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

Groups > sci.math > #424745 > unrolled thread

Tao is so stupid in geometry he still thinks the ellipse is 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

  Tao is so stupid in geometry he still thinks the ellipse is a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:46 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-02 04:49 +0000
      modern society give Tao a prize in math?? The gimp can't even tell a ellipse apart from a oval Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 21:29 -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 05:20 +0000
          TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 14:47 -0700
            Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-07 21:59 +0000
            Re: TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 14:57 -0700
            Re: TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 12:24 -0700
              Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 00:01 +0000
              No wonder Terry Tao flunked the math test of a geometry-- ellipse is not a conic & proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus when you have an insane jerk like Moroney screaming all over the place Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:49 -0700
                Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 02:57 +0000
                  Why does Moroney and Christensen talk to Terry Tao as if a baby? Is it because of ellipse or Calculus? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 07:05 -0700
                    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 18:59 +0000
                    Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"? Is it because Christensen is insane and believes he is a member of mathematics, yet the imp teaches 2 OR 10 = 12 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:58 -0800
                      maybe Tao has eyesight problems, unable to see a ellipse from oval Re: Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 12:52 -0800
                        could a spammer vvgra help Tao see the ellipse Re: maybe Tao has eyesight problems, unable to see a ellipse from oval Re: Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 22:00 -0800

#424745 — Tao is so stupid in geometry he still thinks the ellipse is a conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> 
> Your idea of the "grid" is much like 
> other usual discrete systems.  
> 
> For example, an atom is about 25 orders 
> of magnitude smaller than us.  A superstring, 
> with the idea being even finer and more 
> granular than an atomic lattice is some 
> 25 orders of magnitude smaller than an 
> atom.  That's basically all a superstring 
> is, enough smaller than an atom than it is 
> to us, to have a smooth-yet-granular 
> background or substrate.
> 
> Somewhere in-between is the idea of the 
> Planck length after Max Planck.  This 
> being though some "smallest" length of 
> a line segment has though the traditional 
> objection:  that Pythagoras proves that 
> root two is ir-rational, so there cannot 
> be a grid-box of some smallest length 
> because root two ~ 1.414... has a 
> non-integer part, with there being 
> either no smallest length or no straight lines, 
> and we know a straight line is a shortest distance.
> 
> Tao is totally famous and has an excellent, 
> discursive style.  Picking out prime 
> progressions as asymptotically going to 
> zero still has there's much to say about 
> their behavior and how is maintained in 
> numerical resources all their products and 
> factors.  Here it seems AP would be talking 
> about the features of systems that are 
> effectively all the stars in the sky if 
> not infinite, that these same results are 
> so relevant, it's yet a qualitative (as it 
> were) instead of quantitative endeavor, 
> and just because there's the idea of how 
> to build these things and their results 
> in some eventually bounded (or his "bordered") 
> system, doesn't detract but must eventually 
> reconcile with the unbounded, because that's 
> the way it is.
> 
> So, AP, there are ways to go about modeling 
> "effectively infinite" systems and what 
> happens in the "smooth-yet-granular", but 
> while you're tilting at windmills it doesn't 
> make so much sense to call the highest of 
> the shoulder-climbers those same giants.

Ross, is this Terry Tao's semester teaching plans there at UCLA, and in that order?  :


Discussion
Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen 42 posts 802 views updated 11:39 PM
 
+ 7 others
 
Discussion
Re: software that engineers out stalking bullies on Twitter, Facebook, Google Newsgroups Re: Michael Moroney Anal ButtfuckManure stalker for 26 years
By Dan Christensen 14 posts 260 views updated 11:37 PM

Discussion
Racist Dutch professors--Sigurd Angenent, Ruth F. Curtain, Albert Hanken, Jan Hogendijk, Frank den Hollander// ellipse is never a conic section
By me 2 posts 5 views updated 11:20 PM
 

Discussion
Racist-mathematicians at Reed College rather than accept Ellipse is never a Conic, Andrew Bray Safia Chettih Jim Fix Eitan Frachtenberg Adam Groce Heather Kitada
By me 2 posts 12 views updated 9:48 PM
 
Discussion
Racist Physicists at Harvard, Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai who refuse to admit proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, Dirac monopole= .5MeV
By me 3 posts 13 views updated 9:42 PM
 
Discussion
Racist Swede professors--Per Martin-Lof, Erik Palmgren, Tom Britton, Pavel Kurasov,Alexander Berglund, Jonas Bergstrom, Rikard Bogvad// ellipse is never a conic section
By me 1 post 3 views updated 9:17 PM

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424746 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

<snip>

And again, Al! Is this Plutonium guy as sharp as a bowling ball or what,
Uncle?


