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

Groups > sci.math > #413710 > unrolled thread

8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 19:27 -0700
    Toto Crappo for the 8th time.. you rock AP! alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com - 2018-05-23 20:28 -0700
    Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 10:53 -0700
      #3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:20 -0700
        Re: #3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // AP confuses himself alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com - 2018-05-25 07:40 -0700
          Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Matthias Flach  Anton N. Kapustin  Alexander Kechris  never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:01 -0700
        #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 23:16 -0700
          Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:56 -0700
            Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:25 -0700
              Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:59 -0700
                Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics alouatta.coibensis@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 08:10 -0700
                Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:02 -0700
                  Re: #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:04 -0700
      Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-25 20:29 +0000
    Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-05-27 13:00 -0700

#413710 — 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works

8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works

#3-8  Toto Space Product in Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics 

Alright, I am going to need a 3-9 lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School. 

Alright, this is going to be the toughest concept for 14 year olds to learn, but one of the most important concepts, that prepares the student to go on in all the sciences, and mathematics. 
Because it is so tough, I ask the teachers to bring in a model, so the student has a visual model always in her/his mind. A beautiful model it is-- at that. 


GEOMETRY LOGIC = Set theory 
  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 

Of the six operators above, this Toto Space is perhaps the most important because it is the entire geometry in which these six operators work in, and on top of that, it is this operator that provides motion in geometry to form geometry figures. The motion is a "spin". 

So, we have a lot of work to do on this last but important operator. 

Now this is a very very complicated lesson, the most complex complicated lesson so far in this textbook, and so I have to especially tone down the message, and make it accessible to 14 year olds. Now recently on TV, I was watching a animal display of the late Irwin Australian animal enthusiast, of his son who the announcer said was 14 years old. That is a relief to me, for I know that Robert Irwin could easily learn this full entire lesson. For at one time in my life, in the mid 1970s I was living and teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and sort of forgot, since then, what 14 year olds minds were capable of learning. In fact, watching Robert, I kind of think I am too soft on 14 year olds. 

So, to make doubly sure that this lesson is accessible to 14 year olds minds, I ask the teacher to construct two models before classroom teaching of this lesson. One model is a sheet of graph paper with the x-axis on the bottom of the sheet going out in integers to 100, 0 to 100 in integers, and the y-axis going upwards to only that of 10, 0 to 10 in integers. Now this is difficult to write all 100 integers on the x-axis, so the students are going to have to write them tiny tiny numbers to fit all 100 integers in the bottom of the graph paper. I had to erase them twice before I got the right size to fit them all in. Once done, then get another stiff waxy paper, like a magazine cover then bent the two together to form a cylinder and tape it on the inside. The students will do this model in class. 

The second model is a globe presented by the teacher, and built at home and on a paper cut out of a square box paper write ten integers of 10 grid 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 on x-axis and do the same for y-axis and scotch tape that to the globe make the square box cutout be the same proportion as the cylinder so that 90 other numbers is the circumference around the globe that the square box does not cover. The square paper should be about 1/10 the circumference around the globe. 

A visual demonstration is worth a thousand or more words in class, something the students will remember far longer than the words or numbers spoken or written. And this demonstration is very important for it charts all we do in the future of mathematics-- its infinity ideas, and its realm where math is played out. 

Now the students are going to bring a graph paper and do the cylinder once they see the teacher's model of cylinder. 

Now I am more concerned that we teach 14 year olds this operator in any sort of depth and detail, no, not concerned about mastery of Toto Space, even though it will be many years before they take Calculus. But the concept behind Toto Space is so important that if we do not teach it to 14 year olds, they have a good chance of being corrupted and polluted with fake math with their fake infinity notions. So by age 14, fake infinity of Old Math is very much competing with true math and we want to catch the students by age 14, so they are not polluted in mind over infinity. 

Now the Toto Space Product is truly a product and it is very nice to know we need the Cartesian Universal Function of the prior lesson. Now the 10 Grid would be this--- first we list all of 10 Grid 

0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, ... , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 

Here we did it for 8 year olds in chapter 1, lesson 1-1 

9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 
7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 
5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 
0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 

Only we want them all in a straightline to be the x-axis or y-axis 

0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, only my computer give out here 

If we do not count 0.0 then there are 10 x 10 = 100 numbers there in the 10 Grid. But, the Toto Space Product of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and all of the numbers in 100 Grid. 

100 Grid numbers are these 

0.00, .01, .02, .03, .... , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 

Not counting 0.00, how many numbers are there in 100 Grid? Well, there are 100 integers and there are 100 decimal fractions between any two consecutive or successor integers. That means, say, between 1 and 2 there are 100 decimal fractions, between 2 and 3 there are 100 decimal fractions. So between 0 and 100 there are 100 integers and between any two consecutive integers there are 100 decimal fractions, hence, 100 x 100 = 10,000. 

So, the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 numbers along the x-axis and 10,000 along the y-axis. And so, what is the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis? 

It is 10,000 times 10,000 or 10,000^2 which is what-- any student know? It is 10^8 as answer. So the body of Toto Space for 10 Grid is that of 10^8, which is 1 with eight zeroes after it. It is 100,000,000 which is hard on my eyes so I use commas. 

So for the 10 Grid, we have 100 numbers along x-axis and 100 along y-axis which makes a Cartesian Universal Function be that of 100x100 = 100^2 = 10,000. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and in 100 Grid there are 10,000 numbers along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis. That means the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 by 10,000 is 100,000,000. 

The body of coordinate graphed points of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on the graph paper. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 100 points on x-axis, 100 on y-axis causing the body of points to be 100,000,000. 

So in 10 Grid we have 100 points on a graph for x-axis. Yet the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on x-axis. Those other 9,900 points such as 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, . . . 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 are curling back around to 0 in a circle. 

More later,.... 

AP 



#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 

These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place. 


Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 

And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw. 

His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence. 

If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3 

Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement? 

Here is a analog of the above flaw. 

If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after. 

You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true. 

Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 

Am looking for the best example: 

If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 

If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 

Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 

Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS 

Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic? 

Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy 

1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!" 

2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!" 

3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. 
(source: Wikipedia) 

So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur. 

I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur. 

So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia: 

1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right. 

2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him. 

3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies. 

So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then 

Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 

So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about. 

Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically. 
Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically. 

The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972 

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. 
Socrates is a man. 
Therefore Socrates is mortal. 


All men are mortal. 
Socrates is a man. 
Therefore Socrates is mortal 

All cows are mammals and have lungs. 
All horses are mammals and have lungs. 
All men are mammals and have lungs. 
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs. 



#3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 

My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format. 

Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living. 

We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books. 


_____________ 
|      A                | 
|     _______     | 
|     |             |    | 
|     |        __ |__|____ 
|     |       |     |    |       | 
|__ |___ |__ |__|       | 
      |       |     |            | 
      |       |__ |___C__| 
      |_B____ | 


  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 

The Union of A U B U C is 
_____________ 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        |____ 
|                                | 
|__                            | 
      |                          | 
      |              ______| 
      |______ | 

The Union of A U B is 

_____________ 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|                        | 
|__                __|   
      |             |           
      |             | 
      |______ | 


What is the Union of A U C, of B U C


zzzzzzzzzz
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New
 Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 06:05:09 +0000

26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?

Alright, I answered a question earlier about why a .5MeV electron cannot do a chemical bonding to a 938 MeV proton of two hydrogen atoms in H2. The short answer is such as N3, where 3 electrons of one N bond with 3 electrons of another N, and if the electrons were 105 MeV, you are talking about 6 x 105 = 630 MeV angular momentum with each proton being 840 MeV. Alternatively, in Old Physics ripping apart N2 would be angular momentum of .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 = 3 MeV. Dissociation energy of N2 in eV is somewhat around 10 eV, where Chemistry bonding is 10^-6 that of nuclear physics. 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: Re: discovery of what is the bar magnet in Faraday's law for atoms 
 and molecules 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 03:10:30 +0000 

Fair enough, take the Old Physics viewpoint then the New Physics. 

Old Physics thought the electron was that tiny particle of .5MeV and their proton was 938 MeV, almost 2,000 more massive and when a hydrogen atom collides with another hydrogen atom to form the covalent bond, their physics was that two of these .5 MeV angular momentum particles form a bond affecting the two protons of course, and now circle those two near-by protons each of 938 MeV. 

New Physics says the electron is 105 MeV with proton at 840 MeV so in the collision, is a collision of two 105MeV which is 210 MeV with two near-by protons of 840 MeV each. 

