This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 28)
john baez
John Baez
I think I'll finally break my New Year's resolution to stop making a fool
of myself on the net, and attempt an explanation of some things I am
just learning a bit about, namely, Teichmueller space and moduli space.
These are concepts that string theorists often throw around, and when I first
heard of them in that context I immediately dimissed them as just
another example of how physicists were learning far too much
mathematics for their own good. I take it all back! They are, in fact,
beautifully simple pieces of mathematics suited to physics in
2-dimensional spacetime. Two dimensions is low enough that one can
often actually understand exactly what's going on in problems that
become infinitely more tricky in higher dimensions. So even if one
doesn't "believe" in 2-dimensional physics the way the string theorists
do -- for them, physics happens on the worldsheet of the string, which is
2-dimensional -- it's worth learning as a kind of textbook case.
Everything I know so far is culled from the following sources, which by
no means form an exhaustive or even optimal set of references:
1) An Introduction to Teichmueller spaces, by Y. Imayoshi and M.
Taniguchi, Springer-Verlag, 1991, ISBN 4-431-70088-9.
2) An introduction to the moduli space of curves, by Joe Harris, in
Mathematical Aspects of String Theory (proceedings of a conference at UC
San Diego in 1986), ed. S. T. Yau, World Scientific Press, 1987, ISBN
9971-50-274-7.
The moduli space of punctured surfaces, by R. C. Penner, same volume.
3) The cohomology of the moduli space of curves, by John L. Harer, in
Theory of Moduli (lectures given at the 3rd 1985 session of C.I.M.E. at
Mondecatini Terme, Italy), ed. E. Sernesi, Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes
in Mathematics 1337, 1988, ISBN 0-387-50080-4.
There are a number of ways of describing Teichmueller space and moduli
space. Maybe the easiest is this. Start with the surface of a doughnut
with g handles, or as the experts say, a "surface of genus g". We can
make this into a "Riemann surface" if we cover it with lots of patches,
or "charts," each of which looks just like part the complex plane
(imagine a little piece of graph paper), and such that the change of
coordinates function relating overlapping patches is analytic, in the
usual sense of complex variables. The simplest Riemann surface is the
Riemann sphere, which is of genus zero; one gets this by taking the
complex plane and sticking on one more point, "infinity" -- think of a
sphere with "infinity" as the north pole. If we have a Riemann surface,
we can tell whether a complex-valued function on it is analytic, simply
by working locally in charts, so we can do complex analysis as usual on
a doughnut with lots of handles as long as we make it into a Riemann
surface! Since the main point of my article will be to provide the
reader with lots of buzzwords, I should add that making a surface of
genus g into a Riemann surface is called "giving it a complex structure."
Now, how many ways are there to give a surface of genus g a complex
structure? First of all we need a good notion of when two Riemann
surfaces are "the same". They must, of course, have the same genus, but
there must also be a 1-1 and onto function from one to the other that is
everywhere analytic, with an analytic inverse. (Again, it makes sense to say
such a function is analytic, since we can cover each Riemann surface
with charts that we can think of as bits of the complex plane.) Such a
mapping is called a "biholomorphic mapping" -- holomorphic just being
another word for analytic -- and if we want to sound fancy, we say that
the two Riemann surfaces are "biholomorphically equivalent."
Well, there's a famous old theorem of Riemann that for genus 0, there is
only ONE way to do it; any Riemann surface of genus 0 is
biholomorphically equivalent with the Riemann sphere. But for higher
genus there are infinitely many essentially different ways to give a
surface of genus g a complex structure. In fact, we can imagine a
big fat "space" of all ways. This is the moduli space of genus g!
The first key problem in the theory is to "get our hands on" moduli
space; that is, to describe it quite concretely. String theory provided
a lot of motivation for doing this very well, since the worldsheet of a
string -- that is, the string viewed in spacetime -- is just a surface,
and Feynman path integrals in string theory involve integrating over all
complex structures for this surface. To do integrals over moduli space
we need to bring it down to earth!
To do so, it's awfully handy to get involved with Teichmueller space.
Note that moduli space can be thought of as the space of equivalence
classes of complex structures on a fixed surface of genus g, where two
complex structures are deemed "the same" if they are biholomorphically
equivalent. Teichmueller space is defined using a more fine-grained
notion of "the same". Note that any biholomorphic mapping is a
diffeomorphism, that is, a smooth mapping with a smooth inverse. In
fact, it must also be orientation-preserving, since an
orientation-reversing map like complex conjugation can never be
holomorphic! Henceforth I will always mean "orientation-preserving
diffeomorophism" when I speak of diffeomorphisms of a surface.
Now, some diffeomorphisms are "connected to the identity" and some
aren't. We say a diffeomorphism f is connected to the identity if there
is a smooth 1-parameter family of diffeomorphisms starting at f and
ending at the identity diffeomorphism. In other words, a diffeomorphism
is connected to the identity if you can do it a bit at a time by a
gradual stretching process. To really understand this you need to
know some diffeomorphisms that *aren't* connected to the identity. Here's
how to get one: start with your surface of genus g > 0, cut apart one
of the handles along a circle, give one handle a 360-degree twist, and
glue the handles back together! This is called a Dehn twist.
Anyway, Teichmueller space may be defined as the space of equivalence
classes of complex structures on a fixed surface of genus g, where two
complex structures are counted as the same if they are biholomorphically
equivalent *by a diffeomorphism connected to the identity*.
A good way of understanding the relation between Teichmueller space and
moduli space is this. Define the mapping class group (of genus g) to be
the group of diffeomorphisms of a surface of genus g modulo the subgroup
of those connected to the identity. A beautiful fact is that this
group is generated by Dehn twists! In other words, given any
diffeomorphism of a surface, you can get it by first doing a bunch of
Dehn twists and then doing a diffeomorphism connected to the identity.