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean rock-hard
stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.  Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.  
Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape.  Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid."

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

#425048 — modern society give Tao a prize in math?? The gimp can't even tell a ellipse apart from a oval

sci.math ›
-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below)
2 posts by 2 authors  

5:07 PM (6 hours ago)

 me -Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff// Ellipse is never a conic (see proof below) On Friday, October 5, 2018

Michael Moroney 	
5:23 PM (6 hours ago)

>Come on, Archie,

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

#425051 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin

Should we start a collection to buy stoopid Archie a new dictionary
so he can learn what the word "racist" means?

Why is Archie asking me to reply to his posts?

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

#425137 — TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao 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 explanatory option.

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

#425142 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

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


Ellipse proof? Did you say ellipse proof?? (btw it's Franz's proof, not 
mine)

Here you go!



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]

#425693 — Re: TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

Jan 	wrote:
3:19 PM (1 hour ago)


>You live in a La-La-Land. 

-- 
Jan

AP writes: you can say that again about Tao and the ellipse and conic

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

#426526 — Re: TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?

On Sunday, October 7, 2018 at 4:47:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is silent// but does Tao 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 explanatory option.

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided. 
> 
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________ 
>   
> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________ 
>   
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false). 
> 
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false). 
> 
> 

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> of other professors. What would he do? He'll sneer "What a complete
> nutcase!" and lrave, and never give you or your ideas another thought.

AP writes: why does Dan and Moroney treat Dr. Tao as some sort of baby? Is it because Dr. Tao does not know the difference between a ellipse and oval? That Terry Tao to this day accepts the phony proof that Moroney displays in sci.math and in that regard Tao is as dumb as Moroney, although I would bet money that Tao would understand that 938 is not 12% short of 945 which Moroney to this day still believes.

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

#426534 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

>> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.

>> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________

>> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________

>> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).

>> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

So Archie, when are you going to do your lifetime generation test? Need 
more time, after months and months?

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> of other professors. What would he do? He'll sneer "What a complete
>> nutcase!" and lrave, and never give you or your ideas another thought.

You need to save my post and read it over and over again until you
understand it. Did you ever consider how bad your hateful posts make you
look?? Do you think people of the future would ever think anything good
can be said about you, if they can come here and see you posting stalker
lists while at the same time complain that people who are not stalking you
are stalking you, they see you attack others by calling them homosexuals
and racists, and they see you project and try to twist words like in the
following sentence?  No, the future mathematicians and physicists won't 
want anything to do with you, so you will be forgotten.

>AP writes: why does Dan and Moroney treat Dr. Tao as some sort of baby?

No, Archie, you are projecting your own failure. Maybe you think he is a
baby because he wouldn't accept your non-proof, assuming he ever heard of
you. That's because he's a good mathematician, and like any other good
mathematician, he will only accept formal math proofs, like this one:


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]

#426543 — No wonder Terry Tao flunked the math test of a geometry-- ellipse is not a conic & proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus when you have an insane jerk like Moroney screaming all over the place

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 11:20:15 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> >Drs.C.Eisgruber, Edward Witten, N. Katz 
> 
Michael Moroney         wrote: 

>So is it true you never thought to stop and think how dumb and stoopid 
>your off-topic attack posts are?  You aren't very smart, are you. 

AP writes: from Moroney, never any math, never any physics, always bad mouthing and put down, for 25 years 

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

#426547 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: Moroney says of Porat--Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

>Moroney says of Porat--Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

No, Plutonium, quit projecting. Obviously from the name, the 12 
Failures of Plutonium is obviously about all your failings.