AP 



On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:58:59 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> 25-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no angular momentum 
> 
> 
> Faraday law   
> 
> Is 
> 
> B' = (V/(i*L))' 
> 
> and then reducing it we end up with 
> 
> B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 


Alright, in this, I do not know if I need the Angular Momentum after the Faraday law is worked, or before the Faraday law with just New Ohm's law 

As in V = iBL 

If it is the New Ohm's law that I deduce what is the bar magnet then it is a direct linear relationship of the mass in L and the mass in B, magnetic field. Implying there is a mass in Voltage. 

And here, like in the question of animal CO2 versus fire CO2 produced from fire, whether those are two isomers different from one another, and only an experiment can tell the truth of the matter. 

Here again, only an experiment can begin to unravel the truth. Now I have a coil of copper and a bar magnet, and the coil far outweighs the bar magnet, but then how do we determine the amount of current produced that ties together the mass of magnet to the mass of coil? Seems as though we can pick them arbitrarily. 

Could we say, that the .5MeV in some atoms of radioactive decay points to a Faraday law where a muon of 105 MeV is producing that .5MeV by thrusting through 8 windings of a proton of 840MeV? 

If I can spot where a .5MeV monopole is emitted out of a radioactive atom, then I can reverse engineer that atom's internal Faraday hardware, deduce the windings and deduce how many valence muons thrusting through to produce the .5MeV emission. 

Now, here, we get the idea that some radioactivity, in a sense can emit .5 MeV particles forever, and not really any half-life, but, forever. So, some of these radioactive atoms that emit .5MeV particles, and seem to never-- miss a beat --- so to speak, have no half life but are forever emitters. For as long as these atoms move through Space, they eat up Space-- thrusting bar magnet in coil, and convert that Space to a monopole of .5 MeV. A nice proof of this, in physics, is measure a emitter and if it ever-- speeds up emissions, means it has no half live but an emitter forever. In Old Physics, their view and understanding of radioactivity with half-life, implied the emission is either steady constant rate or a rate slowing down. In New Physics, since Faraday law is the driving mechanism in all atoms, we can have a speeded up rate of radioactivity. 

> 
> Where we have electricity and Lenz law come out. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles. 
> 
> The L is angular momentum. And angular momentum has mass. 
> 

Easy to make a mistake, in this, do I focus on Faraday's law of B' or do I focus on New Ohm's Law of V= iBL for mass consideration of a bar magnet versus coil. Now we can have uniformity in making the magnet out of iron and the coil out of iron wire. 


> Old Ohm's law was V = iR where R is resistance. New Ohm's law is V = iBL where R = BL and B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum. 
> 
> What does this tell us about the mass of a bar magnet in Faraday law relative to the mass of the closed loop coil in Faraday Law? 
> 
> Well, the changing magnetic field in Faraday law, B', produces an electric current, and is inversely proportional to the Angular Momentum, the mass. So, if we have a coil of say 8 windings for proton, then the inverse of 8 is 1/8. And so, a proton composed of 8 muons, as coil, then the bar magnet as B is 8/8 = 1 muon. 
> 
> This tells me the muon is the bar magnet, but it does not indicate how many muons are the bar magnet in various atoms or molecules. 
> 
> 

These ponderings are always tricky, is it an inverse linear relationship of magnet mass to coil mass, or is it a just linear as in New Ohm's Law. 

Will sleep on it. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
 where the Aufbau is a torus geometry
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:00:31 +0000


27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Finally hit a breakthrough, and, let me happily note, that what I am doing independently in math at this very moment is doing geometry of conic sections, cylinder sections, and there is no way in the world that the Mind and brain are chemicals sloshing around to form ideas or memory, and what the mind and brain truly are-- are a pipe to the godhead of the Atom Totality, a radio receiver to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, because, well, my research is coming to an intersection of my math currently going on blending perfectly and exactly with my physics I am trying to conquer. Two independent strains of research meeting is impossible unless all thoughts of all minds were messages sent from the godhead.

Earlier I spoke of the Torus of Tokamaks being maximum possible electricity as a geometry design. That means the Nucleus and interior of all atoms is a torus geometry. For physics of atoms would not know how to make partial electricity, fractional electricity,-- Nature only does maximum electricity.

So now, looking at CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom

That picture on page 327 is actually a Aufbau, but is something more, for if you look closely and carefully the 1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to 4d to 5p to 6s to 4f to 5d

If you look carefully you can make out that the Aufbau as geometry is a TORUS.

AP



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:32:13 +0000

28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:50:59 +0000

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics//chapter 4 

Now I am doing physics simultaneously with math of conic sections, totally separate and independent of one another, except I have run into a intersection of the two, at this moment. This intersection is supporting evidence that the mind and brain of intelligent life is not chemically based machine, but is rather a radio receiver machine that picks up ideas and thoughts from out-of-body, photons shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality that gives every creature his/her/its ideas and thoughts of what to do next. Superdeterminism, no free will. 

So, I was looking for Maximum Electricity in a geometry configuration and found it in the tokamak Torus geometry and if you look at the Aufbau of elements, the chart of energy levels, you can make out that this Aufbau is itself a torus geometry. 

Now, a Cylinder is plane Euclidean geometry for if we take a plane sheet of paper and with one circular fold we have a cylinder. Now, if we could take that cylinder and bend it around without breaking or tearing it we would have a torus. With paper that is impossible but with closed loops as a cylinder with gaps in between consecutive loops we easily form a torus from a cylinder. And that is what Faraday coil is-- gaps between successive closed loops. 

Now, we constructed a Cylinder from a flat plane sheet of paper. Can we construct a cone from a flat plane sheet of paper? The question I am asking here is a devious question on my part, for if we had a cone of paper and cut it on one cut from base to height tip of cone in a straightline cut, can we fold that cut cone to lie perfectly flat? We can do the same thing with a cylinder, cut it, and it is a plane itself. But what is the cut cone? Is it ever able to be a flat Euclidean surface? Or is there some integral curvature to a cone, that a cone is impossible to lie flat in Euclidean geometry? And what do we call this integral curvature of cone? Do we call it as in physics-- a Cylinder has 0 spin while a cone has an intrinsic 1/2 spin. 

Now, further, can we lie a Cone flat, if we are given 2 straightline cuts, perhaps 4 straightline cuts where those 4 are somewhat triangle shaped? 

Now this is important for my physics, of torus and electricity, because the fill in of gaps between closed loops of the wire coil, so you can fold a cylinder to be a torus, those gaps are somewhat similar to the cone not being able to lie flat. 

So, what the Torus shape for maximum electricity, is the Aufbau, and each new proton and muons that build the elements, those are windings of a coil, and the gaps between proton windings, that empty space gap is the neutron windings. 

And the bar magnet which I have had a difficult time of understanding finally becomes clear, or more clear. The bar magnet to make maximum electricity in Faraday's law are all the lower energy levels themselves folded into a torus and that is the bar magnet. So for instance the first energy level of 1s in helium is a torus and then in beryllium is a 2s torus with the 1s torus inside it acting as bar magnet, then for 2p of neon, is a torus that has 2s torus inside 2p and the 1s torus inside of 2s. This makes sense if you want Maximum Electricity of Faraday law. And, it makes sense in that the Chemical Bond is a completion of a torus, such as say N2 molecule, where the partial filled torus of one Nitrogen atom's 2P is filled by the second nitrogen atom. Where one of the Nitrogen atom's 2P is a full torus with its 1S inside 2S inside the filled 2P and adjacent is the second Nitrogen atom as a torus of just 2S with 1S inside. This gets rid of Lewis structure altogether as merely a erroneous mnemonic device. 

Now for O2 we have one O filled of its 2P with toruses 2s and 1s inside the 2P torus, but with the second oxygen we have the 2S torus filled with 1S torus inside, but we have 2 extra valence muons left over and what they do is form a second 2S, call it the 2S_x and 2S_y. 

So, Chemistry bonding is altogether new and different, as a torus design. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:37:46 +0000

One of the most famous of all science experiments but now we put it through more rigorous testing to prove Maximum Electric Coil. 

—-quoting Wikipedia —- 

The Geiger–Marsden experiment(s) (also called the Rutherford gold foil experiment) were a landmark series of experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where all of its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated. They deduced this by measuring how an alpha particle beam is scattered when it strikes a thin metal foil. The experiments were performed between 1908 and 1913 by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden under the direction of Ernest Rutherford at the Physical Laboratories of the University of Manchester. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#413715 — Toto Crappo for the 8th time.. you rock AP!

On Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 7:27:25 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works
> 
> #3-8  Toto Space Product in Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics 
> 
> Alright, 

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

#413771 — Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place.


Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw.

His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence.

If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3

Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement?

Here is a analog of the above flaw.

If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after.

You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true.

Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 

Am looking for the best example: 

If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 

If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 

Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 

Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic?

Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy

1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"

2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!"

3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
(source: Wikipedia)

So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur.

I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur.

So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia:

1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right.

