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

Groups > sci.math > #413772 > unrolled thread

Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:20 -0700
    Re: Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-25 20:14 +0000
      Re: Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 18:14 -0400
    Re: Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 16:17 -0700

#413772 — Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV


> On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:22:09 AM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> Re: No, AP, when you slice a cone from the apex, it will lie flat.
Poor AP. Can't use use scissors correctly. Holds them at the wrong end.

- show quoted text -
>No, AP.  You don't hold the scissors at the pointed end.  Oh wait, maybe you're using blunted scissors for kids.  Be careful, anyway.

CalTech math dept 

Michael Aschbacher      Group Theory, Combinatorics 
Alexei Borodin  Asymptotic Representation Theory, Random Matrices 
Danny Calegari *
Low-dimensional Geometry, Topology and Dynamics 
Matthias Flach 
Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry 
Anton N. Kapustin 
Theoretical Physics and Mathematics 
Alexander Kechris       Mathematical Logic, Set Theory 
Alexei Kitaev   Theoretical Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics 
Matilde Marcolli 
Noncummutative Geometry 
Nikolai Makarov Harmonic Analysis, Complex Dynamics 
Vladimir Markovic       Low dimensional geometry, Teichmueller theory 
Hiroshi Oguri 
Theoretical Physics and Mathematics 
Eric Rains 
Dinakar Ramakrishnan    Number Theory, Automorphic Forms, Algebraic Geometry 
Barry Simon     Mathematical Physics, Functional Analysis 
Richard Wilson  Combinatorics, Computing 
Tom Graber      Algebraic Geometry 
Sergei Gukov    String Theory, Geometry and Topology 
Elena Mantovan  Number Theory and Arithmetic Geometry 
Yi NI  Geometry and Topology 


President Thomas Rosenbaum 
Caltech Physics Dept 

Barry Barish 
Felix Boehm 
Steven Frautschi 
Murray Gell-Mann 
David Goodstein 
Thomas Phillips 
John Schwarz 
Barry Simon 
Kip Thorne 
Petr Vogel 
Rochus Vogt 
Ward Whaling 


   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in sunny California? 


SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 
------------------- 



Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#413840 — Re: Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

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

>Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the 
>ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to 
>do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

Even if Archie can't tell a cone from a hole in the ground, he should be
able to understand this proof that the ellipse is a conic section.

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

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

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

Proof:

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

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

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

qed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#413851 — Re: Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin, Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

On 5/25/2018 4:14 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the
>> ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to
>> do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV
> 
> Even if Archie can't tell a cone from a hole in the ground, he should be
> able to understand this proof that the ellipse is a conic section.
> 
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
> 
> Some preliminaries:
> 
> Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
> in the proof:
> 
>                ^ x
>                |
>               -+- <= x=h
>           .'   |   `.
>          .     |     .
>          |     |     |
>          '     |     '
>           `.   |   .'
>   y <----------+ <= x=0
>               
> Cone (side view):
>                   .
>                  /|\
>                 / | \
>                /b |  \
>               /---+---' <= x = h
>              /    |'   \
>             /   ' |     \
>            / '    |      \
> x = 0 => '-------+-------\
>          /    a   |        \
> 
> Proof:
> 
> r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence
> 
> y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
> 
> Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse
> 
> qed
> 

Fake Proof!

Archie has proved beyond any doubt that ellipses are NOT conic sections.
NO need to even READ your post!

And anyway, what are you doing in Archie's thread? He does not 
appreciate intruders invading "his" thread and causing disruptions to 
his "thinking".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#413858

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 11:20:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Michael Aschbacher, Alexei Borodin,  Danny Calegari never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV
> 
> 
> > On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:22:09 AM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Re: No, AP, when you slice a cone from the apex, it will lie flat.
> Poor AP. Can't use use scissors correctly. Holds them at the wrong end.
> 
> - show quoted text -
> >No, AP.  You don't hold the scissors at the pointed end.  Oh wait, maybe you're using blunted scissors for kids.  Be careful, anyway.
> 
> CalTech math dept 

What on earth is the POINT of copying a departmental list here? Are you nuts?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web