>On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:19:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure Plutonium,,,
>> 
>> Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

>AP writes: What the failures of Porat-- stealing stealing stealing

The failures of Plutonium are much worse. 25 years of babbling and 
attacking other posters, no math, no physics, only attacks and babble.

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

#426574 — Why does Moroney and Christensen talk to Terry Tao as if a baby? Is it because of ellipse or Calculus?

Why does Moroney and Christensen keep talking about mathematicians as if they are babies, baby here, baby there. Is it because Terry Tao refuses to admit ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section? Or is it because Terry Tao is too stupid in calculus to demonstrate a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Instead Dr. Tao just has a sleezy lousy phoney Limit argument for calculus, never a solid proof of geometry? Why does Dr. Tao deny the ellipse? Does Tao also deny Global Warming, thinking that UCLA is safe from Global Warming. The world does not need more deniers, but needs people who admit the truth and fix things, not hide away in California.


On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:57:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>quit projecting. Obviously from the name, the 12 
> Failures 

Dan Christensen 	
Aug 23

>STUDENTS BEWARE: 
> 
> Dan Christensen writes: 
> 5:40 PM (1 hour ago) 
>WARNING TO STUDENTS: 
>Is that the best you can 
>
>Dan

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

#426581 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Why does Moroney and Christensen talk to Terry Tao as if a baby? Is it 
>because of ellipse or Calculus?

There you go, projecting again. FAIL.

>Why does Moroney talk to Dr. Meyer as if some baby? Is it because Meyer is
>in denial the ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder 
section,

Oh you want to see the ellipse proof 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



>Michael Moroney writes:
>Oct 31 (10 hours ago)
>>[Plutonium's posts are nothing but] 25 years of babbling and
>>attacking other posters, no math, no physics, only attacks and babble.

No comment, Failure Plutonium?


>On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 3:10:12 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >>No answer?
>> >>
>> >>Can you round off 105.658 to three digits?
>> >>What is 106*9?
>> >>What is 105.658*9?
>> >>What is 105.658*9-938?
>> >>If someone owed you $900.00 and he gave you $888.00, would you be
>> >>satisfied that he paid you back in full?

Thanks for reminding me! You never did answer these simple questions!

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

#427194 — Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"? Is it because Christensen is insane and believes he is a member of mathematics, yet the imp teaches 2 OR 10 = 12

Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"? Is it because Christensen is insane and believes he is a member of mathematics, yet the imp teaches 2 OR 10 = 12


On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 11:55:18 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> 
> So, anyone who thinks you are an idiot is a "racist?" That would be pretty much everyone who has successfully completed elementary-school arithmetic. Is that why you want to make them all fail by promoting your fake math.... 

AP writes: why is it that insane people like Christensen believe they are part of the math community? Is their insanity so strong that it brainwashes their mind into thinking-- "they belong when in fact they were never a part of mathematics community". 

Here is where Christensen either failed Calculus, or never took Calculus-- 

On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 8:57:54 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> On Tuesday, June 2, 2015 at 2:32:51 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex, 
> 
> From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed. 
> 
> 
> Dan 

Here is Christensen showing he failed Logic and is poor to incompetent or a loser of logic-- 

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. 
  

Yet Canada rewards such imps of logic as Dan be letting him have a webpage on logic-- screwing up the minds of all young people who visit that page-- go figure that out. 


Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian 

                              .. 
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
           ,      . `.'            '        `. 
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
         ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
          . '                            ` `.  | 
        . '.                                  ' 
       .          0              0            ' `. 
      '                                          ` 
     ;                                            ` 
    .'                                             ` 
    ;                      U                        ` 
    ;    ';                                         ` 
    :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV just as dumb as my idea that 2 OR 10 = 12, when a 8 year old knows 2 AND 10= 12 
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
       `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
        `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
           `       .                     '    ' 
         /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
                  |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
                  `.'          `    ;         `-' 
                                `...' 

