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

Groups > sci.math > #433060 > unrolled thread

Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated

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

  Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-29 14:40 -0800
    Newsgroup sci.advanced-math Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 17:56 -0800
      Re: Newsgroup sci.advanced-math Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2019-01-30 18:19 -0800
      Cornell fired because they cannot even teach proper true Trigonometry?? And they still teach 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-02 21:22 -0800
      Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-06 16:09 -0800
        Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-09 23:04 -0800
          Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Mike Hart <gmoralesor@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 21:54 -0800
            Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-10 23:03 -0800
            Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-11 13:35 +0000
            Cornell has become an insane asylum with their 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2= 1 Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 14:54 -0800
              Re: Cornell has become an insane asylum with their 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2= 1 Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both j4n bur53 <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2019-03-02 15:50 -0800
                Moroney says//Erik sickfuck Eastside says// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 16:46 -0800
                  Re: Moroney says//Erik sickfuck Eastside says// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole Me <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 16:51 -0800
                  Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-04 00:51 +0000
          Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 15:44 -0800

#433060 — Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated

On Thursday, November 9, 2017 at 3:00:47 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> know. So, if you don't want to know the difference either, read on! 
> 
> 
> Dan

Alan Richard Bundy,Gregory Chaitin,Jack Copeland, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated

We had fake facts through the milleniums. And we had fake news also. But now we have a insane moron named Dan Christensen who can never fix errors and whatever was published by Boole in the 1800s, even crazy ideas that OR is a truth table of TTTF because it is Either..Or..Or..Both which is a living Contradiction in terms. (See the history of Boole below, how he thought a cure for pneumonia was to get more cold). Now we have a Fake newsgroup of sci.math.moderated, and moderated by a insane moron Christensen.

Anyway, the crazy insane nutjob Christensen now wants to hijack a newsgroup called sci.math.moderated in order to keep kids and students the absolute crazy and dumb contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both. Christensen is a education parasite and wants to brainwash and pollute as many as he can. And sci.math.moderated is his latest attempt to destroy the minds of young kids and students. 

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 at 4:15:46 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 
> Are you fed up with trolls

AP writes: are you fed up with education parasites like Christensen teaching your young children the ellipse is a conic when it never was, and 10 OR 4 = 14, when even a 8 year old knows better that 10 AND 4 = 14. An education parasite only cares about his money, not your children's education.


On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 8:22:25 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> And forget calculus. 

AP writes: trouble is with Christensen, never learned calculus in the first place (see his comments below) and Christensen should have been booted out of science newsgroups 5 years ago as a complete and utter failure of science as a education parasite-- pushing his moneygrub websites 

Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth. 

On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 4:31:35 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> 
> You ARE are a sicko, 

On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:08:46 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
  
> Dan 
> 
> Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> Visit my Math Blog at,,,, 
(be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 

Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 

Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 


On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 

> Dan 
> 
> Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> Visit my Math Blog,,, 
(be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 

Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 



Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018 
8:19 AM (11 hours ago) 

>WARNING TO PARENTS 

>Archie Pu's fake logic 

A    B    A & B 
T    T        T 
T    F        T 
F    T        T 
F    F        F 

>Real logic: 

A    B    A & B 
T    T        T 
T    F        F 
F    T        F 
F    F        F 

A    B    A OR B 
T    T        T 
T    F        T 
F    T        T 
F    F        F 


>AP's fake math: 

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” 
--June 3, 2015 

Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian 


AP writes: Christensen failed calculus, or never took it, for all students quickly learn a vertex has no derivative: 


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 

AP writes: Christensen failed Logic for any person with a microgram of Logic is not confused over distinct-- 

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. 
> 


                              .. 
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
           ,      . `.'            '        `. 
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
         ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
          . '                            ` `.  | 
        . '.                                  ' 
       .          0              0            ' `. 
      '                                          ` 
     ;                                            ` 
    .'                                             ` 
    ;                      U                        ` 
    ;    ';                                         ` 
    :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
       `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
        `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
           `       .                     '    ' 
         /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
                  |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
                  `.'          `    ;         `-' 
                                `...' 

