Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #430984 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-06 19:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-07 05:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 2 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Justin Trudeau, UWO asked by Christensen what is AP's 2nd best theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 19:48 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 05:01 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 19:48 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Justin Trudeau, UWO asked by Christensen what is AP's 2nd best theory- Sun and Stars are powered by Faraday Law of atoms, or, AP theory that Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole |
| Message-ID | <9506ee86-a784-4f5a-bc82-72388315379e@googlegroups.com> |
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 1:27:28 PM UTC-5, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > The same gentlemen were standing in a field close to a pile of cow dung, On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 9:15:14 PM UTC-6, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hello, Michael. > > Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > > [ .... ] > > >>Construct a sphere AP writes: the two math failures, Moroney & Mackenzie, cannot understand a proof the ellipse is never a conic Of course they would also fail in 10 OR 4 = 14 for them, while even a youngster knows it is 10 AND 4 = 14 Our Colleges are graduating blithering idiots of science like Moroney & Mackenzie On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: > Math Failure Only thing out of Moroney in 26 years is nonstop hate spew; it is not misogyny nor misanthropy but the dark shades of insanity. 8:21:25Moroney wrote: > Math Failure,,,//Kurt Godel,Rudolf Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein,Willard Quine,Alfred North Whitehead,Irving Copi, with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Michael Moroney, (how many aliases does this stalking creep have? kibo, parry shein, Volney) and is a education parasite of Boole b.s. of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 , embracing the contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both .. .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-.. , . `.' ' `. .' .' ` ` ' `.. ; . ; .' . `. ; ; . ' `. . ' . ' ` `. | . '. ' . 0 0 ' `. ' ` ; ` .' ` ; U ` ; '; ` : | ;.. :` ` : `;. ```. .-; | ' '. ` ``.., .' :' ' ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' I am airhead Moroney, so dumb I think chemistry bonding can exist with proton 938MeV & electron at .5MeV equally as dumb as my idea that Boole logic is valid as 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14. I love how Boole went to teach class in a downpour rain sopping wet and did not have the logical brains to switch into dry clothes, caught pneumonia then thought that taking cold showers and a wet bed is a cure for pneumonia, and my brains is what Western Civilization hangs its Logic Hat upon. ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` ` ; ; ' ' ` `. ````'''''' ' ' ` . ' ' / ` `. ' ' . / ` .. ..' .'"""""...' / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....''' / .'' ; ` .' ` ...'.' ; .' ` .' ` "" .' .' | ` .; \ ` ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ ` :' | ' ` , `. ` | ' ` ' `. ` ` ' ` ; `. | `.' ` ; `-' `...' 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. /\-------/\ \::O:::O::/ (::_ ^ _::) \_`-----'_/ You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// LIST of failed Logicians Source- Wikipedia list of logicians (alive ones) Peter Bruce Andrews Lennart Aqvist Henk Barendregt John Lane Bell Nuel Belnap Paul Benacerraf Jean Paul Van Bendegem Johan van Benthem Jean-Yves Beziau Andrea Bonomi Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) Alan Richard Bundy Gregory Chaitin Jack Copeland John Corcoran Dirk van Dalen Martin Davis Michael A.E. Dummett John Etchemendy Hartry Field Kit Fine Melvin Fitting Matthew Foreman Michael Fourman Harvey Friedman Dov Gabbay L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers) Sol Garfunkel Jean-Yves Girard Siegfried Gottwald Jeroen Groenendijk Susan Haack Leo Harrington William Alvin Howard Ronald Jensen Dick de Jongh David Kaplan Alexander S. Kechris Howard Jerome Keisler Robert Kowalski Georg Kreisel Saul Kripke Kenneth Kunen Karel Lambert Penelope Maddy David Makinson Isaac Malitz Gary R. Mar Donald A. Martin Per Martin-Lof Yiannis N. Moschovakis Jeff Paris Charles Parsons Solomon Passy Lorenzo Pena Dag Prawitz Graham Priest Michael O. Rabin Gerald Sacks Dana Scott Stewart Shapiro Theodore Slaman Robert M. Solovay John R. Steel Martin Stokhof Anne Sjerp Troelstra Alasdair Urquhart Moshe Y. Vardi W. Hugh Woodin John Woods Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 4 OR 3 = 7 with 4 AND 3 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly. Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey, Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider, David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan, John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, partial list for now, All of them are clowns of logic, although they have interest in logic, none are past a baby stage understanding of what Logic is. They are all worse than the fool George Boole. All of them are a disgrace to the subject we call Logic. All of them are in the same boat as George Boole-- catching pneumonia and then having his wife douse him in bed with cold freezing water and taking cold showers-- thinking that combatting pneumonia is done by getting colder. All of the above listed should never be allowed to teach their nonsense and pollute the minds of youngsters with their crazy 9 OR 5 = 14 with 9 AND 5 = 4, all because a crazy Boole with Jevons in the 1800s thought that OR was add and AND was subtract. All because a true logician has more than a microgram brain of Logic in his head, and realizes that if you had a string of statements, say 10 statements and if just one single statement