2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him.

3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies.

So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then

Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about.

Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically.
Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically.

The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972. However, most logic textbooks are old decayed logic, riddled with mistakes all over the place, and their fallacy section is usually poor in quality, but the teacher is free to go through Old Logic for examples to use in class, whether math class or English language class (and for foreign countries-- whatever their language is)

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal

All cows are mammals and have lungs.
All horses are mammals and have lungs.
All men are mammals and have lungs.
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.

So I ask the teacher to go to various books to find logic examples of fallacies.

But now, let us press on with many Logical fallacy arguments in mathematics. It is good to end the year for the 14 year old with what he can expect to see as Fallacies of mathematics.

Minor math fallacies

Here are some fallacies of math I picked up from the Internet over the years.

Fallacy of Unable to Think Straight

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> >>> 
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> >> 
> > 
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> 
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> 


Fallacy of Plain Ignorance

> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 



Fallacy of Big Mouth- No Brains



> Mike Moroney, --on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 


Fallacy When you Ad Hominem-you cannot think straight
> 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.





Major Math fallacies

1) Ellipse is a cylinder section (cut) never a conic section

2) Sine and Cosine are not sinusoid waves, but a semicircle wave because in unit circle the value of 90 degrees is 1, meaning, the value of 180 degrees is not 3.14... but is rather instead a value of 2. In math-- it is a fallacy to think you can stretch the x-axis from being a value of 2, to a value of 3.14.... and not ruin the true wave of sine.

3) It is a fallacy of math, to think you can define finite and define infinity, and not have a borderline between them, to tell you if a number is finite or infinite.

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

#413784 — #3-9 Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

Alright, I am going to need a lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School.

These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place.

Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw.

His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence.

If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3

Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement?

Here is a analog of the above flaw.

If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after.

You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true.

Remember in an earlier lesson the Material Conditional, the If--> then logic connector was? If not, review it now. For it had a truth table of T,F, U, U.

So the only time that a argument of IF, if-->then, --> then is true is when it is T, T-->T, --> T

Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 

Am looking for the best example: 

If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 

If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 

Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 

Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic?

Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy

1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"

2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!"

3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
(source: Wikipedia)

So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur.

I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur.

So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia:

1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right.

2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him.

3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies.

So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then

Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about.

Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically.
Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically.

The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972. However, most logic textbooks are old decayed logic, riddled with mistakes all over the place, and their fallacy section is usually poor in quality, but the teacher is free to go through Old Logic for examples to use in class, whether math class or English language class (and for foreign countries-- whatever their language is)

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal

All cows are mammals and have lungs.
All horses are mammals and have lungs.
All men are mammals and have lungs.
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.

So I ask the teacher to go to various books to find logic examples of fallacies.

But now, let us press on with many Logical fallacy arguments in mathematics. It is good to end the year for the 14 year old with what he can expect to see as Fallacies of mathematics.

Minor math fallacies

Here are some fallacies of math I picked up from the Internet over the years.

Fallacy of Unable to Think Straight

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> >>> 
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> >> 
> > 
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> 
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> 


Fallacy of Plain Ignorance

> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 



Fallacy of Big Mouth- No Brains



> Mike Moroney, --on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 


Fallacy When you Ad Hominem-you cannot think straight
> 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.





Major Math fallacies

1) Ellipse is a cylinder section (cut) never a conic section

2) Sine and Cosine are not sinusoid waves, but a semicircle wave because in unit circle the value of 90 degrees is 1, meaning, the value of 180 degrees is not 3.14... but is rather instead a value of 2. In math-- it is a fallacy to think you can stretch the x-axis from being a value of 2, to a value of 3.14.... and not ruin the true wave of sine.

3) It is a fallacy of math, to think you can define finite and define infinity, and not have a borderline between them, to tell you if a number is finite or infinite.

AP

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

#413810 — Re: #3-9 Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // AP confuses himself

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 10:20:55 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> #3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics
> 
> Alright, I am going to need a lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School.
> 
> These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place.
> 
> Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.
> 
> And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw.
> 
> His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence.
> 
> If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3
> 
> Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement?
> 
> Here is a analog of the above flaw.
> 
> If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after.
> 
> You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true.
> 
> Remember in an earlier lesson the Material Conditional, the If--> then logic connector was? If not, review it now. For it had a truth table of T,F, U, U.
> 
> So the only time that a argument of IF, if-->then, --> then is true is when it is T, T-->T, --> T
> 
> Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 
> 
> Am looking for the best example: 
> 
> If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 
> 
> If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 
> 
> Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 
> 
> Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS
> 
> Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic?
> 
> Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy
> 
> 1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"
> 
> 2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!"
> 
> 3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
> (source: Wikipedia)
> 
> So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur.
> 
> I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur.
> 
> So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia:
> 
> 1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right.
> 
> 2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him.
> 
> 3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies.
> 
> So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
> If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then
> 
> Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.
> 
> So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about.
> 
> Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically.
> Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically.
> 
> The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972. However, most logic textbooks are old decayed logic, riddled with mistakes all over the place, and their fallacy section is usually poor in quality, but the teacher is free to go through Old Logic for examples to use in class, whether math class or English language class (and for foreign countries-- whatever their language is)
> 
> If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore Socrates is mortal.
> 
> All men are mortal.
> Socrates is a man.
> Therefore Socrates is mortal
> 
> All cows are mammals and have lungs.
> All horses are mammals and have lungs.
> All men are mammals and have lungs.
> Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.
> 
> So I ask the teacher to go to various books to find logic examples of fallacies.
> 
> But now, let us press on with many Logical fallacy arguments in mathematics. It is good to end the year for the 14 year old with what he can expect to see as Fallacies of mathematics.
> 
> Minor math fallacies
> 
> Here are some fallacies of math I picked up from the Internet over the years.
> 
> Fallacy of Unable to Think Straight
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> > 
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> > 
> 
> 
> Fallacy of Plain Ignorance
> 
> > percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> > 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy of Big Mouth- No Brains
> 
> 
> 
> > Mike Moroney, --on geothermal 
> > 
> > 
> > (1) 
> > On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > (2) 
> > On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> > 
> > > 
> > > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > > >in the winter. 
> > > 
> > > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > > out over many, many years. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (3) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > > better. 
> > > 
> > > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> > 
> > 
> > (4) 
> > > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > > on how deep they go. 
> > > > 
> > > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > > 
> > 
> > (5) 
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> > 
> > (6) 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > > Mass. I think) 
> > > 
> > > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > > 
> > > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Fallacy When you Ad Hominem-you cannot think straight
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Major Math fallacies
> 
> 1) Ellipse is a cylinder section (cut) never a conic section
> 
> 2) Sine and Cosine are not sinusoid waves, but a semicircle wave because in unit circle the value of 90 degrees is 1, meaning, the value of 180 degrees is not 3.14... but is rather instead a value of 2. In math-- it is a fallacy to think you can stretch the x-axis from being a value of 2, to a value of 3.14.... and not ruin the true wave of sine.
> 
> 3) It is a fallacy of math, to think you can define finite and define infinity, and not have a borderline between them, to tell you if a number is finite or infinite.
> 
> AP

As usual, when you start thinking, you confuse yourself.

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

#413825 — Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Matthias Flach Anton N. Kapustin Alexander Kechris  never able to do true-Calculus or understand Proton = 840MeV

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 9:40:15 AM UTC-5, alouatta....@gmail.com wrote:
> As usual, when you start thinking, you confuse yourself.

Alouatta says Caltech does not know a cone from a hole in the ground--Matthias Flach 
Anton N. Kapustin 
Alexander Kechris  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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#413880 — #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

#3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format.

Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living.

We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books.


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function

The Union of A U B U C is 
_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |____
|                                |
|__                            |
      |                          |
      |              ______|
      |______ |

The Union of A U B is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        | 
|__                __|   
      |             |          
      |             |
      |______ |


What is the Union of A U C, of B U C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


The Set-Difference of (A - B) is 


_____________
|      A - B           |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    | 
|__ |             |__|  
             


The Set Difference of A - C is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|              _____|
|             |  
|______ |
    

What is the Set Difference of B - C, of C - B, B - A, of C - A

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

#413933 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

Alright, I am going to need a lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School.

These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place.

Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw.

His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence.

If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3

Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement?

Here is a analog of the above flaw.

If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after.

You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true.

Remember in an earlier lesson the Material Conditional, the If--> then logic connector was? If not, review it now. For it had a truth table of T,F, U, U.

So the only time that a argument of IF, if-->then, --> then is true is when it is T, T-->T, --> T

Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 

Am looking for the best example: 

If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 

If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 

Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 

Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic?

Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy

1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!"

2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!"

3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.
(source: Wikipedia)

So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur.