  

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// 


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,   



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 moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic. 

#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. 






AP 
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]

#433213 — Newsgroup sci.advanced-math Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated

If we grant a newsgroup sci.math.moderated to the math failure Dan Christensen who connot even admit a ellipse was never a conic and cannot understand Either..Or..Or..Both is a outright Contradiction that leads to 10 OR 4 = 14

Then John Gabriel has just as much right to found the newsgroup sci.advanced-math and moderated by Gabriel.

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

#433216 — Re: Newsgroup sci.advanced-math Cornell Univ, are you not ashamed for keeping your belief that Either..Or..Or..Both are a Contradiction leading to the foolish 3 OR 2 = 5, and allowing Christensen to memorialize this in sci.math.moderated

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 2:56:13 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> 10 OR 4 = 14

Right!

Python: print(operator.or_(10, 4)) 
=> 14

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

#433520 — Cornell fired because they cannot even teach proper true Trigonometry?? And they still teach 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1

On Saturday, February 2, 2019 at 11:05:19 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> 
> Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot

AP writes: yes the world is tired of education parasites like Christensen who never fixes anything that is wrong, just keeps on teaching old rotten decayed ideas and fake ideas, such as trigonometry.

And Cornell prides itself as hosting arxiv when it cannot even do correct trigonometry


Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal 

By Archimedes Plutonium 

Discovered in 2016 

Now one of the functions most often used in physics and science are the trigonometric functions. But, have the mathematicians made any mistakes with them? One would think not, since trig has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Trouble is, in math, when you do not have a logical mind, you miss errors. Here is a huge huge error of Trigonometry, only because, mathematicians rarely have a logical mind. It involves the shape of sine and cosine. Now, do not get me wrong, not all sine and cosine functions are semicircle shape. All sine and cosine start out as semicircle in the unit circle, but as soon as you change frequency or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine are ellipse waves. 

My discovery that the ellipse was never a conic section, and that the cut was a oval, took place in late 2016, while working with sinusoid-- trying to get a sinusoid out of a conic section and just exploring the sinusoid, for I had discovered the sinusoid was fake itself. So in that exploration of the sinusoid, I would discover in September of 2016 that the sinusoid was truly a Semicircle wave, and that the sinusoid was a fakery wave begot by stretching the x-axis by 3.14... - 2 = 1.14..... yet leaving the y-axis as normal. This fakery of stretching one axis leaving the other axis alone, is a forbidden sin of mathematics. 

They come to math, and physics, but they come without Logic, barren of 
logic, deplete of logic, never any logic in their tools of the trade. 

They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse. Good so far. 

They know of the unit circle with hypotenuse as 1. Good again. 

They then blunder, so pitifully, so badly, so poorly, and so early on. 
I mean even a child can understand the first few steps. And they 
blunder badly for they spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... 
Why? Why assign 180 degrees as 3.14... when you already defined sine 
as opposite/hypotenuse with unit circle forcing 180 degrees to be 2, 
since 90 degrees is 1 of unit circle. 

You see what happens when you do science without logic-- you become a 
village idiot fool. 

Now, here is a huge huge big lesson to learn. It is big, and most professors of mathematics never learned it, for if they had learned it, they would not make this mistake in trigonometry of a "Sinusoid shape wave". 

The lesson is simple and easy, but no math professor ever learned it-- 

You never have unequal axes in doing mathematics. 
Your x,y,z axes always are the same. 
Your axes are always the same. 
You never have one axis different from another, or, you are not doing mathematics. 
All axes must be the same. 

Sure, in commercials they have pie charts and they have bar diagrams where one axis is numbers and the other is candy bars or something else. That is not mathematics. 

And in Trigonometry, if your x axis is angles, and your y axis is numbers, you are NOT doing mathematics. 

To do Mathematics-- axes are always the same. 