of those ten is true, makes the entire set of 10 to be true also, regardless of the truth value of the other 9 statements. Said in a different manner, if you have a truth of a single statement, and, no matter how you surround that single statement with 9 other statements, regardless of their truth value, because of the truth of the one statement makes the combined all 10 statements have a true value. The stupid microgram brain of Boole and Jevons in the subject of Logic (witness their history with pneumonia) is not a Logic at all, for it leads to the incredibly stupid formulation that 3 AND 2 = 1 with 3 OR 2 = 5. Yes, those two logical idiots Boole and Jevons and every idiot of Logic since those two, have thought the truth table of AND was TFFF, when according to a real true logical person-- you need just 1 true statement to make a compound statements as a whole be true. So the true true truth table of AND was TTTF. And this makes sense in the above idiots of Logic with their OR, so confused were those idiots that they combined a "or" with an "and" and generated a "inclusive or" of TTTF. I mean what clowns are these? Who think that OR has to be compounded or a composite of "and", with "or" forming the idiot idea of an "inclusive or" and, not even realizing that you no longer have a primitive-connector. The true truth table of OR is exclusive and is FTTF, which is subtraction in mathematics. Inclusive OR, INCLUSIVE OR, is the invention of an idiot of logic, pure slab of bonehead worthless bonehead of Logic, for the "inclusive or" is a village idiot mind that stacks together the OR and the AND all into one idiotic product of Either ,,Or,, Or Both. Not an accident waiting to happen in Logic, a multiple chain collision on the expressway is the Either Or Or Both. It is not a primitive logical Connector that the 4 primitive logic Connectors need to be, no, the Either Or Or Both is already a fool's built compound connector pretending to be primitive connector. A village idiot of the 1800s like George Boole and his compatriot Jevons would not have enough of a logical mind to see that Either Or Or Both is a compound piece of worthless nonsense. Even a 8 year old can see that Either Or Or Both is a compounded piece of crap and has no business of being in Logic primitive connectors. To be in Logic, you need a Logical Mind to even do logic, and to come up with a SELF CONTRACTION in terms like it is updown or it is overeasy-hard, is the same as Inclusive-Or, a term and idea that is a self-contradiction. Logic is about staying away from contradiction. And here, starting with Boole and Jevons, they built their logic on a Contradiction of the inclusive-or. It would be like at the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, at the sound of the gun, a runner, instead of going forwards, goes backwards in running step in the dash, not to the finish line but to oblivion running backwards. So, please stop torturing the brains and minds of our young students just because you are a clown of microgram brain of logic. And throw out all the OLD LOGIC textbooks for they are not learning or teaching but brainwashing by polluting moneygrub creeps. #1 first comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many math professors are deaf dumb and blind to My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015. History of AP Logic starts with 1991 and culminates with New Logic that replaces Old Logic by 2015. Old Logic is like comparing a flat earth theory to a true round earth theory. Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic. The 4 connectors of Logic are: 1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one 2) And (conjunction) 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction) 4) Implication New Logic EQUAL/NOT table: T = T = T T = not F = T F = not T = T F = F = T Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table. Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors. Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram T T T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square While addition is and with a Space like this T T T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition. Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition. New Logic AND T & T = T T & F = T F & T = T F & F = F AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true. The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false. New Logic OR(exclusive) T or T = F T or F = T F or T = T F or F = F OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction. OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses. New Logic IMPLIES (Material Conditional) IF/THEN MOVES INTO T -> T = T T -> F = F F -> T = U probability outcome F -> F = U probability outcome A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined. Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF. To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this: One Table be 4 of the same One Table be 3 of the same One Table be 2 of the same And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable. So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND. Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy as what Boole was. But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic. 1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF. Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true. 1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT 1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary 1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is merely probability-truth, not guaranteed 1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place. 1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 05:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q0umeu$7kg$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #430984 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: [] So what *is* the second "best" blithering of AP? The one that smells like cow dung, the one that smells like horse dung, or the one that smells like goat dung?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web