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

Groups > sci.math > #421592 > unrolled thread

why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 21:28 -0700
    why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 00:06 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-21 15:24 +0000
    Re: why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 15:08 -0700
    Re: why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 14:32 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-26 21:42 +0000
        Why cannot Terry Tao admit a ellipse is never a conic, is it some denial complex he has? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 22:58 -0700
      Re: why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-27 21:48 -0700

#421592 — why Tao continues to deny ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:58:05 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote: 
> 
> What IS your ludicrous nonsense with that incessant,,,


AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section.

Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at all.

Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
Archimedes Plutonium 
-------------------- 
Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic 

Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = 
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof 
by Archimedes Plutonium 
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval 

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs. 

Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that 
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an 
oval, never an ellipse 

PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: 
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to 
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a 
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the 
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate 
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the 
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the 
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra 
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, 
hence a ellipse. QED 

Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, 
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry. 

Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a 
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck 
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as 
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than 
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a 
oval, never an ellipse. QED 

The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they 
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. 
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate 
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic 
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate 
points. 

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
section = Oval, never ellipse 

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
best of all. 

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
lose clarity. 

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 


              E 
             __ 
      .-'              `-. 
    .'                    `. 
  /                         \ 
 ;                           ; 
| G          c              | H 
 ;                           ; 
  \                         / 
   `.                     .' 
      `-.    _____  .-' 
                F 

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
cylinder 

|                              | 
|                              | E 
|                              | 
|                              | 
|x            c              |x 
|                              | 
|                              | 
|                              | 
|F                            | 
|                              | 
|                              | 
|                              | 


So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 


         A 
      ,'"   "`. 
   /            \ 
C |     c       | D 
 \               / 
    ` . ___ .' 
         B 

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 

     /  \A 
 x/  c  \x 
B/         \ 

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 

QED 

--Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#421845 — why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:43:41 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

> 
> Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres 
> So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?
> 
> --
> Jan
> 

AP writes:: of course Terry recognizes that Dandelin assumed-- ASSUMED he was working with a ellipse, not a oval-- but you can never tell that to an insane person like Jan-- not much of anything enters his microbrain.

But why call Terry a wimp? Is it because Terry remains silent about ellipse never being a conic, always a cylinder section.

Is that the way modern mathematicians operate-- like Terry-- never fixing mistakes, only grubbing for the next publication of more math pollution.

Terry-- I found in life the best way to live it-- is come clean on everything,, something in the Bible along those lines of thought-- you better find out what you are meant to do in life, if not, it will destroy you.

A mathematician , when told that a proof the ellipse is never a conic, and does nothing, like you Terry, could mean you were never a mathematician at all.


> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section.
> 
> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at all.
> 
> Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
> Archimedes Plutonium 
> -------------------- 
> Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic 
> 
> Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = 
> Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> _Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval 
> 
> First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs. 
> 
> Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that 
> the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an 
> oval, never an ellipse 
> 
> PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: 
> I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to 
> place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a 
> tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the 
> circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate 
> is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the 
> cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the 
> diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra 
> area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, 
> hence a ellipse. QED 
> 
> Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, 
> I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry. 
> 
> Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a 
> axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck 
> or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as 
> you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than 
> filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 
> axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a 
> oval, never an ellipse. QED 
> 
> The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they 
> need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. 
> A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate 
> points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic 
> Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate 
> points. 
> 
> Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
> section = Oval, never ellipse 
> 
> Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
> that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
> best of all. 
> 
> That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
> implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
> that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
> poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
> made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
> Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
> into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
> can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
> a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
> lose clarity. 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>               E 
>              __ 
>       .-'              `-. 
>     .'                    `. 
>   /                         \ 
>  ;                           ; 
> | G          c              | H 
>  ;                           ; 
>   \                         / 
>    `.                     .' 
>       `-.    _____  .-' 
>                 F 
> 
> The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
> Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
> the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
> the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
> cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
> symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 
> 
> Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
> point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
> and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
> cylinder 
> 
> |                              | 
> |                              | E 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |x            c              |x 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |F                            | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> 
> 
> So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
> cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
> base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
> that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
> the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
> these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
> axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 
> 
> 
> 
> Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>          A 
>       ,'"   "`. 
>    /            \ 
> C |     c       | D 
>  \               / 
>     ` . ___ .' 
>          B 
> 
> The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
> center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
> a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
> long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
> What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
> ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
> symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
> of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
> diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 
> 
> Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
> center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
> only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
> between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
> between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
> slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
> the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
> at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
> cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
> case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
> are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
> not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
> leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 
> 
>      /  \A 
>  x/  c  \x 
> B/         \ 
> 
> Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
> circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 
> 
> QED 
> 
> --Archimedes Plutonium

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

#421859 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why is Terry "silent" ?

#1) He has never heard of the nobody named Archimedes Plutonium and
    probably never will. I'm sure he mostly hangs around with actual
    mathematicians.

#2) Since nothing has actually changed regarding ellipses being conic
    sections, that is the Dandelin Spheres proof is still valid as are
    the other proofs still valid, there is no reason for the topic to even 
    come up. Like being silent on 2 < 5.