If you had had just a gram of Logical intelligence could see that the 
unit circle forces sine to define 180 degrees as being a diameter of 
2. Thus making the sine graph and cosine graph to be a SEMICIRCLE Wave 
graph. 

-- Archimedes Plutonium 


SECOND PROOF THAT SINE AND COSINE ARE SEMICIRCLE WAVES:: 

This proof has a hands on experiment involved. Take a close look at a 
screen door spring, and verify it is wound up circles per wind. 

EXPERIMENT:: make a 2nd dimension graph of semicircle wave. Cut out 
the semicircles but leaving them in one piece so you can bend and 
fold. Now, fold the sheet of cut out semicircles to begin to approach 
a spring of circle windings. Now, do the same with the idiotic Old 
Math's sinusoid shape wave. Can you form a spring, without vertices, a 
vertex at each joint and which those joints are physics vulnerable to 
cracking and breaking apart. 

Theorem Statement:: A spring in mathematics is a winding of semicircle 
waves and is the sine function and cosine function wound from 2nd 
dimension into 3rd dimension. 

Proof Statement:: Only a semicircle wave can be wound from 2nd 
dimension into 3rd dimension and be free of vertices, (weak spots). 
Only a circle is free of vertices when attaching half waves. 

Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 


AP 
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]

#433773 — Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:56:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> If we grant a newsgroup sci.math.moderated to the math failure Dan Christensen who connot even admit a ellipse was never a conic and cannot understand Either..Or..Or..Both is a outright Contradiction that leads to 10 OR 4 = 14
> 
> Then John Gabriel has just as much right to found the newsgroup sci.advanced-math and moderated by Gabriel.

Christensen's sci.failed-math-moderated, will Dr. Conway join? Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 4:50:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> Tired of getting your troll butt kicked everyday here, Troll Boy? (HA, HA, HA!!!) What a loser. 

AP writes: apparently Dr. Conway is not tired at all, for he still spouts that a ellipse is a conic when it never was and still spouts 3 OR 2 = 5, when even an 8 year old knows it as 3 AND 2 = 5. But what about Christensen's failed newsgroup sci.failed-math-moderated? Why does Google need to moderate "failures" is beyond me. 
- hide quoted text -


