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

Groups > sci.math > #423621 > unrolled thread

Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind

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

  Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 23:13 -0700
    Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 23:46 -0700
      Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:35 -0700
        Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 00:54 -0700
          Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 00:33 -0700
    Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:30 -0800
      Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-28 22:55 +0000
      does Stillwell like Olcott believe 10 OR 2 = 12 as well as the rest of the math community that embraces Boole Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:13 -0800
        Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 04:52 +0000

#423621 — Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind

On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:56:17 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:

> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?
> 
> What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and 
> showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
> 
> Could you handle it?
> 

If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.

> Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to 
> define each one.
> 
> It is not that difficult.  A conic section is the solution of two 
> simultaneous equations:  One of the cone and one of the plane.
> 
> More later and thanks,
> 
> earle

Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.

So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.

Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.


FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
 section, and how the proof works
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000


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 
> 
> 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]

#423722

Den lördag 15 september 2018 kl. 08:14:05 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:56:17 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Thanks for your response.
> > 
> > Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?
> > 
> > What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and 
> > showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
> > 
> > Could you handle it?
> > 
> 
> If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.
> 
> > Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to 
> > define each one.
> > 
> > It is not that difficult.  A conic section is the solution of two 
> > simultaneous equations:  One of the cone and one of the plane.
> > 
> > More later and thanks,
> > 
> > earle
> 
> Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
> 
> So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
> 
> Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
> 
> 
> FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
>  section, and how the proof works
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> > 
> > 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

we point out your flaws constantly, you just ignore them.

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

#424675

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 1:46:23 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> 
> we point out your flaws constantly, you just ignore them.

Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing.

I on the other hand pointed out Stillwell's error of page 45 of anthyphairesis where he argues it is a proof of irrational, and I pointed out, if you stick any symbol-- it comes out as irrational, not because it is, but only because it is a symbol.

Then Stillwell's silly notion the ellipse is a conic section.

Then all of Stillwell's worthless Reals belief.

No, Malum you are a stupid waffling imp in Sweden that knows no math

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

#424678

>Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing. 

Actually, I HAVE pointed it out to you repeatedly. Remember your seven proofs of no negative numbers? I debunked all of them.

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

#425950

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:54:22 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> >Wrong Malum, you never pointed out any mistake made by Stillwell, never, because you are stupid in math, just a big loud mouth no nothing. 
> 
> Actually, I HAVE pointed it out to you repeatedly. Remember your seven proofs of no negative numbers? I debunked all of them.

On Monday, October 22, 2018 at 2:23:17 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:

> 
> Why don't you try to make an actual formal proof instead of "crossing your fingers"?

AP: yes indeed why does not Stillwell correct his stupid gaffe error of ellipse is never a conic but a cylinder section

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

#428174

About vvgra-- not really here to sell books in sci.math but rather is a facade for pushing everyone off the front page of sci.math doing real math. So the crank vvgra is a pushing off the front page creep. And my guess is that he is likely to be --perhaps burse or jan or MM, or Christensen or Eastside or Franz-- the intent is not selling books but to churn sci.math



Discussion
Essentials of Human Communication 9th Edition solution manual by Joseph A. DeVito (1)
By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated Nov 27
 


Discussion
Business Research Methods 9th Edition test bank by Zikmund (1)
By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated Nov 27


On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:56:17 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Thanks for your response.
> > 
> > Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?
> > 
> > What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and 
> > showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
> > 
> > Could you handle it?
> > 
> 
> If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.
> 
> > Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to 
> > define each one.
> > 
> > It is not that difficult.  A conic section is the solution of two 
> > simultaneous equations:  One of the cone and one of the plane.
> > 
> > More later and thanks,
> > 
> > earle
> 
> Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
> 
> So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
> 
> Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
> 
> 
> FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
> 
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
>  section, and how the proof works
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
> 
> 
> 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 
> > 
> > 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]

#428185 — 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: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse is never a conic?? Earle Jones-- just a hatefilled rascist mind

1) You don't know what a racist (or "Rascist") even is. How could anyone
be a racist if race isn't even involved or relevant?

2) John Stillwell has almost certainly never heard of the nobody named
Archimedes Plutonium.

3) John Stillwell almost certainly doesn't read, and probably never even
heard of, sci.math and Usenet.  See #2. sci.math isn't and never was a
formal channel for mathematics anyway, especially since it was overrun by 
ko0ks some 20-25 years ago.

4) Even if, in the unlikely event he actually did read your ellipse posts,
he's not dumb and stoopid, he'd immediately recognize it as invalid,
certainly not even close to being a valid formal mathematical proof.