I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur.

So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia:

1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right.

2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him.

3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies.

So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then

Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math.

So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about.

Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically.
Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically.

The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972. However, most logic textbooks are old decayed logic, riddled with mistakes all over the place, and their fallacy section is usually poor in quality, but the teacher is free to go through Old Logic for examples to use in class, whether math class or English language class (and for foreign countries-- whatever their language is)

If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal

All cows are mammals and have lungs.
All horses are mammals and have lungs.
All men are mammals and have lungs.
Therefore probably all mammals have lungs.

So I ask the teacher to go to various books to find logic examples of fallacies.

But now, let us press on with many Logical fallacy arguments in mathematics. It is good to end the year for the 14 year old with what he can expect to see as Fallacies of mathematics.

Minor math fallacies

Here are some fallacies of math I picked up from the Internet over the years.

Fallacy of Unable to Think Straight

On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> >>> 
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> >> 
> > 
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> 
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> 


Fallacy of Plain Ignorance

> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 



Fallacy of Big Mouth- No Brains



> Mike Moroney, --on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 


Fallacy When you Ad Hominem-you cannot think straight
> 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.





Major Math fallacies

1) Ellipse is a cylinder section (cut) never a conic section

2) Sine and Cosine are not sinusoid waves, but a semicircle wave because in unit circle the value of 90 degrees is 1, meaning, the value of 180 degrees is not 3.14... but is rather instead a value of 2. In math-- it is a fallacy to think you can stretch the x-axis from being a value of 2, to a value of 3.14.... and not ruin the true wave of sine.

3) It is a fallacy of math, to think you can define finite and define infinity, and not have a borderline between them, to tell you if a number is finite or infinite.

--------

Yes, this is going to be a long, very long lesson and here we teach Occam's Razor to 14 year olds for Occam's Razor is a very important technique of Logic, to know what is likely true, but also to know it is not necessarily true.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 13:36:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:36:27 +0000

Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone

A month ago you fixed it 

Please fix it again 

Where there is a iphone, below is a disconnect iphone 

And please can you give names of these villain hackers 

AP 

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Oh i see there is a new Apple update on security iOS 11.3.1 

That is making the Disconnect from iphone 

Trouble is the new update is not in prominent display and had to seek it out 

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 17:45:08 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 
please design computers for outward only users Re: Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 00:45:08 +0000


please design computers for outward only users Re: Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone

- show quoted text -
Totally totally bizarre day. 

Could not connect iphone to computer, for it showed a Disconnect-- which happened about a month ago and found out I had to go into town to a wifi and download security update. 

So I thought I had to download the latest iOS11.3.1 

So there I was in town at McDonalds to get wifi 

But the download never succeeded. 

Finally had to call and find out that if I plug my iphone directly into the computer-- that all is well. 

So is that the magic? 

And there for a moment I thought the Russians were sick and tired of reading and listening to AP posts admonishing the US and EU and UK join as one supernation. 

Or the Chinese got fed up with AP posts admonishing for a total ban on all Chinese exports. 

And so, they attack AP, but, what saves AP is plug the cord from iphone to computer, and all the bad guys are locked out. 

So, honestly, I do not know if hackers are trying to destroy AP's access to the newsgroups, because just recently some hackers tried to make my iphone button to turn the phone on-- make me have to press, press press yet it never turned on. And then Apple fixed it remotely. 

I long for the bygone era where I bought a computer and never updated anything, letting it go for years without updates, all because I wanted to Post OUT, and anything incoming was more of a threat, than any good. But the computer industry wants connected connected connected. Me, with my messages, I only want -- transmission outward, to teach the masses, and I do not want them -- infiltrating in for they mean only harm. I want to post out, and not be connected to nerds and stalkers trying to get in and plant viruses. 

So the good old days are gone and every month, perhaps, everyone with Apple computers has to make way for some update on security, that lays your computer rather low. 

Please Apple, design some software for people who just want to look outwards, post outwards, and that computer with the switch turned off-- does not allow anyone, anypersons, any government to connect inwards to that computer. Have a button that if ON, means you want two way connectivity, and if OFF, means the owner wants no-one able to infiltrate his computer, yet he can post outwards and look and surf outwards. No inward stream. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 19:59:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 
Re: please design computers for outward only users Re: Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 02:59:12 +0000


Re: please design computers for outward only users Re: Dear Apple and Tim Cook— yet again some villain is disconnecting myAir from my iphone

- show quoted text -
So, what happened today? Was the iphone security update by Apple iOS11.3.1, was that a complete sheer fakery? Because, well, if Apple had a update, my phone is always on, so why in the world would not Apple simply install the new version of security directly into the iphone. 

Was it a hacker fake update, that would disconnect my iphone from the hotspot to computer. 

Making me run into town to a wifi. 

Or is it that Apple and AT&T are not coordinated in changes in their software. 

Or is it a hacker that applies a wifi that interfers with phone numbers and connections. And thus, the reason that my computer now works being directly plugged into the iphone. 

Or, is AP a test model case for computer companies to see if they can try out their new fangled diddly do. Because they know AP will be posting immediately if messed with. Sort of where they get the expression "don't F--- with me" 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 21:28:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Is there a law against people disconnecting other peoples computer
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 04:28:41 +0000

Is there a law against people disconnecting other peoples computer

So, what is this form of hacking or ruining someone elses computer where your hotspot to connect shows up with a line below saying "Disconnect from iphone" 

Is it a wifi connection 

And how is a cord plug in the means and way to getting around the "disconnect" 

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 2:02:15 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Is there a law against people disconnecting other peoples computer

So now really i have to ask— is there someone inside Apple, a employee of Apple that is pestering Archimedes Plutonium 

First by making the bezel button almost impossible to turn on the iphone 

Then running a Disconnect iphone to my hotspot and showing a fake update of iOS 11.3.1 

I mean Occam’ Razor—the most simple of explanations is -often- not necessarily but most often the true explanation 

In this case— a employee of Apple harrassing AP 

How else do i explain an update that does not exist

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

#413936 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

#3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format.

Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living.

We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books.


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function

The Union of A U B U C is 
_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |____
|                                |
|__                            |
      |                          |
      |              ______|
      |______ |

The Union of A U B is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        | 
|__                __|   
      |             |          
      |             |
      |______ |


What is the Union of A U C, of B U C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


The Set-Difference of (A - B) is 


_____________
|      A - B           |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    | 
|__ |             |__|  
             


The Set Difference of A - C is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|              _____|
|             |  
|______ |
    

What is the Set Difference of B - C, of C - B, B - A, of C - A

Alright, now, we are going to spend quite some time on both Union and Set Difference for there is a major error of Old Math and Old Logic concerning the Set Difference, the subtraction operator in sets. And this major flaw is so pervasive in Old Math that even a famous fake-math-proof is caught committing this error. An error of soft-of-mind. The famous fake proof is called 4 Color Mapping and have the 14 year old look it up in Wikipedia for it involves a lot of pictures which I cannot write in this post. And it involves a famous fake proof by Appel & Haken for they used a computer to do a math proof which is why it is famous, the first of its kind-- a computer to prove. But it is fake for many reasons, one of them for Set Difference, since Appel & Haken thought you can peel away the borderlines or boundaries and not affect the problem.

So, students, what we are going to do is take these Sets A, B, C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |

And plot them into the 10 Grid where A could be the square that is from (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) and the set B is a rectangle that is (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11).

Now, what is the Set Difference of A - B ?

We did it by the picture 

_____________
|      A - B           |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    | 
|__ |             |__|  
             
But we did not do it actually by the Graph with numbers and a huge problem occurs and is what makes the Appel & Haken proof a fake proof (along with many many other errors)

You see, when you subtract the rectangle (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11) from the square (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) Remember, in mathematics the Grid systems are discrete, meaning there are gaps and holes between numbers. So when we subtract the rectangle, we lose the 2 in (2,0) and what stands remaining is the 1.9, and we lose the 5.5 in (5.5, 0) and what stands remaining is 5.4 in 10 Grid.

In Old Math, they thought you could just simply remove the borders of geometric figures and it would make no difference at all in any problems being solved. Turns out, when geometry is discrete, by eliminating the borders of any geometry figure, drastically changes the entire problem worked on. This is one of the reason's Appel & Haken's 4 Color Mapping is a fake proof. Yet math professors the world over adore this fakery, only because, when they went to school, they never learned logic on how to think straight, think clear, and that is why this textbook realizes that students need to learn Logic even more important than mathematics.

AP

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

#413996 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

Almost June here now, and obviously I am still in Grade School, not even High School, so my notion earlier this year to think I could get this book done for ages 8 to 26, was wildly exaggerated. Sort of reminds me in my youth when I plated up food way too much.