On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, UWO's,Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the ignorant fool Christensen 
> 
> 
> AP writes: so sci.math has a failed and ignorant fool of Christensen who wants to keep teaching failed Logic with his 3 OR 2 = 5 thus 3 AND 2 = 1, the error filled logic of Boole (see history below). And what universities and Google want to do now, is allow this ignorant education parasite of Christensen run and control a newsgroup-- when he cannot even fix the mistakes and errors of math or logic. 
> 
> Apparently the University of Western Ontario and Google like to see a ignorant fool brainwash our young students and mar their minds in logic for the rest of their lives. Teaching them and brainwashing them with the living-Contradiciton that of Either..Or..Or..Both that 10 OR 4 = 14 when even a 8 year old senses it should really be 10 AND 4 = 14. 
> 
> Christensen with his own newsgroup of sci.math.moderated is worse than having a drunk criminal have his own newsgroup. 
> 
> Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated 
> Dan Christensen wrote: 
> Jan 24 
> >Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated -- a new Google >Groups newsgroup for free-wheeling discussions of mathematical themes not subject to the rigid Q >& A formats of Quora and MSE. 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:> your Wacky 
> 
> David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias  Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the the ignorant fool Christensen 
> 
> 
> Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth. 
> 
> 7:52:34 Christensen wrote:>Warning// Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop too stupid to understand real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding 
> 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada. 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. 
> 
> The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better. 
> 
> Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 
> 
> But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 
> 
> What answer did they give? 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs  Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest 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   
> 
> 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, Justin Trudeau 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 8:22:25 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > And forget calculus. 
> 
> AP writes: trouble is with Christensen, never learned calculus in the first place (see his comments below) and Christensen should have been booted out of science newsgroups 5 years ago as a complete and utter failure of science as a education parasite-- pushing his moneygrub websites 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth. 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 4:31:35 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > 
> > You ARE are a sicko, 
> 
> On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:08:46 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
>   
> > Dan 
> > 
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > Visit my Math Blog at,,,, 
> (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> 
> Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> 
> Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> 
> > Dan 
> > 
> > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > Visit my Math Blog,,, 
> (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> 
> Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018 
> 8:19 AM (11 hours ago) 
> 
> >WARNING TO PARENTS 
> 
> >Archie Pu's fake logic 
> 
> A    B    A & B 
> T    T        T 
> T    F        T 
> F    T        T 
> F    F        F 
> 
> >Real logic: 
> 
> A    B    A & B 
> T    T        T 
> T    F        F 
> F    T        F 
> F    F        F 
> 
> A    B    A OR B 
> T    T        T 
> T    F        T 
> F    T        T 
> F    F        F 
> 
> 
> >AP's fake math: 
> 
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” 
> --June 3, 2015 
> 
> Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian 
> 
> 
> AP writes: Christensen failed calculus, or never took it, for all students quickly learn a vertex has no derivative: 
> 
> 
> 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 
> 
> AP writes: Christensen failed Logic for any person with a microgram of Logic is not confused over distinct-- 
> 
> 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. 
> > 
> 
> 
>                               .. 
>             .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
>            ,      . `.'            '        `. 
>          .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
>          .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
>          ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
>           . '                            ` `.  | 
>         . '.                                  ' 
>        .          0              0            ' `. 
>       '                                          ` 
>      ;                                            ` 
>     .'                                             ` 
>     ;                      U                        ` 
>     ;    ';                                         ` 
>     :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
>     :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
>     '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
>      ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 
>       `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
>        `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
>         `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
>          `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
>            `       .                     '    ' 
>          /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
>         /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
>        /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
>       / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
>   ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
>    ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
>            ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
>            :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
>                   |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
>                   `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
>                   `.'          `    ;         `-' 
>                                 `...' 
> 
>   
> 
> Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// 
> 
> 
> 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,   
> 
> 
> 
> 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 moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic. 
> 
> #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. 
> 
> 
> AP 
> 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]

#434046 — Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Yes, why do the fools of math and logic professors of Cornell Univ embrace a living contradiction of 3 OR 2 = 5 with thence 3 AND 2 = 1. I mean, has no-one at Cornell ever learned what a contradiction in terms means? Either..Or..Or.. Both is a contradiction in terms

Discussion
Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated (2)
By Dan Christensen 