Since the mapping class group is finitely generated one should think of
it as a discrete group. In fact, folks know what the relations between
the generators are, too, and these are also very beautiful. I guess
good places to read about this stuff are the first paper that gave an
explicit presentation of mapping class groups:
4) A presentation of the mapping class group of a closed ,orientable
surface, by A. Hatcher and W. Thurston, Topology 19 (1980), 221-237.
and the simplified treatment in
5) A simple presentation for the mapping class group of an orientable
surface, Israel J. Math. 45 (1983), 157-174.
Actually, though I must admit my only acquaintance with mapping class
groups comes from leafing through
6) Braids, Links, and Mapping Class Groups, by Joan S. Birman, Annals of
Mathematics Studies no. 82, Princeton University Press, 1974.
As one can gather from this title there is a close connection between
mapping class groups and the braid group and knot theory, which is the
main reason why string theory allowed Witten to get new insights into
knots. (The more mundane connection, namely that one ties knots out of
string, seems largely unexplored, but see "week18".) Let me not digress
into this fascinating realm, however! The point I want to make here is
just that:
The mapping class group acts on Teichmueller space, and the quotient by
this group action is moduli space.
Anyone used to how math goes should find this pretty believable, but let
me explain: given a diffeomorphism of our surface of genus g, we can use
it as a kind of "coordinate transformation" to turn one complex
structure into another. So the group of diffeomorphisms acts on
Teichmueller space, but, given how Teichmuller space is defined, the
subgroup of diffeomorphisms connected to the identity acts trivially.
Thus the mapping class group acts on Teichmueller space. By how moduli
space is defined, two points in Teichmueller space define the same point
in moduli space iff one is obtained from another by an element of the
mapping class group.
Now the good thing about Teichmueller space is that it has very nice
coordinates on it, called Fenchel-Nielsen coordinates, which reveal it
to be diffeomorphic to R^{6g-6} when g > 1. (The case g = 0 is utterly
dull, since Teichmueller space is a point, and the case g = 1 is
beautifully treated using the fact that any Riemann surface of genus 1
is biholomorphically equivalent to the quotient of the complex plane by
a lattice, relating this case to the subject of elliptic functions, as
touched upon in "week13". I should also add that "week13" indicates, at
least in the g = 1 case, why moduli space is often called the "moduli
space of curves.")
Let me say how these coordinates go, rather sketchily, just so the
mysterious number 6g-6 becomes not so mysterious! Take your surface of
genus g -- just think of it as a doughnut with n holes -- and cut it up
into "pairs of pants," that is, pieces that look like
| |
| |
| |
| |
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ /\ \
/ / \ \
from above. Topologically, a pair of pants is just a sphere with three
discs cut out of it! A more dignified term for a pair of pants is a
"trinion," by the way.
The idea now is to describe the complex structure on each pair of pants
separately, and then describe how the pairs of pants are glued together.
Now, it turns out that the complex structures on each pair of pants are
very easily described (up to biholomorphic equivalences connected to the
identity). It takes 3 positive real numbers. There's a unique metric on the
original surface pants that is compatible with the complex structure
(i.e. is a "Kaehler metric) and has curvature equal to -1. This is
called a hyperbolic metric, as in hyperbolic geometry. Then, we can cut
the surface into pairs of pants along circles that are geodesics
relative to this metric. To describe the complex structure on each
pair of pants we simply need to measure the lengths of the 3 bounding
circles; these are called the "geodesic length functions". In other
words, if your pair of pants was hyperbolic, a tailor would only need to
measure you waistlength and the lengths around the two cuffs, not the inseams!
Now it's a fun exercise to show that we can chop up a surface of genus g
> 1 into exactly 2g - 2 pairs of pants. Doing so, moreover, requires
that we cut the surface along 3g - 3 circles. (Draw some pictures!)
Thus, we have a total of 3g - 3 geodesic length functions. However, we
also need to describe how the pairs of pants are attached to each other.
We can glue them together with any amount of twisting, and this twisting
is a real-valued parameter. So there are 3g - 3 "twisting parameters"
required to describe how the pairs of pants are attached. We thus have
a total of 6g - 6 parameters, the Fenchel-Nielsen coordinates, and
Teichmueller space is diffeomorphic to R^{6g - 6} (since the positive
real numbers are diffeomorphic to R itself).
I think I want to quit here but not before making a few random remarks.
First, there's another description of Teichmueller space which gives it
a triangulation, i.e., describes it as a bunch of high-dimensional
tetrahedra (simplices) glued together. Harer's paper gives a nice quick
sketch of this construction; the buzzword to look for is "quadratic
differentials." The nice thing about this is that the mapping class
group action respects this triangulation so we get a triangulation of
moduli space.
Second, quite recent work by Penner:
7) Universal constructions in Teichmueller theory, by R. C. Penner, Adv.
Math. 98 (1993), 143-215.
shows how to fit the Teichmueller spaces for different genus g into a
single universal object. This was directly motivated by string theory,
but the basic idea is (I think) simply that there should be some sense in which
one can go "continously" from genus g+1 to genus g by making one handle
smaller and smaller (with respect to the hyperbolic metric) until it
goes away.
Third, when studying the triangulation of Teichmueller space one
repeatedly runs across a certain "Pachner move" which goes from one
triangulation of a surface to another:
O O
/|\ / \
/ | \ / \
/ | \ / \
O | O <----> O-------O
\ | / \ /
\ | / \ /
\|/ \ /
O O
which reminds me of lattice field theories in 2 dimensions (see "week16"
for an explanation) and the "pentagon diagram" showing how to get
between the 5 simplest ways to triangulate a pentagon using this move
(see, for example, Figure 3 in Penner's paper above, or Figure 3.2 of
Harer's paper). The pentagon diagram appears both in Moore and
Seiberg's famous paper on string theory and chopping up surfaces into
pairs of pants:
8) Classical and quantum conformal field theory, by G. Moore and S.