An actual valid math proof that the ellipse is not a conic section would
be huge news in the math world, but so far that has never happened, and
almost certainly never will since much of engineering and astronomy would
simply break.  It is more likely to see a valid proof that 2 > 5 first.

>On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:43:41 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>> Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres=20
>> So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?

Yes, Archie, be a man and admit your mistake.

>AP writes:: of course Terry recognizes that Dandelin assumed-- ASSUMED he
>was working with a ellipse, not a oval--

No, he didn't. Even if he did, a simple counterexample could be obtained
from such an assumption if the proof was invalid, producing a disproof by
counterexample.

>but you can never tell that to an insane person like Jan-- not much of 
>anything enters his microbrain.

That's the best you can do? Meaningless insults?

>But why call Terry a wimp? Is it because Terry remains silent about ellipse
> never being a conic, always a cylinder section.

As I said, Terry is "silent" because the issue hasn't come up - there has
never been a valid proof the ellipse is not a conic section.  Again, it's
like being "silent" about the fact that 2 is less than 5.

>Is that the way modern mathematicians operate-- like Terry-- never fixing
>mistakes, only grubbing for the next publication of more math pollution.

I'm sure if Terry knew of any mistakes, he'd fix them, but there is no 
mistake to fix. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

>Terry-- I found in life the best way to live it-- is come clean on 
>everything,, something in the Bible along those lines of thought-- you 
>better find out what you are meant to do in life, if not, it will 
>destroy you.

So you really should be a man and admit your mistake, and move on.
Of course, addressing a message to him here is rather dumb.
But I think this has already destroyed you.

>A mathematician , when told that a proof the ellipse is never a conic, and
>does nothing, like you Terry, could mean you were never a mathematician at
>all.

But since Terry has never been told of any such proof, that statement is
meaningless.

>> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is 
>> cylinder section, never a conic section.

When did Terry "incessantly deny" any such thing? Reference? (and why 
wouldn't he deny that, anyway?)

>> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at
>> all.

When did he ever deny true math?


(Now watch -- Archie will respond to my post, but not here. He'll start a
new thread or post to an existing insult thread. Probably in sci.physics.

In this response, he won't address a single issue that I have brought up.
Instead, most if not all of the following will be part of his reply:

#1) It will be addressed to uninvolved people at Harvard or MIT, or 
perhaps Massachusetts politicians.

#2) A stalker list of other uninvolved people at Harvard, MIT, or
    Massachusetts politicians will be included. No reason will be
    given for posting the stalker list.

#3) He will insult me, likely including snippets of old posts of mine
    where he still thinks I was wrong.

#4) He will also insult the uninvolved Harvard/MIT/Massachusetts people
    for allowing me to exist, I suppose, although none of them have ever
    heard of me.

#5) He will accuse me of "stalking" him by actually posting this reply.

#6) He will accuse me and others who respond to him of being "gay" for
    unknown reasons.  He will insult gays in the process.

#7) He will post that ASCII art owl/cat thing that lives in a cubbyhole.

#8) He will accuse professors (mentioned in #2) of not fixing errors that
    don't exist and they have never heard of anyway.

#9) He will include a non-proof "proof", likely his non-proof that the 
    ellipse is not a conic section.

Did I miss any?)

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

#422166

konyberg writes:	
Aug 24


>You should consider a tetrahedron inside a cube. 
KON 

AP writes: yes, well the Norwegian KON cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, for the fool still believes a ellipse is a conic. Can Terry Tao who also believes a ellipse is a conic-- for he has never rebuked it, can Terry tell the difference between a tetrahedron and a octahedron?

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

#422222

On Sunday, August 26
Dan Christensen 	
3:42 PM (46 minutes ago)

>WARNING TO STUDENTS: 

AP writes:: yes, Dan, Terry Tao cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, but can he tell the difference between a icosahedron and a dodecahedron?



> 
> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section.
> 
> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at all.
> 
> Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
> Archimedes Plutonium 
> -------------------- 
> Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic 
> 
> Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = 
> Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof 
> by Archimedes Plutonium 
> _Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval 
> 
> First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs. 
> 
> Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that 
> the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an 
> oval, never an ellipse 
> 
> PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: 
> I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to 
> place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a 
> tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the 
> circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate 
> is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the 
> cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the 
> diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra 
> area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, 
> hence a ellipse. QED 
> 
> Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, 
> I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry. 
> 
> Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a 
> axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck 
> or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as 
> you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than 
> filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 
> axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a 
> oval, never an ellipse. QED 
> 
> The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they 
> need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. 
> A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate 
> points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic 
> Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate 
> points. 
> 
> Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
> section = Oval, never ellipse 
> 
> Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
> that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
> best of all. 
> 
> That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
> implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
> that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
> poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
> made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
> Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
> into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
> can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
> a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
> lose clarity. 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>               E 
>              __ 
>       .-'              `-. 
>     .'                    `. 
>   /                         \ 
>  ;                           ; 
> | G          c              | H 
>  ;                           ; 
>   \                         / 
>    `.                     .' 
>       `-.    _____  .-' 
>                 F 
> 
> The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
> Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
> the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
> the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
> cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
> symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 
> 
> Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
> point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
> and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
> cylinder 
> 
> |                              | 
> |                              | E 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |x            c              |x 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |F                            | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> |                              | 
> 
> 
> So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
> cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
> base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
> that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
> the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
> these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
> axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 
> 
> 
> 
> Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 
> 
> ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 
> 
> 
>          A 
>       ,'"   "`. 
>    /            \ 
> C |     c       | D 
>  \               / 
>     ` . ___ .' 
>          B 
> 
> The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
> center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
> a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
> long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
> What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
> ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
> symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
> of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
> diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 
> 
> Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
> center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
> only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
> between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
> between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
> slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
> the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
> at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
> cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
> case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
> are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
> not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
> leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 
> 
>      /  \A 
>  x/  c  \x 
> B/         \ 
> 
> Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
> circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 
> 
> QED 
> 
> --Archimedes Plutonium