On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:56:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > If we grant a newsgroup sci.math.moderated to the math failure Dan Christensen who connot even admit a ellipse was never a conic and cannot understand Either..Or..Or..Both is a outright Contradiction that leads to 10 OR 4 = 14
> > 
> > Then John Gabriel has just as much right to found the newsgroup sci.advanced-math and moderated by Gabriel.
> 
> Christensen's sci.failed-math-moderated, will Dr. Conway join? Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> 
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 4:50:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > Tired of getting your troll butt kicked everyday here, Troll Boy? (HA, HA, HA!!!) What a loser. 
> 
> AP writes: apparently Dr. Conway is not tired at all, for he still spouts that a ellipse is a conic when it never was and still spouts 3 OR 2 = 5, when even an 8 year old knows it as 3 AND 2 = 5. But what about Christensen's failed newsgroup sci.failed-math-moderated? Why does Google need to moderate "failures" is beyond me. 
> - hide quoted text -
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, UWO's,Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the ignorant fool Christensen 
> > 
> > 
> > AP writes: so sci.math has a failed and ignorant fool of Christensen who wants to keep teaching failed Logic with his 3 OR 2 = 5 thus 3 AND 2 = 1, the error filled logic of Boole (see history below). And what universities and Google want to do now, is allow this ignorant education parasite of Christensen run and control a newsgroup-- when he cannot even fix the mistakes and errors of math or logic. 
> > 
> > Apparently the University of Western Ontario and Google like to see a ignorant fool brainwash our young students and mar their minds in logic for the rest of their lives. Teaching them and brainwashing them with the living-Contradiciton that of Either..Or..Or..Both that 10 OR 4 = 14 when even a 8 year old senses it should really be 10 AND 4 = 14. 
> > 
> > Christensen with his own newsgroup of sci.math.moderated is worse than having a drunk criminal have his own newsgroup. 
> > 
> > Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > Jan 24 
> > >Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated -- a new Google >Groups newsgroup for free-wheeling discussions of mathematical themes not subject to the rigid Q >& A formats of Quora and MSE. 
> > 
> > 
> > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:> your Wacky 
> > 
> > David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias  Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the the ignorant fool Christensen 
> > 
> > 
> > Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth. 
> > 
> > 7:52:34 Christensen wrote:>Warning// Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop too stupid to understand real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding 
> > 
> > 
> >    /\-------/\ 
> >    \::O:::O::/ 
> >   (::_  ^  _::) 
> >    \_`-----'_/ 
> > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada. 
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. 
> > 
> > The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. 
> > 
> > And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better. 
> > 
> > Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 
> > 
> > But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 
> > 
> > What answer did they give? 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> > Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs  Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest 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   
> > 
> > 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, Justin Trudeau 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 8:22:25 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > And forget calculus. 
> > 
> > AP writes: trouble is with Christensen, never learned calculus in the first place (see his comments below) and Christensen should have been booted out of science newsgroups 5 years ago as a complete and utter failure of science as a education parasite-- pushing his moneygrub websites 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 4:31:35 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > You ARE are a sicko, 
> > 
> > On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:08:46 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> >   
> > > Dan 
> > > 
> > > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > > Visit my Math Blog at,,,, 
> > (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> > 
> > Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> > 
> > Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > 
> > > Dan 
> > > 
> > > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > > Visit my Math Blog,,, 
> > (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> > 
> > Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018 
> > 8:19 AM (11 hours ago) 
> > 
> > >WARNING TO PARENTS 
> > 
> > >Archie Pu's fake logic 
> > 
> > A    B    A & B 
> > T    T        T 
> > T    F        T 
> > F    T        T 
> > F    F        F 
> > 
> > >Real logic: 
> > 
> > A    B    A & B 
> > T    T        T 
> > T    F        F 
> > F    T        F 
> > F    F        F 
> > 
> > A    B    A OR B 
> > T    T        T 
> > T    F        T 
> > F    T        T 
> > F    F        F 
> > 
> > 
> > >AP's fake math: 
> > 
> > “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” 
> > --June 3, 2015 
> > 
> > Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian 
> > 
> > 
> > AP writes: Christensen failed calculus, or never took it, for all students quickly learn a vertex has no derivative: 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > AP writes: Christensen failed Logic for any person with a microgram of Logic is not confused over distinct-- 
> > 
> > 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. 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> >                               .. 
> >             .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
> >            ,      . `.'            '        `. 
> >          .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
> >          .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
> >          ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
> >           . '                            ` `.  | 
> >         . '.                                  ' 
> >        .          0              0            ' `. 
> >       '                                          ` 
> >      ;                                            ` 
> >     .'                                             ` 
> >     ;                      U                        ` 
> >     ;    ';                                         ` 
> >     :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
> >     :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
> >     '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
> >      ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 
> >       `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
> >        `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
> >         `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
> >          `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
> >            `       .                     '    ' 
> >          /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
> >         /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
> >        /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
> >       / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
> >   ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
> >    ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
> >            ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
> >            :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
> >                   |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
> >                   `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
> >                   `.'          `    ;         `-' 
> >                                 `...' 
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// 
> > 
> > 
> > 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,   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic. 
> > 
> > #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. 
> > 
> > 
> > AP 
> > 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]

#434102 — Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

AP, I don't think nobody at Cornell is teaching 2 OR 3 = 5, because it doesn't make any sense.

OR is an operator between true/false formulas and throws a true/false result as a value.

You can check the truth table of P v Q to see how it works.

So, what solid evidence do you have that anyone at Cornell is teaching that?

