Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #423521 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-13 13:59 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-14 14:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
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.
sad that Donald Trump rises above the truth telling than math professors Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 13:59 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 22:30 +0000
British journal or AMS publish AP's ellipse proof Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 14:39 -0700
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 13:59 -0700 |
| Subject | sad that Donald Trump rises above the truth telling than math professors Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <59dfa32f-4950-41aa-8996-7488fa759e6b@googlegroups.com> |
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 6:27:45 AM UTC-6, Zelos Malum wrote: > Den torsdag 8 mars 2018 kl. 23:15:10 UTC+1 skrev Archimedes Plutonium: > > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test > > > > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you. > > > > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed. > > > > MATH TEST:: > > > > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics. > > Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test. > > > > But Andrew Wiles stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Wiles thought he was good at Fermat's Last Theorem, but it turns out. That Wiles was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because Euler supposedly proved FLT for exponent 3 and Wiles accepted Euler's fake proof. For Euler forgot that he needed to prove the case of A^3 + B^3 = C^3 had no solutions, Euler forgot to prove in the case of when A,B,C are even numbers. Totally forgot, and so Euler never had a proof of FLT in exp3. Yet when a dumbo of math like Wiles reads Euler's fake proof, it goes in one ear and out the other. You see, Wiles is so much like other mathematicians, they care not about truth in math, they care only about fame and fortune. > > > > > > 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 > > ------------------ > > ------------------- > > why would one need to do it geometrically? Michael Moroney wrote:  Sep 12 (17 hours ago) >Can you show the research papers which identify all those AP writes: yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it is easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth about his wrongdoings over Russian collusion, than it is for Andrew Wiles to tell the truth about ellipse-- it is never a conic, always a cylinder section. Sad that Donald Trump rises to a higher moral standard than does the typical professor of mathematics when truth is involved. Why cannot Wiles open his mouth and admit the below is a true proof that ellipse is never a conic, why? Other than that Andrew Wiles is a con mathematician never wanting to deal with true math: 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 Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 22:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pneodk$pl9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423521 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >>Can you show the research papers which identify all those >AP writes: yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it >is easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth about his I take that as "no".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 14:39 -0700 |
| Subject | British journal or AMS publish AP's ellipse proof Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <b10768d7-ef1a-4f24-a254-5358c51fd44c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423521 |
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:56:41 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > hi! Could you give a pointer to a paper which explains these new bonds? > This is very interesting news if true, so I would like to see the > science behind this. Yes, have Andrew Wiles in colloboration with a British journal or with AMS, Charles Fefferman, Ron Graham, Ken Ribet, Daniel Mauldin, John Horton Conway, Thomas Hales publish in the next AMS that the Ellipse is never a conic as per AP's proof, ___and then go from there_____, a solid recognition by academic math professors that they made a mistake and are willing to correct it. For many textbooks have to redact that out of their textbook. Truth always takes priority over hassles of money-- and probably one of the reasons math professors are so slow to act on this ellipse truth-- inconvenient for them. And, even though you-- professors of math who never want to fix and clean up error filled mathematics, your students deserve better, and you should quit teaching if you cannot come around to admitting a ellipse is a cylinder section, never a conic section. For it is embarrassing to have students smarter than the math professor who by taking a cone, cylinder can and a round lid, can prove on the spot, in the classroom that the cone yields an oval, never an ellipse. 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 Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web