Seiberg, Comm. Math. Phys. 123 (1989) 177-254
and in category theory, with the relationship *there* now pretty well
understood in terms of "modular tensor categories" -- see e.g.
9) 2-d physics and 3-d topology, by Louis Crane, Comm. Math. Phys. 135
(1991) 615-640.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get any string guru to sit down
and really clarify how the triangulations of Teichmueller space fit in.
Lest the reader wonder what the heck I'm going on about, the idea is
that category theory provides a marvelous way to unify the profusion of
mathematical structures that are coming up these days, and if we ever
understood everything in those terms, it would all seem much less
confusing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous issues of "This Week's Finds" and other expository
articles on mathematics and physics (as well as some of my
research papers) can be obtained by anonymous ftp from
ucrmath.ucr.edu; they are in the directory "baez." The README
file lists the contents of all the papers. Please do not ask me
how to use hep-th or gr-qc; instead, read the file preprint.info.
Rodrigo Martinez
> [........] String theory provided
>a lot of motivation for doing this very well, since the worldsheet of a
>string -- that is, the string viewed in spacetime -- is just a surface,
>and Feynman path integrals in string theory involve integrating over all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>complex structures for this surface. To do integrals over moduli space
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>we need to bring it down to earth! [.......................]
The usual path-integral is not restricted to continuos paths (they can be
fractal like), but here you are restricting your 'surfaces-paths' to those
with complex structure (i.e. smooth surfaces). The justification
of this procedure seems to be only mathematical simplicity, without any
conceptual basis or I am missing some point?
Thanks.
John C. Baez
>ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>> [........] String theory provided
>>a lot of motivation for doing this very well, since the worldsheet of a
>>string -- that is, the string viewed in spacetime -- is just a surface,
>>and Feynman path integrals in string theory involve integrating over all
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>complex structures for this surface. To do integrals over moduli space
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>we need to bring it down to earth! [.......................]
>The usual path-integral is not restricted to continuous paths (they can be
>fractal like), but here you are restricting your 'surfaces-paths' to those
>with complex structure (i.e. smooth surfaces). The justification
>of this procedure seems to be only mathematical simplicity, without any
>conceptual basis or I am missing some point?
>Thanks.
This is a good point, and it's worth noting that not only in string
theory but in most "practical" QFT folks gloss over this point. E.g.,
all the talk about instantons, topological charges and the like needs to
be examined rather critically since it typically assumes a functional
integral over a space of *smooth* or *continuous* fields, while one
actually expects the (Euclideanized) path-integral measure to be
supported on *distributional* (not even continuous!) fields. See e.g.
Glimm and Jaffe's book for some rigorous QFT formulated in terms of
functional integration over spaces of distributional fields.
However there are a couple of possible ways out --- since I am not a
string theorist I don't know how much people in string theory have
pondered these issues, but here's what comes to mind:
First, one can do a lot of path integration restricting ones attention
to continuous or even smooth paths as long as one is content to work
with "generalized measures," or what Segal, Zhou and I call
"distributions" in the book "Introduction to Algebraic and Constructive
QFT." (A quick review of this notion appears in a paper of mine
available as the file "baez/state.tex" by anonymous ftp from
math.ucr.edu; it's in the section called "generalized measures.")
These generalized measures are really just as good for most purposes as
ordinary measures. However, one must answer questions as to what's
legit and what's not on a case-by-case basis, not just wave ones hands!
Second, the moduli space and Teichmuller space are *finite-dimensional*
and they have natural measures supported on them, so one doesn't expect
the same sort of woes one gets in ordinary QFT where one is doing
integrals over infinite-dimensional spaces of fields. It's the
infinite-dimensionality, really, that makes one need to either complete
the space of smooth fields to get a bigger space on which the measure is
supported, or work with a generalized measure.
Third, and perhaps most crucially, any amount of handwaving would be
acceptable if in the end one got a mathematically consistent theory that
made testable predictions (particularly if the predictions came out to
be correct!). Quantization is always a dirty business.
Archimedes Plutonium
John, why not accept the truth that a slant cut in cone is Oval, never a ellipse, or stay the mindless childish fool you are.
On Tuesday, January 4, 1994 at 4:29:34 PM UTC-6, john baez wrote:
> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 28)
> John Baez
> I think I'll finally break my New Year's resolution to stop making a fool
> of myself on the net, and attempt an explanation of some things I am
> just learning a bit about, namely, Teichmueller space and moduli space.
> These are concepts that string theorists often throw around, and when I first
a) refusal to acknowledge calculus is geometry and thus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
b) Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never ellipse
c) Boole got all 4 of his connectors truth table wrong, worst being AND at TFFF when it truly is TTTF so we do not end up with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction
d) Natural Logarithm with base 2.71... has nothing to do with Y = 1/x for the Ln(1.00005) equals exactly 0.00005. A case of the logic fallacy that 1/x comes close, but you have the wrong function. And this fallacy of "coming close but no relationship" is seen again in the Andrew Wiles and Ken Ribet obnoxious claim that "elliptic curvers relate to counting numbers when they never did so".
So, failures of mathematics, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, John Stillwell, Ken Ribet, run , run, and hide for you cannot do proper correct math and only can do run and hide.
1> More people reading AP's newsgroup than sci.math for math science.
2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
> SCI.MATH FAQ, 20Sep2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well--
>
> Today's topic-- how AP is correcting the definition of Natural Logarithm base 2.71... for the Y= 1/x has no relation to the equiangular logarithmic spiral. See AP's 203rd book of science.