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

#434116 — Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Anyone who believes Either..Or..Or..Both can serve as a logic connector like Mike Hart has his head up his arse sideways.

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

#434137 — Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Mike Hart <gmoralesor@gmail.com> writes:

>AP, I don't think nobody at Cornell is teaching 2 OR 3 = 5, because it doesn't make any sense.

No, it is just Archie's bizarre way of attacking someone who he thinks
lives near Cornell. He thinks stalking university professors for not
teaching his broken math helps his cause for some reason.

>OR is an operator between true/false formulas and throws a true/false result as a value.

Archie has no clue what AND or OR mean in this context. He seems to think
AND is the same as the schoolchild's "and", addition or plus. Which is why he
insists that it's 2 AND 3 = 5, not 2 OR 3. Even though 2 OR 3 = 5 is his own
fabrication, one that nobody anywhere believes.

>You can check the truth table of P v Q to see how it works.

He'd rather make up his own truth table.

>So, what solid evidence do you have that anyone at Cornell is teaching that?

His own imagination is good enough for him.

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

#434854 — Cornell has become an insane asylum with their 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2= 1 Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Dear reader,
> Re: There is now an alternative to the insane asylum
> Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot


On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 11:54:14 PM UTC-6, Mike Hart wrote:
> AP, I don't think nobody at Cornell is teaching 2 OR 3 = 5, because it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> OR is an operator between true/false formulas and throws a true/false result as a value.
> 
> You can check the truth table of P v Q to see how it works.
> 
> So, what solid evidence do you have that anyone at Cornell is teaching that?

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

#436045 — Re: Cornell has become an insane asylum with their 3 OR 2=5 with 3 AND 2= 1 Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

Hi AP brain farto. Can you make a test?

Do you hear something when you see this GIF:

Happy Toast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ5T-WGOaYo

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 11:54:32 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:25:13 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > Dear reader,
> > Re: There is now an alternative to the insane asylum
> > Are you fed up with trolls like this idiot
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 11:54:14 PM UTC-6, Mike Hart wrote:
> > AP, I don't think nobody at Cornell is teaching 2 OR 3 = 5, because it doesn't make any sense.
> > 
> > OR is an operator between true/false formulas and throws a true/false result as a value.
> > 
> > You can check the truth table of P v Q to see how it works.
> > 
> > So, what solid evidence do you have that anyone at Cornell is teaching that?

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

#436176 — Moroney says//Erik sickfuck Eastside says// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 5:50:58 PM UTC-6, j4n bur53 wrote:
> Hi AP 

Michael Moroney 	
6:38 PM (4 minutes ago)

Re: Erik sickfuck Eastside says>oil & vinegar// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

From: mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) 
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.physics 
Subject: Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test 
References: <1d55ea12-3a10-4bb6-9d0d-c0226a7812e2@googlegroups.com> 
  

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science: 

>Subject: Is Moroney = John Baez = Erik Eastside? How many fake names is the fool Baez allowed?? 

>On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:15:31 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
>> Village Idiot Archimedes Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test 

>Eastside is worse than a Village Idiot 

How is Eastside worse than you, Village Idiot Plutonium? 



x-no-archive: yes 
 


eastsi...@gmail.com 	
6:38 PM (4 minutes ago)


- show quoted text -
It does work whether or not you "get rid of" or "keep" the exponents.  It's the 
same either way.  The reason is doens't work for you is you've forgotten 
arithmetic.  6^2 / 2 != 3^2.  6^2 = (2*3)^2, So 6^2 / 2 = 2*3^2 = 18.  You 
have to get a good arithemetic book, maybe 5th or 6th grade, and study it. 

Sorry Archie.  Another fail.  (2*3)^2 / 2 = 2*3^2.  Arithmetic first, then 
algeebra.  You're years away from algebra. 



On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 5:20:00 PM UTC-6, eastsi...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> No, Archie.  2^3/2 != 1^3.  2^3 = 2*2*2.  2^4 = 2*2*2*2. Remember?  You knew
> that once.




