Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #413043

Re: Tao cannot remain silent on critical issues-- Ellipse is never a conic section Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Show key headers only | View raw

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

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

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

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

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


>Michael Moroney 	wrote:
>May 11

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

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

>>Alan you have no logical brains

>You should talk, Illogical One.

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

No answer?

<snip proof ellipse is a conic section>

>qed

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

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

>What percent short is 938 from 945?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

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

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

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

Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 22:18 -0700
  Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2018-05-13 05:14 -0700
  Tao cannot remain silent on critical issues-- Ellipse is never a conic section Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 11:26 -0700
    Re: Tao cannot remain silent on critical issues-- Ellipse is never a conic section Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 01:41 +0000
  Tao never mastered, perhaps never took logic in school Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 12:26 -0700
    Tao never even had a proper system of "what are numbers" Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 11:10 -0700
      sad that the prizes in math--Fields, Abel, Wolf are set up to pollute math-- never fix math Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-14 12:27 -0700
        Logic is lost on Terry Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 00:02 -0700
          Re: Logic is lost on Terry Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 18:49 -0700
          Re: Logic is lost on Terry Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:51 -0700

csiph-web