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

#422225 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

Oh, you are *still* struggling with learning how the ellipse is a conic
section?

Here's the proof again!

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]

#423354 — Why cannot Terry Tao admit a ellipse is never a conic, is it some denial complex he has?

Michael Moroney 	wrote:
Sep 10 (2 hours ago)


Since he's really a mental cripple, let's see if this will work for him. 

🧠 
♿ 

AP writes: I do not think a brain or a wheelchair will help Terry Tao see and understand and admit a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section.

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 4:43:02 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
> Oh, you are *still* struggling with learning how the ellipse is a conic
> section?
> 
> Here's the proof again!
> 
> 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

Apparently Terry accepts the above, such a pity shame, that we have math professors appealing to Fake Math.

AP

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

#422329

On Monday, August 27
Dan Christensen 	writes:
11:25 PM (18 minutes ago)

>I caught him out the other day. He doesn't believe that T & F = T anymore than we do.

AP writes: so, hold on a minute, you mean Tao believes a rectangle is a ellipse, for he surely cannot see a oval is a conic, never an ellipse

> On Sunday, August 26
> Dan Christensen 	
> 3:42 PM (46 minutes ago)
> 
> >WARNING TO STUDENTS: 
> 
> AP writes:: yes, Dan, Terry Tao cannot tell the difference between a ellipse and a oval, but can he tell the difference between a icosahedron and a dodecahedron?
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is cylinder section, never a conic section.
> > 
> > Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at all.
> > 
> > Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
> > Archimedes Plutonium 
> > -------------------- 
> > Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic 
> > 
> > Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = 
> > Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof 
> > by Archimedes Plutonium 
> > _Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval 
> > 
> > First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs. 
> > 
> > Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that 
> > the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an 
> > oval, never an ellipse 
> > 
> > PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: 
> > I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to 
> > place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a 
> > tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the 
> > circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate 
> > is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the 
> > cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the 
> > diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra 
> > area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, 
> > hence a ellipse. QED 
> > 
> > Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, 
> > I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry. 
> > 
> > Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a 
> > axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck 
> > or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as 
> > you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than 
> > filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 
> > axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a 
> > oval, never an ellipse. QED 
> > 
> > The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they 
> > need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. 
> > A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate 
> > points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic 
> > Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate 
> > points. 
> > 
> > Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic 
> > section = Oval, never ellipse 
> > 
> > Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out 
> > that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the 
> > best of all. 
> > 
> > That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then 
> > implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so 
> > that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I 
> > poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone 
> > made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or 
> > Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes 
> > into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I 
> > can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need 
> > a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you 
> > lose clarity. 
> > 
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: 
> > 
> > 
> >               E 
> >              __ 
> >       .-'              `-. 
> >     .'                    `. 
> >   /                         \ 
> >  ;                           ; 
> > | G          c              | H 
> >  ;                           ; 
> >   \                         / 
> >    `.                     .' 
> >       `-.    _____  .-' 
> >                 F 
> > 
> > The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the 
> > Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to 
> > the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than 
> > the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the 
> > cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of 
> > symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. 
> > 
> > Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit 
> > point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder 
> > and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of 
> > cylinder 
> > 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | E 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |x            c              |x 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |F                            | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > |                              | 
> > 
> > 
> > So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the 
> > cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle 
> > base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such 
> > that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from 
> > the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle 
> > these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second 
> > axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse 
> > 
> > ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: 
> > 
> > 
> >          A 
> >       ,'"   "`. 
> >    /            \ 
> > C |     c       | D 
> >  \               / 
> >     ` . ___ .' 
> >          B 
> > 
> > The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with 
> > center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of 
> > a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as 
> > long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). 
> > What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an 
> > ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of 
> > symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis 
> > of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major 
> > diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. 
> > 
> > Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the 
> > center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, 
> > only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way 
> > between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in 
> > between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the 
> > slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than 
> > the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered 
> > at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in 
> > cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the 
> > case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- 
> > are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are 
> > not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, 
> > leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. 
> > 
> >      /  \A 
> >  x/  c  \x 
> > B/         \ 
> > 
> > Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a 
> > circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. 
> > 
> > QED 
> > 
> > --Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web