>
> Take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers, block-spam, and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.
>
> The only thing worth discussing in sci.math and to shift the momentum of the entire Math Community to the TRUTH OF MATHEMATICS is the painful having to throw out cranks and crackpots of mathematics-- Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet, and many others who refuse to recognize the single most important math of our times is a GEOMETRY PROOF OF THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, for in doing such, it cleans out mathematics just like scrubbing and vacuuming to clean out our houses is a necessary function in going forward. And the above listed math fools are trying everything in their power to keep math entrenched in their stupidity.
>
> Another item of huge concern is the correction of the Oval as the slant cut in Conic Sections, not the ellipse, and we can see how mindless and idiotic is the ship of state of mathematics, when the above list of failed mathematicians even refuses to correct such a simple error.
>
> Also, a third item which reveals that most math professors are good at calculations but mostly mindless fools of logic or just making a proof of mathematics, for all of the above listed fools of math still preach 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. All because their tiny pea brained minds of logic can never understand how Boole screwed up on truth tables and that AND is never TFFF but always TTTF. Yet the above math fools use 2 OR 1= 3 every day in all their proofs of mathematics.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
> XXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Principles of sci.math
>
> 1) Above all, do math in sci.math, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the math that you do in sci.math that only counts.
>
> 2) When doing math in sci.math and talking to someone else that is seriously doing math with you-- be polite.
>
> 3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).
>
> 4) Sci.math is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do math in sci.math, but the openness is a blessing in disguise, because the openess more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.math is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.math, the others who seriously do math in sci.math will self police the miscreant out. For offtopic spammers like Relf is no better than a person invited to dinner and instead of using the bathroom, shits in the middle of the dining room floor.
>
>
> 5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.
>
> 6) Criminal-Stalking is defined as constant attacking of another person's character exclusive of science content in his/her threads for more than 1 year. In the case of criminal stalking the attackee, can just shred the attackers post and repost. For stalking is not science, nor academics nor debate nor discussion. Stalking is insanity and criminal behavior.
>
> AP writes: AP no longer tolerates any Criminal Stalker and thus shreds his attack and spits the byproduct back into the lap of the stalker.
>
> XXXXXXXXX
>
> Too much religion spam in sci.math lately with Amine doing the spamming. Take it to a religion newsgroup Amine, not sci.math.
>
>
> ***New news***
>
> Stripping college degrees.
>
> AP argues that college degrees are serious business and a holder should wear his/her degree proudly throughout the rest of their lives. AP argues that the Internet has been a new window on academics, and this new window shines a light on the fact that many receive college degrees but should never have been given one, Earle Jones, Dan Christensen, John Gabriel, Zelos Malum, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry Moroney. And their degrees from colleges should be made "null and void".
>
> The Internet has become a new testing arena for all students across the world, and if you screw up badly in the Internet, should mean, no final degree from college, or the nullification of an existing degree.
>
> College Degrees in science, every single one of them, should be seen as serious business and held to the highest standards. If anyone wears their college degree in science that puts shame on science, should have their degree made null and void. Such as being a professor yet unwilling to be vaccinated. John Gabriel, BWR, Earle Jones, Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Zelos Malum, Markus Klyver, Jan Burse if any has a degree in science and engineering , should have their degrees made null and void. I decree it.
>
> The null and void is not a single incident but years and years of "spamming mistakes". All of the above have been spamming their mistakes for 10 years or more. They should not have a degree from any college in science or engineering.
>
> The education system needs a means of nullification as well as the -- passing out of degrees.
>
>
>
> XXXXXXXXX
>
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote in reply to leading mathematician of Nederlands Klyver:
> Sep 8, 2021, 2:30 PM
> to sci.math (on a good day when the first 15 posts are not all about spammer Gabriel)
>
> Banning the John Gabriel- Zelos Malum actor-acting con-math show from sci.math.
> 3k views
>
>
> Gabriel is lead actor, but joined in by Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry M, Earle Jones with his logo picture of phallus in the mouth in daytime (Earle is a X-rated actor and parental guidance urged). At night time joined in by B-rated actors Zelos (bozo) Malum, Markus Klyver (drop kicked from Sweden to Dutch Netherlands).
>
> PURPOSE: Have 15 worthless scree threads of Gabriel to be on the front page of sci. math constantly flooding sci.math and thus, taking over sci.math by that mindless worthless twit of John Gabriel. South Africa has no acting school industry like Bollywood or Hollywood and so gutter ghetto what is commonly called in parts of USA as "white trash" losers like Gabriel has to make due by acting in sci.math and destroying the lifeblood of sci.math.
>
> Mommy, can Gabriel cause cancer? No, I don't want you reading his posts.
>
> Gabriel was kicked out of every Internet outlet he ever had the sorry attendance of meeting. And a whole entire industry in computer social media was created, surrounding Gabriel, to disarm and cast off whereever Gabriel treaded his foots in. One only has to see how many YouTube movies had to be sterilized and sanitized after Gabriel had been kicked out of YouTube, worse than having to take bleach and sterilize furniture and floor from viral pandemics so the house pets of cats and dogs could return in our lives.
>
> Sci.math is Gabriel's last stronghold of play acting.
>
> XXXXXXXX
>
> Solution for block spam such as "hahaha". Ban them forever from the newsgroup after 2 warnings, if they do it again-- lifetime ban from sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> Solution for Block Spam "ay1" with yellow emoji faces-- pull plug on entire ISP // SCI.MATH FAQ 2Sep2021
>
> Troubles with Block Spam-- 15 screes of b.s. flooding all at once. Solution, pull the plug on entire ISP, even if an entire country where the spam emanates. And give time to our engineers to craft a U shaped funnel that the spam shit emanates but funneled back into the mouthes of the spamming jackarses. Also fitted with a baby bib for the insane.
