info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
10-MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor by Archimedes Plutonium Last revision was 14Jan2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science. Preface: A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on 10k
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 16, 2022, 9:57:57 PM1/16/22
to
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor by Archimedes Plutonium Last revision was 14Jan2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science. Preface: A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on
10k views
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 14Jan2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
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 77 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 77 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.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 14, 2022, 2:35:33 AM (2 days ago)
to
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).
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.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 14, 2022, 1:38:26 PM (2 days ago)
to
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Jan 15, 2022, 12:57:18 AM (yesterday)
to
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
12:33 AM (15 hours ago)
to
AP books 226th, 227th, 228th, First spider, First Insect-water strider, First 4 legged animal-salamander-lizard
Alright I have a flurry of biology books to publish. And am happy that I can figure out biology history-- some call it evolution -- so easily. Some are hypothesis and require more strong evidence. Some have strong evidence already and are thus theory.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 6, 2022, 1:22 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
+226th AP book of science//First Spider evolved from Octopus, and First Octopus evolved from Mold fungus// Biology science
by Archimedes Plutonium
Now as I was saying earlier, I looked at a picture of a octopus, ( I believe it was a Wikipedia page or somewhere on the Internet) and my instant reaction was -- it is a spider, most definitely a spider. But no, it was a octopus. And I am not able to locate that picture now, so it may have been a artwork rendition of a octopus, not a real octopus but a piece of art imagination. Anyway I am grateful for that single one picture, for it immediately launched in my head-- I knew where First Spider evolved from-- the ancient circa 542-530 million year old octopus.
And I read that the octopus has venom.
So here, I suspect I will write a book titled First Spider, descendent of ancient octopus.
And the octopus, the descendent of Mold fungus. Where the hyphae of Mold become the octopus 8 legs.
And I believe it is extremely easy with RNA-editing to get hyphae transformed into spider webbing.
So let that be my 226th book of science for now.
AP
AP's 227th book of science// First Insect to evolve-- water strider from octopus//
Well, it is probably all biophysics of leg reduction starting with the Mold fungus evolving to the Octopus with 8 legs evolving to the First spider then the Spiders evolving to the First Insect of water strider.
But where do we get this leg increase or reduction for the First Four Legged Animal.
Here I have to research as to making fish fins into legs, for it is a water creature evolving its fins to be legs.
As for the reduction from 8 or more, considering crabs, arthropods, millipedes centipedes 8 or more legs helps in walking under water. But on the surface of water, 6 legs are optimal, not 8, not 4, but 6.
So we have a Biophysics of environment of water and air or land and where 6 is optimal.
Underwater, 8 or more is optimal.
On land, for running, 4 legs are optimal. And here some biophysics also has a major role in evolving 4 legs.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
AP's 229th book of science// First plant with roots, half from hyphae of fungus, half photosynthetic, corals on land
Corals are polyp animals of the phylum Cnidaria living with photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates that live in the tissue of the animals and provide the polyps with energy.
Here I discuss the hypothesis that the land plants with roots come from Fungus hyphae, and above ground is photosynthetic plant organism.
Look at a tree or shrub or grass, and way back in time to the Ordovician period approximately 460 million years ago, with land plants. That we have a similar situation with corals of two different organisms joined to live as one organism. A symbiotic relationship. So that land plants is like corals moving out of the seas and onto the land and composed of two organisms that with time evolved into being one organism, the roots from fungus hyphae and the stem and leaves from plants of the ocean.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:54 PM (1 hour ago)
to
I am going to consolidate this all into one book, the 226th. For I did not have RNA-editing until just recent.
10k views
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
by Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 14Jan2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
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 77 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 77 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.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 14, 2022, 2:35:33 AM (2 days ago)
to
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).
