motor-rotor. Olympic champions want as long a stride as possible hooked up to a fastest possible motor-rotor.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:56 PM (7 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now yesterday I defined a brand new concept of both math and physics in that of 1/seconds^2. Of course, Old Math and Old Physics defined Frequency for that of 1/seconds, but they were too stupid to define 1/seconds^2. I defined it as Motor-Rotor as the rate of change of rps, revolutions per second.

This is extremely important for both math and physics because it is the 3rd dimension calculus. Being dunces in Old Math and Old Physics, they never had a 3rd dimensional calculus. With their 2 dimension dumb minds, they could not even go from their 2nd dimension calculus to where AP is at now,-- 3rd dimension calculus.

So yesterday I defined the concept of Motor-Rotor which is dy/(dx^2) the 2nd derivative of 1/seconds. And this is a concept, a phenomenon we easily recognize in Runners and Racehorses. In running the Stride- the throwing out of legs in the next step forward is the dy of calculus, and the repeating of stride is the frequency the 1/seconds. But now, we have 3rd dimension calculus and here we have the Stride , but we also have the math of Repeating-that-Stride involved in what I call the Motor-Rotor, of 1/seconds^2. We can think of it as the body energy in rotating the Stride legs to repeat another new stride.

So if we have a Runner like Secretariat with a Stride of 110degree angle from forleg to hindleg, which is the largest stride recorded in horse racing and if we couple that stride with a huge Motor Rotor-- the ability to repeat that throwing of stride, then you have a champion racehorse.

But today I am going to talk about the numerator of dy/dx which is speed. And instead of squaring the denominator for acceleration as dy/(dx^2) I am going to square the numerator of dy/dx and have (dy^2)/dx. And many of those in physics already knows what that is, for it is angular momentum.

So in the dumb and silly and stupid Old Math and Old Physics that had only 2nd dimension calculus. New Math and New Physics has 3rd Dimension Calculus with its (dy^2)/dx and its dy/(dx^2).

In 3rd Dimension Calculus I need not define dy^2 as it is meters^2 and we all know what meters squared is that of area. But it gives us greater insight into a concept that no-one in Old Physics ever mastered-- angular momentum, for every physicist of the 1900s never understood angular momentum, absolutely not a single physicist of the 1900s had a understanding worth more than 10 cents of what is angular momentum. And the proof of this is that everyone in the 1900s saw the 0.5MeV particle flying around a 938MeV proton at over 99% the speed of light. There is no angular momentum in that for the 0.5MeV particle would immediately fly off. There is angular momentum when we take the Muon as the true real electron of atoms, but it still is moving at too fast a speed to be bound to a proton. So we have to realize and understand that the Muon of 105MeV is stuck inside a proton torus of 840MeV. Being stuck inside so that the 8 rings of the proton hold and bound the Muon inside and doing the Faraday Law with the proton torus, gives Angular Momentum.




y  
|  /
| /
|/______ x

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 along with Police Drag Net Spam 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, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, 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 followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP's 169th science book MATHEMATICS CONSISTENCY

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 22, 2022, 4:06:10 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, I have not spent enough time on Function Inverses as I should have spent. And now is the time to fill in that gap.

Because just a few days ago we come into 3D Calculus with the concept of acceleration as being dy/(dx^2) while angular momentum is (dy^2)/dx.

One easily recognizes the inverse relationship.

Now since true math is all 1st Quadrant only and only positive Decimal Grid Numbers and only Polynomials as functions we must consider the function of Y = x compared to the function Y = 10 -x in the 10 Grid.

And consider if Y= x is the inverse of Y = 10-x.

In fact if we drew in the 10 Grid as a square then the functions graphed simultaneously should look like this X inside that square.

What I am probing here, yes probing is whether Angular Momentum (dy^2)/dx is the inverse of dy/(dx^2).


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>

Jan 22, 2022, 5:58:02 PM (yesterday)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
What AP is attempting to do here is something that Old Math failed to even consider, a standardized method of telling the inverse of a given function.

In New Math we can do this, and make it ultra easy. Because the only true functions in existence are the Polynomial functions, and as shown in my earlier post of today, where I take Y= x then its inverse is a subtraction of Y = 10 -x when in 10 Grid or be Y = 100-x in 100 Grid, etc.

So in New Math where all functions are polynomials and if not a polynomial, you have to take time away and convert via Lagrange transformation, convert your silly dumb function into a true polynomial function over a specific interval. And all functions inhabit only the 1st Quadrant of mathematics, the other 3 were mental insane asylum clinic quadrants.

So here we see a way of finding the inverse of any given function in 2D. We simply subtract from the Grid largest number. So what is the inverse of Y = x^2 in 10 Grid? It would be Y = 10 - x^2 in 1st Quadrant Only as all functions are polynomials in first quadrant only.

Now the reason I am exploring and digging into inverses is because of 3rd Dimension Calculus where we have Angular Momentum as (dy^2)/dx and we have acceleration as dy/(dx^2). This is my primary goal is to resolve those two as inverse relationships.

And already we can sort of see glimmers of true reality in that a dy^2 moving through a dx is the Ampere law of magnetic field around a wire carrying electricity. While the dx^2 in acceleration is the electric field in Faraday law of a electric current produced by thrusting bar magnet.

We certainly know the Ampere law is the inverse of Faraday law and both are in 3rd dimension and here I am making the case of Calculus in 3rd Dimension has the inverses of dy/(dx^2) relative to (dy^2)/dx.

This would be a great clarification in both math and physics where up to now, it was thought that angular momentum and acceleration were totally unrelated.


Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>

2:41 PM (3 minutes ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright, AP is going to write his 169th book of science as

Mathematics Consistency// Logic science

by Archimedes Plutonium



The 169th book of Science for AP// Math Consistency tests (1) geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (2) Oresme screw-up of Harmonic series (3) polynomials as only valid functions (4) screw-up of dimensions



And I shall write into that book what happens when mathematics professors have no logical brains to write Calculus textbooks.


A real mathematician that writes calculus textbooks is expected to define what the hell are the numbers he is going to use throughout the text to teach Calculus. But no Gilbert Strang, Calculus, 1991, is such a scatterbrain, that he never defines-- what the hell are your numbers Gilbert? And has the audacity to define Complex numbers on page 360 but never what the hell are his original numbers.

Taking a look at the very first page of Strang's Calculus, 1991, and I hope any new editions were denied so as to save our young students the agony of using a scatterbrained calculus book. By scatterbrain, I mean no logical coherence, much of inconsistency and even outright contradictions.

And looking at the very first page is revealing as to whether any math textbook is worthy of using in education.

And here, Strang on the very first page reveals not his scatterbrain mind in math, but reveals something far worse, in he never understood Calculus in the first place. For he ends the first page with the stark mistake of saying "The central question of calculus is the relation between v and f."

No, Strang. The central question of calculus involves the two new operators of integral and derivative, new operators to include with the four known operators of add, subtract, multiply and divide, for integral and derivative are new operators and the question about integral and derivative is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. So the purpose of Calculus is to elaborate and clarify these two new operators of integral and derivative and to connect them in that Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, with a geometry proof of FTC.