Univ Western Ontario math dept 
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 


Amit Chakma (chem engr) 

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept 
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel*, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang 

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong 


Canadian Educ Ministers-- endorsing stalking hypocrites like Dan Christensen with his insane 2 OR 10 = 12 when even a Canadian 8 year old knows 2 AND 10 = 12. Endorsing the "perpetual stalking by Dan Christensen" 

Sebastien Proulx 
Jordan Brown 
David Eggen 
Gordon Wyant 
Zach Churchill 
Ian Wishart 
Rob Fleming 


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


Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
Archimedes Plutonium 
-------------------- 
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works 

Let us analyze AP's Proof 

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

  
  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 
  


Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E 

In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry. 

The side view of a cylinder is this 

|    | 
|    | 
|    | 

That allows cE to be the same distance as cF 


But the side view of the cone is 

     /\E 
    /c \ 
F /     \ 


The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE 

  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 we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry 

But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry. 

- hide quoted text -
  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] | [next] | [standalone]

#427418 — maybe Tao has eyesight problems, unable to see a ellipse from oval Re: Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"?

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided. 
> 
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________ 
>   
> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________ 
>   
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false). 
> 
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false). 
> 
> 
> Care to give it a try? Not today? Oh, well.
> 
> 
> Dan
> 
> Download my DC sic (septic tank--- no thanks---)

On Friday, November 16, 2018 at 1:47:38 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 
> You would think that Archie Pu, of all people, would be a little more sympathetic towards the mentally ill.

AP writes: Terry Tao is not mentally ill, he probably only has some vision problems so that he cannot recognize a ellipse from a oval

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

#427601 — could a spammer vvgra help Tao see the ellipse Re: maybe Tao has eyesight problems, unable to see a ellipse from oval Re: Why does Christensen talk of Terry Tao over the ellipse as if Terry was some "baby in math"?

is that Core Conics or Core Concepts? // cranks who still teaches ellipse is a conic// See AP proof below that ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section


About the spammer vvgra 

Core Concepts of Accounting Information Systems 13th Edition test bank by Simkin (1) 
By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 0 views updated 10:33 PM 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 20:26:00 -0800 (PST) 
NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.96.186.45 Fergus Canada 
Subject: Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage 8th 
 Edition test bank by Noe 
From: vvgra...@gmail.com 

Is there a single one of these math professors at Univ of Guelph who recognizes the truth about ellipses? Ellipses are never a conic section, always a cylinder section. Of course Terry Tao is still in the weeds for he has never confessed a ellipse is not a conic.
The math dept of Univ of Guelph-- some of its professors are Ayesha Ali, Dan Ashlock, Jeremy Balka, Larry Banks, Monica Cojocaru, Gerarda Darlington, Lorna Deeth, Matthew Demers, Tony Desmond, Hermann Eberl, Zeny Feng, Marcus Garvie, Steve Gismondi, Julie Horrocks, Peter Kim, David Kribs, Herb Kunze, Anna Lawniczak, Kim Levere, Khurram Nadeem, Rajesh Pereira, William R. Smith, Gary Umphrey, Allan Willms, Bei Zeng 


> still, the crank teaches ellipse is a conic Re: Terry Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test 
> 
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > Perhaps you missed this little test that I created just for you, 
> 
> Dan Christensen          
> 12/4/17 
> 
> Re: How can we save the kids from delusional cranks and trolls 
> 
> >Since any idiot, even one with malicious intent to mislead and confuse students can post here, it is up to >the community of readers here to constantly expose their idiocies and lies. 
> >Dan 
> 
> 
> Yes, how does Dan save young college students from the troll and crank that is Terry Tao who still teaches the ellipse is a conic when it never was. 
> - hide quoted text - 
> 
> 
> Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by 
> Archimedes Plutonium 
> -------------------- 
> AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works 
> 
> Let us analyze AP's Proof 
> 
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> 
>   
>   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 
>   
> 
> 
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E 
> 
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry. 
> 
> The side view of a cylinder is this 
> 
> |    | 
> |    | 
> |    | 
> 
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF 
> 
> 
> But the side view of the cone is 
> 
>      /\E 
>     /c \ 
> F /     \ 
> 
> 
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE 
> 
>   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 we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry 
> 
> But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of cx. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry. 
> 
>   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