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.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Jan 14, 2022, 1:38:26 PM (2 days ago)
to
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Jan 15, 2022, 12:57:18 AM (yesterday)
to
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
12:33 AM (15 hours ago)
to
AP books 226th, 227th, 228th, First spider, First Insect-water strider, First 4 legged animal-salamander-lizard
Alright I have a flurry of biology books to publish. And am happy that I can figure out biology history-- some call it evolution -- so easily. Some are hypothesis and require more strong evidence. Some have strong evidence already and are thus theory.
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Jan 6, 2022, 1:22 AM (now)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
+226th AP book of science//First Spider evolved from Octopus, and First Octopus evolved from Mold fungus// Biology science
by Archimedes Plutonium
Now as I was saying earlier, I looked at a picture of a octopus, ( I believe it was a Wikipedia page or somewhere on the Internet) and my instant reaction was -- it is a spider, most definitely a spider. But no, it was a octopus. And I am not able to locate that picture now, so it may have been a artwork rendition of a octopus, not a real octopus but a piece of art imagination. Anyway I am grateful for that single one picture, for it immediately launched in my head-- I knew where First Spider evolved from-- the ancient circa 542-530 million year old octopus.
And I read that the octopus has venom.
So here, I suspect I will write a book titled First Spider, descendent of ancient octopus.
And the octopus, the descendent of Mold fungus. Where the hyphae of Mold become the octopus 8 legs.
And I believe it is extremely easy with RNA-editing to get hyphae transformed into spider webbing.
So let that be my 226th book of science for now.
AP
AP's 227th book of science// First Insect to evolve-- water strider from octopus//
Well, it is probably all biophysics of leg reduction starting with the Mold fungus evolving to the Octopus with 8 legs evolving to the First spider then the Spiders evolving to the First Insect of water strider.
But where do we get this leg increase or reduction for the First Four Legged Animal.
Here I have to research as to making fish fins into legs, for it is a water creature evolving its fins to be legs.
As for the reduction from 8 or more, considering crabs, arthropods, millipedes centipedes 8 or more legs helps in walking under water. But on the surface of water, 6 legs are optimal, not 8, not 4, but 6.
So we have a Biophysics of environment of water and air or land and where 6 is optimal.
Underwater, 8 or more is optimal.
On land, for running, 4 legs are optimal. And here some biophysics also has a major role in evolving 4 legs.
AP, King of Science, especially Physics
AP's 229th book of science// First plant with roots, half from hyphae of fungus, half photosynthetic, corals on land
Corals are polyp animals of the phylum Cnidaria living with photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates that live in the tissue of the animals and provide the polyps with energy.
Here I discuss the hypothesis that the land plants with roots come from Fungus hyphae, and above ground is photosynthetic plant organism.
Look at a tree or shrub or grass, and way back in time to the Ordovician period approximately 460 million years ago, with land plants. That we have a similar situation with corals of two different organisms joined to live as one organism. A symbiotic relationship. So that land plants is like corals moving out of the seas and onto the land and composed of two organisms that with time evolved into being one organism, the roots from fungus hyphae and the stem and leaves from plants of the ocean.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:54 PM (1 hour ago)
to
I am going to consolidate this all into one book, the 226th. For I did not have RNA-editing until just recent.
Michael Moroney
Jan 17, 2022, 12:02:36 AM1/17/22
to
🪰 of Math and 🦟 of Physics Archimedes "Drag Queen of Science"
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M. graduation speech at Rensselaer Polytech. Kibo is the headers a broad outline of what you will discuss and how you destroyed sci.math and sci.physics????
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
...
77) Archimedes Plutonium
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Kibo Parry M. graduation speech at Rensselaer Polytech. Kibo is the headers a broad outline of what you will discuss and how you destroyed sci.math and sci.physics????
>
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
>
1) Ludwig Poehlmann
>
> MATHOPEDIA-- List of 77 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor
> by Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
>
2) Ludwig Hansen
3) Ludwig van Ludvig
4) Ludwig Plutonium
5) Archimedes Plutonium
6) Archimedes Plutonium
...
77) Archimedes Plutonium
0 new messages