5) Meanwhile, the Dandelin Spheres proof and several others, remain
valid formal mathematical proofs, never having been shown to be incorrect.

So, in conclusion, John Stillwell almost certainly never ever saw your
posts here, and even if he did, he'd know they were totally wrong.

>About vvgra-- not really here to sell books in sci.math but rather is a 
>facade for pushing everyone off the front page of sci.math doing real 
>math. So the crank vvgra is a pushing off the front page creep.

So why do you make things worse by echo-spamming the spammers?
And why are you so full of yourself that you have to be a front page hog?


> And my guess is that he is likely to be --perhaps burse or jan or MM, or 
>Christensen or Eastside or Franz-- the intent is not selling books but to 
>churn sci.math

And as usual, your guess is wrong.  And you really need to quit attacking
people who try to point out or correct your mistakes.  You (should) know
that if you attack me like this, I just strike back.

>Discussion
>Essentials of Human Communication 9th Edition solution manual by Joseph A. DeVito (1)
>By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated Nov 27


>Discussion
>Business Research Methods 9th Edition test bank by Zikmund (1)
>By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated Nov 27

Again, why echo-spam the spammers?

>On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles,
>> Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to 
>> acknowledge the math truth.


<snip math falseness that none of them are likely to ever see, much less
acknowledge>

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

#428537 — does Stillwell like Olcott believe 10 OR 2 = 12 as well as the rest of the math community that embraces Boole Re: Is Stillwell a **Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse

Is Stillwell as dumb as Pete Olcott with his Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12 while 10 AND 2 = 8. No wonder Stillwell never amounted to much in mathematics other than write books of what others "thought".


> 
> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:56:17 PM UTC-5, Earle Jones wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your response.
> > > 
> > > Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?
> > > 
> > > What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and 
> > > showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.
> > > 
> > > Could you handle it?
> > > 
> > 
> > If Jones thinks AP is wrong, why cannot Jones point to a mistake in the reasoning, for AP's proof has been in sci.math within 5 years time, and only now is Jones raising issues.
> > 
> > > Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to 
> > > define each one.
> > > 
> > > It is not that difficult.  A conic section is the solution of two 
> > > simultaneous equations:  One of the cone and one of the plane.
> > > 
> > > More later and thanks,
> > > 
> > > earle
> > 
> > Jones as far as I can make out is a Rascist Mathematician, who only wants to accept the idea ellipse is not a conic, by a person who Jones likes. Jones hates AP, hence, AP cannot have a proof and all of AP's math must be in error. Jones should never be in science or math, for he is just a obnoxious rascist. And Jones should certainly not be in education. Is, John Stillwell a rascist mathematician like Jones is? For in Stillwell's book Mathematics and its History, 2010, there on page 29, Stillwell makes the mistake of calling an ellipse a conic and showing it in a picture.
> > 
> > So, is Stillwell, Wiles, Conway, Fefferman, Ribet, Tao, Hales, Meyer, all of them are they Rascist Mathematicians??? and refuse to acknowledge ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section, refuse to acknowledge that only for the reason that Archimedes Plutonium discovered that truth.
> > 
> > Just like Jones-- denial of a proof, because Jones's mind is just a patch of hatred of AP.
> > 
> > 
> > FOR YEARS NOW THIS PROOF HAS BEEN IN SCI.MATH, yet Conway, Wiles, Stillwell, Hales, Fefferman, Ribet, Meyer, Tao all refuse to acknowledge the math truth.
> > 
> > 
> > Newsgroups: sci.math
> > Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:31:28 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > Subject: AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder
> >  section, and how the proof works
> > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 05:31:29 +0000
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > > 
> > > 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]

#428552 — 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: does Stillwell like Olcott believe 10 OR 2 = 12 as well as 
>the rest of the math community that embraces Boole Re: Is Stillwell a 
>**Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse

>Is Stillwell as dumb as Pete Olcott with his Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12
>while 10 AND 2 = 8. No wonder Stillwell never amounted to much in
>mathematics other than write books of what others "thought".

Aww, CRAP! Plutonium failed yet again! Who is going to clean it up this
time?

Not only does the stupid dead guy George Boole keep on kicking Plutonium's
ass at logic, Plutonium doesn't even know how to play the game! Nobody
who uses Boolean logic would EVER say  10 OR 2 = 12 or 10 AND 2 = 8.
Maybe Plutonium doesn't even know the difference between Boolean OR/AND
and addition/subtraction? How dumb and stoopid is that, Al?


"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] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web