>
> I am contemplating emailing Larry Page and Sergey Brin to set their finest engineers to work on a U funnel that reroutes this mindless spam from entering sci.physics and sci.math. The email should reach Larry's and Sergey's desk faster than the pony express.
>
>
> XXXXXXXXX
>
> The ugliness of a "gang Actor-spam in sci.math".
>
> In the latest FAQ of sci.math, we include the horrible behavior of Play Actor Spam by John Gabriel and his buddies Zelos Malum, Markus, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Kibo Parry M. where Gabriel fills up sci.math with 15 threads and waits for Dan to add a repetitive scree, then Jan Burse, then at nighttime for Zelos to add a one liner. PURPOSE of this spam-- to keep Gabriel 15 threads a Constant fixture, all day long, all night long as a permanent scree on page one every day of the year, and push all other posts into 2nd 3rd or hinter pages of sci.math.
>
> And the worst part of that story, they are paid indirectly via USA NSF and dept of Education, paying World std Kibo Parry, who then divvies out the money to his actors John Gabriel (all has to be confirmed of these allegations by a honest investigative reporter at least to the standards of Wikipedia which broke the story of the NSF link decades ago.)
>
>
> Sonnet
>
> To every life there has to be an end;
> Even for such life with no science brain at all.
> You, pea-brain, will follow that brain dead trend.
> When after fifty worthless years you fall.
> Will there be any style to honor you?
> For your mindless foolish reckless attack?
> You cackling ad hominem wretched hack
> Have less worth than a crackpot full of shit-stew.
>
> Yet there has been design in your making.
> Worthlessness escapes the limits of time.
> At last there will be worth from your being
> When soil does get enriched by your slime.
> Your worthless body freed from worthless mind
> Will at last to the dear good Earth be kind.
>
> AB + AP, poem copyrights
>
> XXXXXXXXXX
>
> The Daily Spammer, a disgruntled lugnut who daily wants to piss and poop on the world.
> Usually it is the same person with a different fake name.
>
> Tonight in sci.math it is Animn Elo.
>
> They hate the world, they hate themselves and they show it by spamming sci.math.
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Today's LIKELY govt drag net spammers in sci.math-- Amine. Likely FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6, and other govt agencies that give a shit, a shit about sci.math and overrunning sci.math.
>
> Amine police drag net & religion posts in sci.math is spam and abuse.
>
>
> XXXXXXXXX
>
>
>
>
> SCI.MATH FAQ and SCI. PHYSICS FAQ, although I personally remember the FAQ routinely posted to sci.math in 1993-1999 from Univ Waterloo in Canada, and from Scott I Chase from LBL dot gov in sci.physics.
>
>
> Snapshot History of Usenet's sci.physics and sci.math, and why it is almost dead, not as dead as sci.chem, but approaching it, save for a few individuals such as AP, and others. Others who care more about truth, than about money and prejudice and opinion, and mindless sentiment and sex orientation.
>
> AP cannot afford to lose sci.physics and sci.math because most of his new ideas after 1993 were all recorded and archived in sci.math and sci.physics.
>
> The death of sci.chem and so many other newsgroups can be blamed on a govt interference pattern of paying for stalkers, and police drag net spam. As if doing physics in sci.physics is a nuisance to others doing stalking and police drag net spam.
>
> Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. Sci.physics and sci.math are almost dead newsgroups where stalkers fill each thread of those doing physics in sci.physics or math in sci.math, paid stalkers to demonize authors and after the end of the day, all of the posts are flushed off into 2nd or 3rd or 4th page by government block spam, police drag net spam to get all posts off the front page. Here is an example of block-flush-spam found almost daily in sci.physics. The purpose of which is to flush all posts into 2nd or 3rd page-- out of sight, out of mind of posts that have physics content.
>
>
> unread,
> i take back what i said previous forgive me im sick i ccry
> How are you ?
> 7:30 AM
>
> _'s profile photo
> _
> ,
> He Llo
> 2
> unread,
> i take back whta i said previosu forgive me im sick i cry
> How are you ?
> 7:29 AM
>
> _'s profile photo
> _
> ,
> He Llo
> 2
> unread,
> in 1999 they called me a monster but i thought i was a good monster like for example the monsters of rocknroll>>and not a bad monster>>what did i do to be a monster?i dont know, its because somthing she told them that i dont know and never will cause i wasnt any mmonster
> 7:29 AM
>
> _'s profile photo
> _
> ,
> He Llo
> 2
> unread,
> in 1999 when i was a kid my senses didnt detect the monstruos proportion that i was confrontated aka with the rockstars >> if i was anonymous there woudnt be any problem cause i could handle it cause i had the controls>>but she stole my controls from me and made me contract freeze and they wanted me to explain without me having hte controls>>she caught me>>and i turned to crap>>she wanetd to steal my freedom and she succeeded
> 7:29 AM
>
> _'s profile photo
> _
> ,
> He Llo
> 2
> unread,
> i take back what i said preivous forgive me im sick i cry
>
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 9:46 AM (1 hour ago)
>
>
>
> to
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 9:17:14 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 11:27:39 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > 6-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 8Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running--
> > > For details see:
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
> > >
>
> Zelos Malum is doing a block-flush-spam over in sci.math, and every night he spits up as spam every one of Gabriel's spam that morning and loads the block of 15 threads onto sci.math to push everyone off the front pages.
>
> Not only does Zelos Malum do a Block-Flush-Spam every night by regurgitating every one of John Gabriel's daytime spam, usually a block of 15 threads, but now we have Markus over in Europe doing Block-Flush-Spam.