On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 12:25:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics
> 
> My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format.
> 
> Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living.
> 
> We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books.
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
>   
> 1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
> 2) Union (add) 
> 3) Set Difference (subtract) 
> 4) Intersection (divide) 
> 5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
> 6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function
> 
> The Union of A U B U C is 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |____
> |                                |
> |__                            |
>       |                          |
>       |              ______|
>       |______ |
> 
> The Union of A U B is
> 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        | 
> |__                __|   
>       |             |          
>       |             |
>       |______ |
> 
> 
> What is the Union of A U C, of B U C
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
> The Set-Difference of (A - B) is 
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A - B           |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    | 
> |__ |             |__|  
>              
> 
> 
> The Set Difference of A - C is
> 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |              _____|
> |             |  
> |______ |
>     
> 
> What is the Set Difference of B - C, of C - B, B - A, of C - A
> 
> Alright, now, we are going to spend quite some time on both Union and Set Difference for there is a major error of Old Math and Old Logic concerning the Set Difference, the subtraction operator in sets. And this major flaw is so pervasive in Old Math that even a famous fake-math-proof is caught committing this error. An error of soft-of-mind. The famous fake proof is called 4 Color Mapping and have the 14 year old look it up in Wikipedia for it involves a lot of pictures which I cannot write in this post. And it involves a famous fake proof by Appel & Haken for they used a computer to do a math proof which is why it is famous, the first of its kind-- a computer to prove. But it is fake for many reasons, one of them for Set Difference, since Appel & Haken thought you can peel away the borderlines or boundaries and not affect the problem.
> 
> So, students, what we are going to do is take these Sets A, B, C
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> And plot them into the 10 Grid where A could be the square that is from (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) and the set B is a rectangle that is (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11).
> 
> Now, what is the Set Difference of A - B ?
> 
> We did it by the picture 
> 
> _____________
> |      A - B           |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    | 
> |__ |             |__|  
>              
> But we did not do it actually by the Graph with numbers and a huge problem occurs and is what makes the Appel & Haken proof a fake proof (along with many many other errors)
> 
> You see, when you subtract the rectangle (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11) from the square (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) Remember, in mathematics the Grid systems are discrete, meaning there are gaps and holes between numbers. So when we subtract the rectangle, we lose the 2 in (2,0) and what stands remaining is the 1.9, and we lose the 5.5 in (5.5, 0) and what stands remaining is 5.4 in 10 Grid.
> 
> In Old Math, they thought you could just simply remove the borders of geometric figures and it would make no difference at all in any problems being solved. Turns out, when geometry is discrete, by eliminating the borders of any geometry figure, drastically changes the entire problem worked on. This is one of the reason's Appel & Haken's 4 Color Mapping is a fake proof. Yet math professors the world over adore this fakery, only because, when they went to school, they never learned logic on how to think straight, think clear, and that is why this textbook realizes that students need to learn Logic even more important than mathematics.
> 
> AP

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

#413997 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:59:25 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Almost June here now, and obviously I am still in Grade School, not even High School, so my notion earlier this year to think I could get this book done for ages 8 to 26, was wildly exaggerated. Sort of reminds me in my youth when I plated up food way too much.

You'll never get out of grade school at this rate.  You do OK with addition and multiplication, but you start to have trouble with subtraction and lose it completely when you get to division and fractions.

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

#414007 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Almost June here now, and obviously I am still in Grade School, not even High School, so my notion earlier this year to think I could get this book done for ages 8 to 26, was wildly exaggerated. Sort of reminds me in my youth when I plated up food way too much.
> 


#3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format.

Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living.

We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books.


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


  
1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
2) Union (add) 
3) Set Difference (subtract) 
4) Intersection (divide) 
5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function

The Union of A U B U C is 
_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |____
|                                |
|__                            |
      |                          |
      |              ______|
      |______ |

The Union of A U B is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|                        | 
|__                __|   
      |             |          
      |             |
      |______ |


What is the Union of A U C, of B U C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


The Set-Difference of (A - B) is 


_____________
|      A - B           |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    | 
|__ |             |__|  
             


The Set Difference of A - C is

_____________
|                        |
|                        |
|                        |
|              _____|
|             |  
|______ |
    

What is the Set Difference of B - C, of C - B, B - A, of C - A

Alright, now, we are going to spend quite some time on both Union and Set Difference for there is a major error of Old Math and Old Logic concerning the Set Difference, the subtraction operator in sets. And this major flaw is so pervasive in Old Math that even a famous fake-math-proof is caught committing this error. An error of soft-of-mind. The famous fake proof is called 4 Color Mapping and have the 14 year old look it up in Wikipedia for it involves a lot of pictures which I cannot write in this post. And it involves a famous fake proof by Appel & Haken for they used a computer to do a math proof which is why it is famous, the first of its kind-- a computer to prove. But it is fake for many reasons, one of them for Set Difference, since Appel & Haken thought you can peel away the borderlines or boundaries and not affect the problem.

So, students, what we are going to do is take these Sets A, B, C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |

And plot them into the 10 Grid where A could be the square that is from (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) and the set B is a rectangle that is (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11).

Now, what is the Set Difference of A - B ?

We did it by the picture 

_____________
|      A - B           |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    |
|     |             |    | 
|__ |             |__|  
             
But we did not do it actually by the Graph with numbers and a huge problem occurs and is what makes the Appel & Haken proof a fake proof (along with many many other errors)

You see, when you subtract the rectangle (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11) from the square (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) Remember, in mathematics the Grid systems are discrete, meaning there are gaps and holes between numbers. So when we subtract the rectangle, we lose the 2 in (2,0) and what stands remaining is the 1.9, and we lose the 5.5 in (5.5, 0) and what stands remaining is 5.4 in 10 Grid.

In Old Math, they thought you could just simply remove the borders of geometric figures and it would make no difference at all in any problems being solved. Turns out, when geometry is discrete, by eliminating the borders of any geometry figure, drastically changes the entire problem worked on. This is one of the reason's Appel & Haken's 4 Color Mapping is a fake proof. Yet math professors the world over adore this fakery, only because, when they went to school, they never learned logic on how to think straight, think clear, and that is why this textbook realizes that students need to learn Logic even more important than mathematics.

Now let us move on to set Intersection with our three sets of A,B,C


_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        __ |__|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|__ |___ |__ |__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |__ |___C__|
      |_B____ |


Now let me mark some points with a u, v, w, x, y, z,  marker.



_____________
|      A                |
|     _______     |
|     |             |    |
|     |        _ x|_y|____
|     |       |     |    |       |
|_u |__ v|_ w|__|       |
      |       |     |            |
      |       |_ z|___C__|
      |_B____ |


Intersection in set theory or Geometry Logic is denoted by upside down U, but we have no such symbol. So I am just going to write "intersect".

So A intersect B is u, and w.

What is A intersect C ?

What is B intersect C ?

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

#414008 — Re: #3-10 Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics

You can write:

   A fart B

   A AP brain farto is an idiot B

   A n B

Am Sonntag, 27. Mai 2018 22:02:09 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 9:59:25 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Almost June here now, and obviously I am still in Grade School, not even High School, so my notion earlier this year to think I could get this book done for ages 8 to 26, was wildly exaggerated. Sort of reminds me in my youth when I plated up food way too much.
> > 
> 
> 
> #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics
> 
> My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format.
> 
> Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living.
> 
> We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books.
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
>   
> 1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
> 2) Union (add) 
> 3) Set Difference (subtract) 
> 4) Intersection (divide) 
> 5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
> 6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function
> 
> The Union of A U B U C is 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |____
> |                                |
> |__                            |
>       |                          |
>       |              ______|
>       |______ |
> 
> The Union of A U B is
> 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        | 
> |__                __|   
>       |             |          
>       |             |
>       |______ |
> 
> 
> What is the Union of A U C, of B U C
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
> The Set-Difference of (A - B) is 
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A - B           |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    | 
> |__ |             |__|  
>              
> 
> 
> The Set Difference of A - C is
> 
> _____________
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |                        |
> |              _____|
> |             |  
> |______ |
>     
> 
> What is the Set Difference of B - C, of C - B, B - A, of C - A
> 
> Alright, now, we are going to spend quite some time on both Union and Set Difference for there is a major error of Old Math and Old Logic concerning the Set Difference, the subtraction operator in sets. And this major flaw is so pervasive in Old Math that even a famous fake-math-proof is caught committing this error. An error of soft-of-mind. The famous fake proof is called 4 Color Mapping and have the 14 year old look it up in Wikipedia for it involves a lot of pictures which I cannot write in this post. And it involves a famous fake proof by Appel & Haken for they used a computer to do a math proof which is why it is famous, the first of its kind-- a computer to prove. But it is fake for many reasons, one of them for Set Difference, since Appel & Haken thought you can peel away the borderlines or boundaries and not affect the problem.
> 
> So, students, what we are going to do is take these Sets A, B, C
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> And plot them into the 10 Grid where A could be the square that is from (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) and the set B is a rectangle that is (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11).
> 
> Now, what is the Set Difference of A - B ?
> 
> We did it by the picture 
> 
> _____________
> |      A - B           |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |             |    | 
> |__ |             |__|  
>              
> But we did not do it actually by the Graph with numbers and a huge problem occurs and is what makes the Appel & Haken proof a fake proof (along with many many other errors)
> 
> You see, when you subtract the rectangle (2,0) (5.5,0) (2,11) (5.5,11) from the square (0, 7.5) (7.5,7.5) (0, 15), (7.5,15) Remember, in mathematics the Grid systems are discrete, meaning there are gaps and holes between numbers. So when we subtract the rectangle, we lose the 2 in (2,0) and what stands remaining is the 1.9, and we lose the 5.5 in (5.5, 0) and what stands remaining is 5.4 in 10 Grid.
> 
> In Old Math, they thought you could just simply remove the borders of geometric figures and it would make no difference at all in any problems being solved. Turns out, when geometry is discrete, by eliminating the borders of any geometry figure, drastically changes the entire problem worked on. This is one of the reason's Appel & Haken's 4 Color Mapping is a fake proof. Yet math professors the world over adore this fakery, only because, when they went to school, they never learned logic on how to think straight, think clear, and that is why this textbook realizes that students need to learn Logic even more important than mathematics.
> 
> Now let us move on to set Intersection with our three sets of A,B,C
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        __ |__|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |__ |___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
> Now let me mark some points with a u, v, w, x, y, z,  marker.
> 
> 
> 
> _____________
> |      A                |
> |     _______     |
> |     |             |    |
> |     |        _ x|_y|____
> |     |       |     |    |       |
> |_u |__ v|_ w|__|       |
>       |       |     |            |
>       |       |_ z|___C__|
>       |_B____ |
> 
> 
> Intersection in set theory or Geometry Logic is denoted by upside down U, but we have no such symbol. So I am just going to write "intersect".
> 
> So A intersect B is u, and w.
> 
> What is A intersect C ?
> 
> What is B intersect C ?

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

#413842 — Re: 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS

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


>#3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching 
>True Mathematics

>These last two lessons are going to be long lessons

Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:

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]

#414006

Maybe there is something wrong with your kitchen.
First all conic sections were oval, but not ellipses.

Now, the air gets disconnected from your phone.
Possibly a wormhole or something, no wonder you

got crazy. 25 years spamming, and not a single
line of math...