AP writes: The Eastside Stalker Poem 

Stalk, stalk stalk Eastside, crock, crock, crock 

Why you stalk, stalk stalk, you 
worthless crock crock crock 
Not even an ellipse, can you do 
The oval is the conic cut 
but you are so dumb and stupid 
Your entire head is up your crock 

Eastside has a feeble brain
Your conic cut is just insane
For a slant cut in cone is an oval
Your moron brain is a joke offal
You failed the ellipse, and too stupid for the plane
For you are just simply totally insane

Eastside, so dumb in physics too, too, too 
the loon thinks electron is .5MeV, mass 
the goon thinks proton is 938MeV, mass 
why does he keep his head up his ass 
For the real proton is 840MeV rest mass

The real electron is the muon would'n you know
And it is 105 MeV rest mass, hello 
Eastside, still with his head up his ass 
The .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole
Yes, at last .5MeV rest mass 
But there is Eastside, still, with head up his ass 
Stalk, stalk,stalk, worthless Eastside crock crock crock

AP 

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

#436178 — Re: Moroney says//Erik sickfuck Eastside says// UCLA Physics with their imbecile electron--Gene D. Block,Ernest Abers,Elihu Abrahams, too stupid to understand Real Proton = 840 MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> a slant cut in cone is an oval

That's right. Since it is an ellipse it's an oval.

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

#436179 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:18:56 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
>> Alzheimer Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Yes, Moroney why are they Alzheimer stupid at Reed College over the ellipse???

Oh you really like seeing that ellipse proof! Here it is!


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

x-no-archive: yes

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

#434268 — Re: Why do fools of Cornell Univ, Dr.Conway, Christensen embrace the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both

On Tuesday, February 12, 2019 at 2:39:48 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
>  As perhaps the world's most famous math

AP writes: Why thanks Christensen for your praise of my math, now we have to teach Cornell Univ math and logic professors that you cannot have a logic connector that is a composite of OR and AND in that of Either..Or..Or..Both


