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

Groups > sci.math > #424673 > unrolled thread

Re: Andrew Wiles 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

  Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:24 -0700
    Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 22:37 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-06 06:16 +0000
        Wiles must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Wiles is silent// but does Wiles also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 15:15 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 01:57 +0000
      Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-06 06:21 +0000

#424673 — Re: Andrew Wiles flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:45:01 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> 
> You do realise that you are a crank that do not understand anything about mathematics, right?

No, I do not think Andrew Wiles thinks of himself as a crank that knows no mathematics. But obvious to everyone you are a worthless insane fruitcake that needs to be institutionalized, perhaps even lobotomized. Does Sweden still do lobotomies, huh, zelos?

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#425055

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 9:03:18 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> qbwrfmlx@gmail.com writes:
> 

Michael Moroney 	
Oct 5 (8 hours ago)

Re: AP's stupid conjecture

eastsi...@gmail.com writes: 

>On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 1:33:58 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
>> Alright, I have a brand new definition of Prime, that involves AP Columns. 
>> And it leaves a conjecture open. 

>Hey Archie!  Look at your first column if P is prime: 

>P 0 
>P-1 1 
>P-2 2 
>... 
>P-n n 
>... 

>Just for fun, divide both columns by anything, say m.  You get 

>P/m - n/m   n/m 

>Even is n/m is integer, P/m is NEVER integer.  Your conjecture is TRIVIAL. 
>This whole "theory of New Era Primes" is not even wrong. 

Archie has

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

#425061 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science
>teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom

You'll be happy to know that teaching is a VERY STRONG tradition in my
family!  My mother, grandmother, aunt, another aunt, brother,
sister-in-law, nephew, great aunt, another great aunt as well as more
distant relatives all were or are teachers and professors!

Of course NONE of them would EVER touch your math sabotage "teaching" crap
with a ten foot pole! 

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

#425150 — Wiles must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Wiles is silent// but does Wiles also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 1:16:16 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
the usual 26 year long stalker hatred

Wiles must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Wiles is silent// but does Wiles also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?


On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 12:20:36 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Boston's 26 year long stalker

Michael Moroney 	wrote:
4:24 PM (9 minutes ago)
>
I think you need to see the ellipse proof again. 

>
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 

Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly 

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. 

AP wonders whether entire math and physics institutions, like colleges and the AMS are paying Barry Shein's std, kibo, Moroney paying them to stalk AP for 26 years now, and just blabbing any sort of falsehoods and character destruction of AP. If paid, well that makes sense, otherwise insanity is the only other option.

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

#425155 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>MIT & Harvard must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic,
>for MIT & Harvard are silent// but does MIT & Harvard also think 938 is
>12% short of 945 ?

Did you say ellipse *again*?

Here you go!


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]

#425062 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Michael Moroney 
>Oct 5 (8 hours ago)

>Re: AP's stupid conjecture

It sure was stupid, wasn't it!!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web