Am Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2018 04:27:25 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> 8-teaching Logic in Grade School, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Maximum Electric Coil theory-- how inside of atoms works
> 
> #3-8  Toto Space Product in Geometry Logic// Teaching True Mathematics 
> 
> Alright, I am going to need a 3-9 lesson on just the use of Logic in language and how the student can use logic to think better and more clearly. Remember, that we do not use math everyday of our lives but we do have to think everyday of our lives and so thinking clearly --- logic ---- is more important to know than is math. So lessons 3-9 and 3-10 are going to be exercises in using Logic in language and thinking. And I hope the schools across the world will coordinate these logic lessons with their language lessons, such as here in the USA, coordinate these lessons with teaching of English in Grade School even High School. 
> 
> Alright, this is going to be the toughest concept for 14 year olds to learn, but one of the most important concepts, that prepares the student to go on in all the sciences, and mathematics. 
> Because it is so tough, I ask the teachers to bring in a model, so the student has a visual model always in her/his mind. A beautiful model it is-- at that. 
> 
> 
> GEOMETRY LOGIC = Set theory 
>   
> 1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
> 2) Union (add) 
> 3) Set Difference (subtract) 
> 4) Intersection (divide) 
> 5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
> 6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 
> 
> Of the six operators above, this Toto Space is perhaps the most important because it is the entire geometry in which these six operators work in, and on top of that, it is this operator that provides motion in geometry to form geometry figures. The motion is a "spin". 
> 
> So, we have a lot of work to do on this last but important operator. 
> 
> Now this is a very very complicated lesson, the most complex complicated lesson so far in this textbook, and so I have to especially tone down the message, and make it accessible to 14 year olds. Now recently on TV, I was watching a animal display of the late Irwin Australian animal enthusiast, of his son who the announcer said was 14 years old. That is a relief to me, for I know that Robert Irwin could easily learn this full entire lesson. For at one time in my life, in the mid 1970s I was living and teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and sort of forgot, since then, what 14 year olds minds were capable of learning. In fact, watching Robert, I kind of think I am too soft on 14 year olds. 
> 
> So, to make doubly sure that this lesson is accessible to 14 year olds minds, I ask the teacher to construct two models before classroom teaching of this lesson. One model is a sheet of graph paper with the x-axis on the bottom of the sheet going out in integers to 100, 0 to 100 in integers, and the y-axis going upwards to only that of 10, 0 to 10 in integers. Now this is difficult to write all 100 integers on the x-axis, so the students are going to have to write them tiny tiny numbers to fit all 100 integers in the bottom of the graph paper. I had to erase them twice before I got the right size to fit them all in. Once done, then get another stiff waxy paper, like a magazine cover then bent the two together to form a cylinder and tape it on the inside. The students will do this model in class. 
> 
> The second model is a globe presented by the teacher, and built at home and on a paper cut out of a square box paper write ten integers of 10 grid 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 on x-axis and do the same for y-axis and scotch tape that to the globe make the square box cutout be the same proportion as the cylinder so that 90 other numbers is the circumference around the globe that the square box does not cover. The square paper should be about 1/10 the circumference around the globe. 
> 
> A visual demonstration is worth a thousand or more words in class, something the students will remember far longer than the words or numbers spoken or written. And this demonstration is very important for it charts all we do in the future of mathematics-- its infinity ideas, and its realm where math is played out. 
> 
> Now the students are going to bring a graph paper and do the cylinder once they see the teacher's model of cylinder. 
> 
> Now I am more concerned that we teach 14 year olds this operator in any sort of depth and detail, no, not concerned about mastery of Toto Space, even though it will be many years before they take Calculus. But the concept behind Toto Space is so important that if we do not teach it to 14 year olds, they have a good chance of being corrupted and polluted with fake math with their fake infinity notions. So by age 14, fake infinity of Old Math is very much competing with true math and we want to catch the students by age 14, so they are not polluted in mind over infinity. 
> 
> Now the Toto Space Product is truly a product and it is very nice to know we need the Cartesian Universal Function of the prior lesson. Now the 10 Grid would be this--- first we list all of 10 Grid 
> 
> 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, ... , 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
> 
> Here we did it for 8 year olds in chapter 1, lesson 1-1 
> 
> 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
> 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 
> 7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 
> 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 
> 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 
> 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 
> 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 
> 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 
> 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 
> 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 
> 
> Only we want them all in a straightline to be the x-axis or y-axis 
> 
> 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, only my computer give out here 
> 
> If we do not count 0.0 then there are 10 x 10 = 100 numbers there in the 10 Grid. But, the Toto Space Product of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and all of the numbers in 100 Grid. 
> 
> 100 Grid numbers are these 
> 
> 0.00, .01, .02, .03, .... , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 
> 
> Not counting 0.00, how many numbers are there in 100 Grid? Well, there are 100 integers and there are 100 decimal fractions between any two consecutive or successor integers. That means, say, between 1 and 2 there are 100 decimal fractions, between 2 and 3 there are 100 decimal fractions. So between 0 and 100 there are 100 integers and between any two consecutive integers there are 100 decimal fractions, hence, 100 x 100 = 10,000. 
> 
> So, the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 numbers along the x-axis and 10,000 along the y-axis. And so, what is the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis? 
> 
> It is 10,000 times 10,000 or 10,000^2 which is what-- any student know? It is 10^8 as answer. So the body of Toto Space for 10 Grid is that of 10^8, which is 1 with eight zeroes after it. It is 100,000,000 which is hard on my eyes so I use commas. 
> 
> So for the 10 Grid, we have 100 numbers along x-axis and 100 along y-axis which makes a Cartesian Universal Function be that of 100x100 = 100^2 = 10,000. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10^2 = 100 and in 100 Grid there are 10,000 numbers along x-axis and 10,000 along y-axis. That means the Cartesian Universal Function of 10,000 by 10,000 is 100,000,000. 
> 
> The body of coordinate graphed points of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on the graph paper. The Toto Space of 10 Grid is 100 points on x-axis, 100 on y-axis causing the body of points to be 100,000,000. 
> 
> So in 10 Grid we have 100 points on a graph for x-axis. Yet the Toto Space of 10 Grid is 10,000 points on x-axis. Those other 9,900 points such as 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, . . . 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 are curling back around to 0 in a circle. 
> 
> More later,.... 
> 
> AP 
> 
> 
> 
> #3-9  Many examples and exercises in using Algebraic Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 
> 
> These last two lessons are going to be long lessons and I ask for the teachers in schools across the world to use this lesson of logical fallacies with the English class (or whatever language your country speaks) to teach logical fallacies in English class. For of primary importance is the student be able to think straight and clear and logical, for it is little use to teach a student language and math if they cannot think straight or clear in the first place. Why teach a student percentage, yet the student goes off and borrows money where he can do the percentage correctly, but never learned or was taught that he should not be borrowing in the first place. 
> 
> 
> Alright, in life, while doing science and physics and mathematics, I have found the greatest hole in knowledge and understanding of the world around us, is a lack of ability to think straight and to think clearly. Logic is the subject that is focused on thinking straight and thinking clearly. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 
> 
> And I am finding that most professors of mathematics at colleges and universities are terribly terribly lacking in Logic. Just recently in May of 2018, I am showing the world of mathematics that Euler's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in exponent 3, of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 has no integer solutions and where Euler thought he had a proof, yet, it turns out he had no proof. For Euler thought and all the mathematicians after Euler thought also, he had proven FLT for exponent 3. Turns out, Euler made a huge huge logical mistake, and that 1770 Euler's so called proof contained a major Logical flaw but no mathematician from 1770 onwards had the logical mind to see and understand the flaw. 
> 
> His logical flaw can be abbreviated to this sentence. 
> 
> If, if A,B,C were all even, then they are -not- two odds and one even, A,B,C are two odds and one even, then they have no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3. Therefore, A,B,C all even has no solution to A^3 + B^3 = C^3 
> 
> Students and teacher, do you sense why that is a logically flawed statement? 
> 
> Here is a analog of the above flaw. 
> 
> If,if I have pancreas cancer, then I will die soon, I get the job working for the company and then life happily ever after. Therefore, pancreas cancer I live happily ever after. 
> 
> You see the logical mistake made? I call it an entanglement of two If--> then operators. You cannot entangle two separate IF--> Then statements and have them always true. 
> 
> Call it a DOUBLE CONDITIONAL and it is a erroneous argument. It's structure is If, if..then, then. It is a material conditional inside a material conditional. It is Euler's fake proof of FLT exp3. 
> 
> Am looking for the best example: 
> 
> If, if I go to France, then I stay in Paris, I go to France then I eat gourmet bread. Therefore I eat gourmet bread in Paris. 
> 
> If, if I go to College, then I study physics, I go to College then I romance the women. Therefore I study physics of women. 
> 
> Looking for the best one of these DOUBLE CONDITIONALS 
> 
> Most common Logic fallacy is ad hominem--2nd most common-- nonsequitur TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS 
> 
> Discovery of a new logic principle by AP, the DOUBLE CONDITIONAL// is it the same as non-sequitur in logic? 
> 
> Alright amazed in that Copi in his book Introduction to Logic does not include the Non Sequitur fallacy. Was looking for examples, and found some in Wikipedia under Formal Fallacy 
> 
> 1) "Some of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! That proves I'm right!" 
> 
> 2) "The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him!" 
> 
> 3) Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. 
> (source: Wikipedia) 
> 
> So, what I am thinking is that I have in the Double Conditional, the If, if-->then, --> then the formal way of writing the Non Sequitur. 
> 
> I mean Double Conditional = Nonsequitur and that two if-->then with one if then inside the bigger if then is a NonSequitur. 
> 
> So let us apply that to the above three examples in Wikipedia: 
> 
> 1) If, if some of your key evidence is then missing, incomplete or even faked, then, that proves, I'm right. 
> 
> 2) If, if the vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died, then, that be the case, that proves that you, then poisoned him. 
> 
> 3) If, if life is life and fun is fun, then it's all so quiet, then the goldfish dies. 
> 
> So in all three examples above the final "then...." do not really follow from the 
> If... if-->then...then, that final then does not follow from prior If..if-->then 
> 
> Most of living life is doing logic, in the mind and in everyday conversation, in our actions and reactions and what we do every moment of the day is either the use of Good Logic or fallacy. This is why it is more important to teach students how to think straight and clear than to be teaching them how to do mathematics. Math needs logic, but logic does not need math. 
> 
> So, to finish off Grade School mathematics, it is very important that we teach students not just details of numbers and geometry but teach students how to think straight, think clearly, think logically, even more important than just teaching mathematics. For logic is bigger than mathematics. And the reason Euler's 1770 flub of FLT was never recognized until 2016 as a error, is because people in mathematics never learned what Logic is all about. 
> 
> Here in this textbook we teach Logic along with mathematics, for it is more important that every day we think clearly and think straight than it is for the few times you need to think mathematically. 
> Every thought of every day should be logical thoughts and only rarely do you need in a day to think mathematically. 
> 
> The below examples are from Copi, Introduction to Logic, 1972 
> 
> If Socrates is a man then Socrates is mortal. 
> Socrates is a man. 
> Therefore Socrates is mortal. 
> 
> 
> All men are mortal. 
> Socrates is a man. 
> Therefore Socrates is mortal 
> 
> All cows are mammals and have lungs. 
> All horses are mammals and have lungs. 