> So they do all sorts of attacks, attack your personal thread, and in conjunction, block-flush-spam to get your thread over onto page 2 or 3 hinterlands.
> Many a poster is a juvenile delinquent who never grew up, and thinks Usenet is another game toy, where you have to battle authors to see if they go away, with your attacks. Some mothers in Europe must be teaching their bad naughty child-- go play with Usenet, to get them out of their hair, but into the hairs of authors in sci.math and sci.physics, just like Markus.
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 3:02:50 PM UTC-5, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm quite sure Wiles is perfectly aware about the proof of FTC.
>
> And now we have not only Zelos Malum misfit repeating all 15 John Gabriel threads everyday of the year, but we have the new misfit of Markus Klyver repeating the misfit Malum 15 threads.
>
> Repeating or repetition is one of the strongest yet annoying weapons used in Usenet.
>
>
> There is a old saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a government committee. And after observing Usenet for almost 30 years now, and how the US government built Usenet in 1993 and how the USA govt then destroyed Usenet, we can safely say "A ashened dung heap of nuked out husk is a Camel of a Horse, once US government gets finished with it."
>
>
> Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. With only police drag net spam occupying 90% of the posts. You can easily tell police drag net spam-- always off topic, and incendiary, and full of references. Danger-- those references are likely to be viruses to hack into your computer.
>
> The USA government created Usenet in late 1980s, circa 1989 and I started to post 1993. About 90% of the posts were authored by edu dot addresses, harvard, nwu, berkeley and many colleges and universities. Today it is rare to see any edu dot address. Whenever I pull up a thread of mine in the early 1990s they are loaded with dot edu addresses. So what caused them to all flee? It was that the government of USA that invented Usenet started to pay stalkers to pester, harass, and cause to flee authors with their drumbeat of hate and stalking spam, which after the end of the day would be flushed off the front pages with more govt spam of drag net or flush-spam. So the govt created Usenet, in early 1990s and by 2000 was on a cruise to bruise and destroy Usenet. By 2021, only a enclave of posters in sci.math and sci.physics is keeping those two newsgroups still alive.
>
> Some had warned in 1990s to use filters when reading sci.physics or sci.math. Filter out all bad pests and stalkers. Trouble is, the stalkers turned away dot edu authors and by 1999 most colleges and university authors were heading for the exits.
>
> The vital reason AP cannot leave sci.physics and sci.math is because most everyone of my new ideas of science was posted to sci.physics and sci.math and many of those posts are seen in any one of my so far published books on Kindle Amazon. In the two years of 2019 - 2021 I managed to publish 150 books and working on my 151st book of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.
>
> It is safe to say the only fully functioning Usenet newsgroup of pure science, with no spam is AP's newsgroup. A place where almost all is pure science, seldom "people talk".
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
> Google newsgroups have abuse monitoring buttons and abuse report. But when the abuse comes from the USA govt itself, there is nothing Google can do.
>
> And, much of that police drag net spam is experimental spam, and what I mean is they test out to see how well and easy they can get into your computer should you dare click on one of their reference sites. Sort of test out "how to hack" should you click on their spam posts.
>
> This is what sci.chem looks like at the moment, a bombed out shell husk of police drag net spam. And the only reason sci.physics and sci.math are still functioning and do not look like sci.chem, are the efforts of a few people who care about sci.physics and sci.math.
>
> FBInNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> Economist John Maynard Keynes Said Whites Had The Right To KILL Non-Whites
> Aug 1
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> , …
> Nomen Nescio
> 4
> unread,
> EVIL WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEVES "deliberately diminished" Greatest Mathematical Contributions by Indians
> Jul 26
>
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> USA UK Aus Canada govts have been LYING to public - Ex-MI5 Microwave Scientist Barrie Trower
> Jul 23
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> Fibonacci: I loved Indian Mathematics to such an extent above all others that I completely devoted myself to it
> Jul 17
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> The Magneto-Plasma Cosmology of the Ṛgveda - Alternative to Big Bang Theory
> Jul 17
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> Re: Trump's lawsuit (WHITE FILTH spend their entire lives GOSSIPING while CIA, NSA is secretly CHIPPING them with MIND CONTROL CHIPS)
> Jul 11
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> MERCILESSLY MASSACRE THE CIA, NSA n FBI AGENTS LIKE FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING Amrikkkans with MIND CONTROL CHIPS
> Jul 6
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> The VEDA of PHYSICS: Reconciling the Observer and the Observed
> Jul 4
>
>
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> MASSACRE CIA, FBI, NSA agents like FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING americans with MIND INVASIVE CHIPS and TORTURING with DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
> Jun 30
>
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> unread,
> How INDIAN LOGIC played a role in the CREATION OF MODERN LOGIC, which is at the BASIS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
>
> Best FAQ ever written in Usenet once Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo FAQ stopped due to paid for stalkers.
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet in AP's newsgroup, for sci.physics and sci.math was sold by USA govt to a gang of stalkers, who pester everyone as they now own sci.physics, and the USA govt of NSF and dept of Educ probably laughing their arse off as the stalkers harass and pester everyone. In the 1980s we had fraud waste abuse of $900. toilet seats from the government. The govt learns quickly and now their fraud waste and abuse is pay Kibo Parry M, Jan Burse, Dan Christensen perhaps $100 per stalker post, providing everyone in USA govt entertainment in their soda coffee break at Washington DC. "Look, kibo just harassed AP with two more emoji's of "shit for brains". The Master in Dr. Who: ha ha ha,... ha ha ha....
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
> Sci. Math FAQ history
>
> From 1993 onwards to sometime around 1996 SCI.MATH FAQs were admininstered by Univ Waterloo in Canada, warning young students and newcomers of what to expect in sci.math. It worked well. And I would have liked it to be the first post permanently in sci.math. And it was done "for free". Their Warnings to students and newcomers were excellent, warning them of trust little of what you see in sci.math, sci.physics. And this is all that you ever need for Warnings. You never need paid for stalkers, which destroys a newsgroup.
>
> But then corruption and fraud entered sci.math and sci.physics, for when money can be made from something, easy money, then it is not long before a new arrangement is made. So instead of a "for free FAQ". Some persons convinced the USA govt to pay stalkers to go around and pester authors 24-7-365.
>
> And here is where a awful choice was likely made. A choice of hiring Kibo Parry M. of World std as noted by Wikipedia reference to the NSF, National Science Foundation. That they likely (we need investigative journalist to unearth the facts) hired Kibo Parry M, ___not knowing or not caring___ that he was Gay (we have to prove this as a Wikipedia standards of journalism) and by hiring him to stalk Usenet sci.math and sci.physics, he brings along with him (unknown to NSF at the time) brings along with him a full army of gay followers and warriors ready to do battle on Kibo's behalf in anticipation of a future "bedwarmer payback". Followers that laughed at every corny joke uttered by Kibo, So as they hire Kibo Parry M to stalk AP, then AP is not a one on one with Kibo attacks, no, AP is faced with a army of Kibo zombies.
>
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:18:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
> sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski
>
> On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:21:29 PM UTC-5, Me(Franz) wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 11:31:26 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> >> I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 homosexuals.
> (Franz) > I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.
> >
> (Franz)> I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!
>
> Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.
>
> In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.
>
> So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.
>
> A stupid decision was made by USA government sometime in the late 1990s to hire-- by the govt.-- paid for stalkers to stalk sci.math and sci.physics, in turn destroying those newsgroups and all of science on Usenet.
>
> Not only did the stalkers invade every thread of their targeted victim, but there was a hidden agenda a "hidden sci.math and a hidden sci.physics", like a different channel, in which posts that were free of the stalkers would be channelled into this sci.math and sci.physics, so that the stalking made a "no see um" of of the targeted victim. A form of censoring. So that no-one would see a post of AP, once the stalkers had made a reply into a AP thread.
>
> Much of the stalking comes out of std World ISP, with a fake name of Michael Moroney and many other fake names, used by Kibo Parry.
>
> ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
>
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh
> Arden Lee Bement Jr.
> Rita R. Colwell
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
>
> And how much of this paid stalkers, is paid for by the USA dept of Education? We need investigative journalists to figure this out.
>
> We need investigative news journalists to see how much money the govt USA via NSF or dept of Educ is enriching the pockets of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, and a team of allies to stalk sci.math and sci.physics. Is it in the millions of dollars? Are they paid more to stalk under a NSF grant than actual professors of math and physics are paid at MIT or CalTech to actually teach math and physics? Will the NSF hire Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse to wipe the arse of staff at NSF as they visit the toilet, for they enjoy stalkers throwing turds throughout sci.math and sci.physics? And will that be paid for in millions of dollars also.
>
> USA NSF---Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
>
> USA dept Educ, Cindy Marten, deputy
>
> And the extreme stalking by Canadian Dan Christensen.
> Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
>
> Investigative reporter needs to find out why Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo that had a nice, well-worked FAQ in early 1990s in Warning young students and newcomers that they will see all sorts of posts and to believe few if any of those posts. Why that FAQ disappeared in late 1990s, leaving only stalkers all over Usenet.
>
> The FAQ worked really well and were "for free". It gave the proper Warnings to young students and newcomers that they would find all manner of posts and to believe very little of what they read because of the free-style nature of posts. Only I would have preferred they remain a permanent fixture of the very first post in sci.physics or sci.math.
>
> So the journalist needs to investigate the corruption of where we are talking about a lot of money, perhaps millions squandered in paying the likes of stalkers Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, to stalk day and night, year after year for 28 years now. When before Alex at Univ of Waterloo was posting for free-- the Warning. And now with stalkers, pestering authors to try to drive authors out.
>
> Why give up a FAQ to pay millions for stalkers that ruin sci.physics and sci.math, just simply ruin and destroy it. And turn sci.math and sci.physics down to their level of idiocy-- Kibo Parry-- 938 is 12% short of 945, or Dan Christensen with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic.
>
> When sci.math and sci.physics operated beautifully with a FAQ posted from Univ Waterloo in the early 1990s. Why change, unless big, free easy money could be had.
>
> So we need a investigative journalist to see where the govt fraud and corruption entered into the destruction of sci.math and sci.physics when a "for free guidance" was offered in a FAQ in early 1990s, where the corruption of wasting millions of dollars to pay some clinically obese stalkers Kibo and others sitting on their arse --all day long attacking posters.
>
> And one has to investigate on whether John Gabriel was a stalker himself who would spam sci.math almost every day filling the board with 10 or more posts, whether Gabriel was some sort of "lure and bait" for stalkers Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry M, to say to NSF Dr. Panchanathan "see, you need us to stalk because of guys like Gabriel, now give us a 2 million pay rise".
>
> AP has the hunch that Gabriel is a actor in cohort with Kibo and Dan and Jan and especially Zelos Malum who spams a 15 thread scree every night for years into Gabriel threads just to push everyone else off the front page. The Malum pathetic one liners such as "and why does one need to do it geometrically?" Refering to AP's call for a geometry proof of calculus.