> All men are mammals and have lungs. 
> Therefore probably all mammals have lungs. 
> 
> 
> 
> #3-10  Many examples and exercises in using Geometry Logic // Teaching True Mathematics 
> 
> My pictures below turned out quite nicely on the internet format. 
> 
> Here I need mostly examples and exercises in set theory, for all of set theory is Geometry Logic. But I need exercises that are in common everyday living. 
> 
> We do Venn diagrams, only the diagrams here will be different from the diagrams seen on the Internet or in books. 
> 
> 
> _____________ 
> |      A                | 
> |     _______     | 
> |     |             |    | 
> |     |        __ |__|____ 
> |     |       |     |    |       | 
> |__ |___ |__ |__|       | 
>       |       |     |            | 
>       |       |__ |___C__| 
>       |_B____ | 
> 
> 
>   
> 1) Toto Space Product (multiply) 
> 2) Union (add) 
> 3) Set Difference (subtract) 
> 4) Intersection (divide) 
> 5) Cardinality (Existence quantifier) 
> 6) Cartesian Product (Universal quantifier) renamed to Cartesian Universal Function 
> 
> The Union of A U B U C is 
> _____________ 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |                        |____ 
> |                                | 
> |__                            | 
>       |                          | 
>       |              ______| 
>       |______ | 
> 
> The Union of A U B is 
> 
> _____________ 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |                        | 
> |__                __|   
>       |             |           
>       |             | 
>       |______ | 
> 
> 
> What is the Union of A U C, of B U C
> 
> 
> zzzzzzzzzz
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:05:09 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: 26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New
>  Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 06:05:09 +0000
> 
> 26-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// tricky pondering-- is it New Ohm's law for mass or Faraday Law?
> 
> Alright, I answered a question earlier about why a .5MeV electron cannot do a chemical bonding to a 938 MeV proton of two hydrogen atoms in H2. The short answer is such as N3, where 3 electrons of one N bond with 3 electrons of another N, and if the electrons were 105 MeV, you are talking about 6 x 105 = 630 MeV angular momentum with each proton being 840 MeV. Alternatively, in Old Physics ripping apart N2 would be angular momentum of .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 + .5 = 3 MeV. Dissociation energy of N2 in eV is somewhat around 10 eV, where Chemistry bonding is 10^-6 that of nuclear physics. 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math 
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 20:10:29 -0700 (PDT) 
> 
> Subject: Re: discovery of what is the bar magnet in Faraday's law for atoms 
>  and molecules 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 03:10:30 +0000 
> 
> Fair enough, take the Old Physics viewpoint then the New Physics. 
> 
> Old Physics thought the electron was that tiny particle of .5MeV and their proton was 938 MeV, almost 2,000 more massive and when a hydrogen atom collides with another hydrogen atom to form the covalent bond, their physics was that two of these .5 MeV angular momentum particles form a bond affecting the two protons of course, and now circle those two near-by protons each of 938 MeV. 
> 
> New Physics says the electron is 105 MeV with proton at 840 MeV so in the collision, is a collision of two 105MeV which is 210 MeV with two near-by protons of 840 MeV each. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 6:58:59 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > 25-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// AP-Maxwell Equations has Angular Momentum in them, but not the Old Maxwell Equations alone for they have no angular momentum 
> > 
> > 
> > Faraday law   
> > 
> > Is 
> > 
> > B' = (V/(i*L))' 
> > 
> > and then reducing it we end up with 
> > 
> > B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 
> 
> 
> Alright, in this, I do not know if I need the Angular Momentum after the Faraday law is worked, or before the Faraday law with just New Ohm's law 
> 
> As in V = iBL 
> 
> If it is the New Ohm's law that I deduce what is the bar magnet then it is a direct linear relationship of the mass in L and the mass in B, magnetic field. Implying there is a mass in Voltage. 
> 
> And here, like in the question of animal CO2 versus fire CO2 produced from fire, whether those are two isomers different from one another, and only an experiment can tell the truth of the matter. 
> 
> Here again, only an experiment can begin to unravel the truth. Now I have a coil of copper and a bar magnet, and the coil far outweighs the bar magnet, but then how do we determine the amount of current produced that ties together the mass of magnet to the mass of coil? Seems as though we can pick them arbitrarily. 
> 
> Could we say, that the .5MeV in some atoms of radioactive decay points to a Faraday law where a muon of 105 MeV is producing that .5MeV by thrusting through 8 windings of a proton of 840MeV? 
> 
> If I can spot where a .5MeV monopole is emitted out of a radioactive atom, then I can reverse engineer that atom's internal Faraday hardware, deduce the windings and deduce how many valence muons thrusting through to produce the .5MeV emission. 
> 
> Now, here, we get the idea that some radioactivity, in a sense can emit .5 MeV particles forever, and not really any half-life, but, forever. So, some of these radioactive atoms that emit .5MeV particles, and seem to never-- miss a beat --- so to speak, have no half life but are forever emitters. For as long as these atoms move through Space, they eat up Space-- thrusting bar magnet in coil, and convert that Space to a monopole of .5 MeV. A nice proof of this, in physics, is measure a emitter and if it ever-- speeds up emissions, means it has no half live but an emitter forever. In Old Physics, their view and understanding of radioactivity with half-life, implied the emission is either steady constant rate or a rate slowing down. In New Physics, since Faraday law is the driving mechanism in all atoms, we can have a speeded up rate of radioactivity. 
> 
> > 
> > Where we have electricity and Lenz law come out. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles. 
> > 
> > The L is angular momentum. And angular momentum has mass. 
> > 
> 
> Easy to make a mistake, in this, do I focus on Faraday's law of B' or do I focus on New Ohm's Law of V= iBL for mass consideration of a bar magnet versus coil. Now we can have uniformity in making the magnet out of iron and the coil out of iron wire. 
> 
> 
> > Old Ohm's law was V = iR where R is resistance. New Ohm's law is V = iBL where R = BL and B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum. 
> > 
> > What does this tell us about the mass of a bar magnet in Faraday law relative to the mass of the closed loop coil in Faraday Law? 
> > 
> > Well, the changing magnetic field in Faraday law, B', produces an electric current, and is inversely proportional to the Angular Momentum, the mass. So, if we have a coil of say 8 windings for proton, then the inverse of 8 is 1/8. And so, a proton composed of 8 muons, as coil, then the bar magnet as B is 8/8 = 1 muon. 
> > 
> > This tells me the muon is the bar magnet, but it does not indicate how many muons are the bar magnet in various atoms or molecules. 
> > 
> > 
> 
> These ponderings are always tricky, is it an inverse linear relationship of magnet mass to coil mass, or is it a just linear as in New Ohm's Law. 
> 
> Will sleep on it. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: 27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
>  where the Aufbau is a torus geometry
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:00:31 +0000
> 
> 
> 27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
> 
> Finally hit a breakthrough, and, let me happily note, that what I am doing independently in math at this very moment is doing geometry of conic sections, cylinder sections, and there is no way in the world that the Mind and brain are chemicals sloshing around to form ideas or memory, and what the mind and brain truly are-- are a pipe to the godhead of the Atom Totality, a radio receiver to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, because, well, my research is coming to an intersection of my math currently going on blending perfectly and exactly with my physics I am trying to conquer. Two independent strains of research meeting is impossible unless all thoughts of all minds were messages sent from the godhead.
> 
> Earlier I spoke of the Torus of Tokamaks being maximum possible electricity as a geometry design. That means the Nucleus and interior of all atoms is a torus geometry. For physics of atoms would not know how to make partial electricity, fractional electricity,-- Nature only does maximum electricity.
> 
> So now, looking at CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom
> 
> That picture on page 327 is actually a Aufbau, but is something more, for if you look closely and carefully the 1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to 4d to 5p to 6s to 4f to 5d
> 
> If you look carefully you can make out that the Aufbau as geometry is a TORUS.
> 
> AP
> 
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:32:13 +0000
> 
> 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:50:59 +0000
> 
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics
> 
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics//chapter 4 
> 
> Now I am doing physics simultaneously with math of conic sections, totally separate and independent of one another, except I have run into a intersection of the two, at this moment. This intersection is supporting evidence that the mind and brain of intelligent life is not chemically based machine, but is rather a radio receiver machine that picks up ideas and thoughts from out-of-body, photons shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality that gives every creature his/her/its ideas and thoughts of what to do next. Superdeterminism, no free will. 
> 
> So, I was looking for Maximum Electricity in a geometry configuration and found it in the tokamak Torus geometry and if you look at the Aufbau of elements, the chart of energy levels, you can make out that this Aufbau is itself a torus geometry. 
> 
> Now, a Cylinder is plane Euclidean geometry for if we take a plane sheet of paper and with one circular fold we have a cylinder. Now, if we could take that cylinder and bend it around without breaking or tearing it we would have a torus. With paper that is impossible but with closed loops as a cylinder with gaps in between consecutive loops we easily form a torus from a cylinder. And that is what Faraday coil is-- gaps between successive closed loops. 
> 
> Now, we constructed a Cylinder from a flat plane sheet of paper. Can we construct a cone from a flat plane sheet of paper? The question I am asking here is a devious question on my part, for if we had a cone of paper and cut it on one cut from base to height tip of cone in a straightline cut, can we fold that cut cone to lie perfectly flat? We can do the same thing with a cylinder, cut it, and it is a plane itself. But what is the cut cone? Is it ever able to be a flat Euclidean surface? Or is there some integral curvature to a cone, that a cone is impossible to lie flat in Euclidean geometry? And what do we call this integral curvature of cone? Do we call it as in physics-- a Cylinder has 0 spin while a cone has an intrinsic 1/2 spin. 
> 
> Now, further, can we lie a Cone flat, if we are given 2 straightline cuts, perhaps 4 straightline cuts where those 4 are somewhat triangle shaped? 
> 
> Now this is important for my physics, of torus and electricity, because the fill in of gaps between closed loops of the wire coil, so you can fold a cylinder to be a torus, those gaps are somewhat similar to the cone not being able to lie flat. 
> 
> So, what the Torus shape for maximum electricity, is the Aufbau, and each new proton and muons that build the elements, those are windings of a coil, and the gaps between proton windings, that empty space gap is the neutron windings. 
> 
> And the bar magnet which I have had a difficult time of understanding finally becomes clear, or more clear. The bar magnet to make maximum electricity in Faraday's law are all the lower energy levels themselves folded into a torus and that is the bar magnet. So for instance the first energy level of 1s in helium is a torus and then in beryllium is a 2s torus with the 1s torus inside it acting as bar magnet, then for 2p of neon, is a torus that has 2s torus inside 2p and the 1s torus inside of 2s. This makes sense if you want Maximum Electricity of Faraday law. And, it makes sense in that the Chemical Bond is a completion of a torus, such as say N2 molecule, where the partial filled torus of one Nitrogen atom's 2P is filled by the second nitrogen atom. Where one of the Nitrogen atom's 2P is a full torus with its 1S inside 2S inside the filled 2P and adjacent is the second Nitrogen atom as a torus of just 2S with 1S inside. This gets rid of Lewis structure altogether as merely a erroneous mnemonic device. 
> 
> Now for O2 we have one O filled of its 2P with toruses 2s and 1s inside the 2P torus, but with the second oxygen we have the 2S torus filled with 1S torus inside, but we have 2 extra valence muons left over and what they do is form a second 2S, call it the 2S_x and 2S_y. 
> 
> So, Chemistry bonding is altogether new and different, as a torus design. 
> 
> AP 
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:37:46 +0000
> 
> One of the most famous of all science experiments but now we put it through more rigorous testing to prove Maximum Electric Coil. 
> 
> —-quoting Wikipedia —- 
> 
> The Geiger–Marsden experiment(s) (also called the Rutherford gold foil experiment) were a landmark series of experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where all of its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated. They deduced this by measuring how an alpha particle beam is scattered when it strikes a thin metal foil. The experiments were performed between 1908 and 1913 by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden under the direction of Ernest Rutherford at the Physical Laboratories of the University of Manchester.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web