>
> South Africa has no Hollywood for actor guilds, and so John Gabriel has become a sci.math actor, with his buddies Zelos Malum, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse and Kibo Parry M. play acting in sci.math, posting 15 spam screed threads much of the material a revised copy of whatever AP is doing in math, but much of it a disdain and mockery of others and AP, and famous mathematicians like Euler. But do not be fooled by Zelos or Dan or Jan jumping all over John Gabriel for their attacks of Gabriel were all arranged ahead of time. They are all one and the same gang of attacking spamming stalkers, paid for, sadly, probably, and this needs investigator journalism, paid for by USA NSF and dept of education. They paid Kibo to stalk authors, and Kibo brought a gang of gays with him, some of them actors like Gabriel (all to be investigated by journalists.)
>
> In the wake of stalking, the USA government then used the sci.math and sci.physics as stomping grounds for police-drag-net-spam. One merely has to take a peek inside of sci.chem and see it is a bombed out shell of a husk of nothing but police drag net spam, so bad was sci.chem, that Dr. Panchanathan mad at how overwhelmed sci.chem had been destroyed ordering one of the stalkers to daily go into sci.chem with a dumb insipid question of chemistry, just to pretend sci.chem still had some "life" with someone of the stalkers posing a chemistry question, just to pretend it is not 100% bombed out of existence.
>
> The Master in Dr. Who:: ha, ha, ha,,ha,ha.....ha,ha ha, hee,hee,hee, hee hee.
>
> So what AP is going to do, is restore science newsgroups from the awful clutches of ignorant National Science Foundation Dr. Panchanathan's paid for stalkers and daily police drag net spam abominations.
>
> AP needs to do this for most of all New True Science came from sci.physics and sci.math. People dull dumb and dirt ignorant people of science cannot stomach change and truth of science, and their reaction is predictable-- destroy the truth of science whatever means possible.
>
> I am going to restore a daily FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, until NSF Dr. Panchanathan grows up and his dept. grows up and furnishes a FAQ for sci.math and sci.physics. And stops and halts all payments to stalkers and stops and halts police drag net spam. Until then, AP takes over that job.
>
> Swiss fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money 100franc per stalker post--
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 5:35:41 PM UTC-5, burs...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
> > for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
>
> Swiss government: Walter Thurnherr, Guy Parmelin, Ignazio Cassis
>
> Unclear how the fraud waste abuse money flows, whether USA-NSF pays the Swiss for Jan Burse stalking directly, or whether some other flow for stalking, or, none at all. But the stalking has been constant for 10 years.
>
> NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--
>
> USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley.
>
> ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
> ETH Zurich
>
> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
> Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
>
> Zurich ETH, physics dept
> Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
> Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
> Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
> Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
> Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
> Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
> Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
>
> University Bern
> Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter
>
> AP restoring a FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS and Directing all traffic to the only **active pure science newsgroup**
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
>
>
> What AP is going to do, if Usenet continues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->
>
> Which was more corrupt, the stalkers Kibo, Dan and Jan or was NSF the lead corruptors, that would make Usenet sci.math and sci.physics a bombed out shell of a husk.
>
> So we see here how USA, NSF
> Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
>
> And how Canada NSF,
> Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
>
> Instructs their paid for stalkers Kibo Parry M. and Dan Christensen. To pick a victim, selected by NSF, then pester that victim in every one of his posts with hate spew, whether anagrams or mockery or swear words.
>
> What we do not see is how much money is slided under the table for each of those stalk posts. Whether in cash or in license fees to even operate std World or in grants hidden from view and given obscure titles pretending to research something in internet behavior.
>
> So when was the last time that Alex Lopez-Ortiz posted his sci.math FAQ which did a perfectly swell job of WARNING to young students and newcomers, warning that you should believe only a fraction of what you read and that sci.math is coated in cranks crackpots and worthless stalkers like Kibo and Dan teaching 938 is 12% short of 945 and that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction due to error filled Boole logic.
>
> So we do not see how much of taxpayers dollars is going for the likely-clinically-obese stalkers of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse munching on chocolate bonbons sitting on their arse all day long spewing hatred. We do not see if their post nets a $100 per post spew or even more. So that they are paid thousand dollars a day, leaving the poor college professor who actually does teach math and physics, with a hundred dollars a day.
>
> We need an investigative journalist to find out if the corrupt Kibo and Dan sought for the NSF to extract this lavish lifestyle career, or whether NSF sought for someone to stalk as a career.
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ 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
Michael Moroney
Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>
> John, why not accept the truth that a slant cut in cone is Oval, never a ellipse, or stay the mindless childish fool you are.
> On Tuesday, January 4, 1994 at 4:29:34 PM UTC-6, john baez wrote:
>> This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 28)
>> John Baez
> Yes, more people reading AP because John Baez and his troop of run and hide con artists of math of Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, John Stillwell, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, Ken Ribet are at the con art fakery of math, not the truth of mathematics with their:
> a) refusal to acknowledge calculus is geometry
they probably never even heard of?
> b) Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never ellipse
since Greek times?
> c) Boole got all 4 of his connectors truth table wrong, worst being AND at TFFF when it truly is TTTF so we do not end up with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction
> d) Natural Logarithm with base 2.71... has nothing to do with Y = 1/x for the Ln(1.00005) equals exactly 0.00005.
which is good when x is close to 0.
> And this fallacy of "coming close but no relationship"
> So, failures of mathematics, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, Jill Pipher, John Stillwell, Ken Ribet, run , run, and hide for you cannot do proper correct math and only can do run and hide.
those people are geniuses of math, something you can never be.
> 1> More people reading AP's newsgroup than sci.math for math science.
> 2> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Paul Alsing
> Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never ellipse ...
An ellipse always has two axes of reflection; an oval has one or more. If an oval has 2, then it is also an ellipse.
You can call a slant cut in a cone either one because both are correct.
Archimedes Plutonium
Do the experiment you jackarse of reasoning. High School students can do the experiment but not the jackarse Pnal, and his degree should be taken away from Pnal from his above mindless denial.
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Length: 21 pages
File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#8-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Length: 137 pages
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)