> Yes, why do the fools of math and logic professors of Cornell Univ embrace a living contradiction of 3 OR 2 = 5 with thence 3 AND 2 = 1. I mean, has no-one at Cornell ever learned what a contradiction in terms means? Either..Or..Or.. Both is a contradiction in terms
> 
> Discussion
> Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated (2)
> By Dan Christensen 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 6:09:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 7:56:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > If we grant a newsgroup sci.math.moderated to the math failure Dan Christensen who connot even admit a ellipse was never a conic and cannot understand Either..Or..Or..Both is a outright Contradiction that leads to 10 OR 4 = 14
> > > 
> > > Then John Gabriel has just as much right to found the newsgroup sci.advanced-math and moderated by Gabriel.
> > 
> > Christensen's sci.failed-math-moderated, will Dr. Conway join? Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> > 
> > On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 4:50:43 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > Tired of getting your troll butt kicked everyday here, Troll Boy? (HA, HA, HA!!!) What a loser. 
> > 
> > AP writes: apparently Dr. Conway is not tired at all, for he still spouts that a ellipse is a conic when it never was and still spouts 3 OR 2 = 5, when even an 8 year old knows it as 3 AND 2 = 5. But what about Christensen's failed newsgroup sci.failed-math-moderated? Why does Google need to moderate "failures" is beyond me. 
> > - hide quoted text -
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 at 4:58:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > Sebastien Proulx, Jordan Brown, David Eggen, UWO's,Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the ignorant fool Christensen 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > AP writes: so sci.math has a failed and ignorant fool of Christensen who wants to keep teaching failed Logic with his 3 OR 2 = 5 thus 3 AND 2 = 1, the error filled logic of Boole (see history below). And what universities and Google want to do now, is allow this ignorant education parasite of Christensen run and control a newsgroup-- when he cannot even fix the mistakes and errors of math or logic. 
> > > 
> > > Apparently the University of Western Ontario and Google like to see a ignorant fool brainwash our young students and mar their minds in logic for the rest of their lives. Teaching them and brainwashing them with the living-Contradiciton that of Either..Or..Or..Both that 10 OR 4 = 14 when even a 8 year old senses it should really be 10 AND 4 = 14. 
> > > 
> > > Christensen with his own newsgroup of sci.math.moderated is worse than having a drunk criminal have his own newsgroup. 
> > > 
> > > Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated 
> > > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > Jan 24 
> > > >Is it time to leave sci.math to the cranks and trolls? Join me at sci-math-moderated -- a new Google >Groups newsgroup for free-wheeling discussions of mathematical themes not subject to the rigid Q >& A formats of Quora and MSE. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 10:50:15 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:> your Wacky 
> > > 
> > > David Eggen, Gordon Wyant, Zach Churchill,UWO's,Matthias  Franz,John Jardine,Massoud Khalkhali,Nicole Lemire// Embracing and Memorializing the Contradiction of Either..Or..Or..Both by the the ignorant fool Christensen 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to teach the truth. 
> > > 
> > > 7:52:34 Christensen wrote:>Warning// Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop too stupid to understand real proton is 840MeV, electron=muon, in order for Angular Momentum to allow Chemistry bonding 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >    /\-------/\ 
> > >    \::O:::O::/ 
> > >   (::_  ^  _::) 
> > >    \_`-----'_/ 
> > > You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Canada. 
> > > And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in not knowing what is really the electron in atoms has to be the muon at 105MeV and proton at 840MeV with Dirac's magnetic monopole being .5MeV, your students deserve better. 
> > > 
> > > The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. 
> > > 
> > > And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better. 
> > > 
> > > Yes, there, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 
> > > 
> > > But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 
> > > 
> > > What answer did they give? 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Christensen asks Univ Western Ontario Drs  Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami which is AP's 2nd greatest 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   
> > > 
> > > 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, Justin Trudeau 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, January 22, 2019 at 8:22:25 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > > And forget calculus. 
> > > 
> > > AP writes: trouble is with Christensen, never learned calculus in the first place (see his comments below) and Christensen should have been booted out of science newsgroups 5 years ago as a complete and utter failure of science as a education parasite-- pushing his moneygrub websites 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Definition: education parasite: a person or a group of people that values money or convenience ahead of the Truth. They never want to fix errors but teach errors forever because it takes time and money out of them to fix errors and teach the truth. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 4:31:35 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > You ARE are a sicko, 
> > > 
> > > On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 11:08:46 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >   
> > > > Dan 
> > > > 
> > > > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > > > Visit my Math Blog at,,,, 
> > > (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> > > 
> > > Jean-Yves Beziau,Andrea Bonomi,Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers) are you? an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> > > 
> > > Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, are you an education parasite on Logic as is Christensen with 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 7:52:34 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > Dan 
> > > > 
> > > > Download my DC Proof 2.0,,,, 
> > > > Visit my Math Blog,,, 
> > > (be foolish and download that worthless moneygrub parasite of Logic-- Christensen) 
> > > 
> > > Scientists that are just memorization not masters Re: Analysis of failures..Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = 1 while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dan Christensen (the stalking insane Canadian of 6 years) wrote on 20Dec2018 
> > > 8:19 AM (11 hours ago) 
> > > 
> > > >WARNING TO PARENTS 
> > > 
> > > >Archie Pu's fake logic 
> > > 
> > > A    B    A & B 
> > > T    T        T 
> > > T    F        T 
> > > F    T        T 
> > > F    F        F 
> > > 
> > > >Real logic: 
> > > 
> > > A    B    A & B 
> > > T    T        T 
> > > T    F        F 
> > > F    T        F 
> > > F    F        F 
> > > 
> > > A    B    A OR B 
> > > T    T        T 
> > > T    F        T 
> > > F    T        T 
> > > F    F        F 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > >AP's fake math: 
> > > 
> > > “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” 
> > > --June 3, 2015 
> > > 
> > > Dan Christensen, 6 year insane stalker Canadian 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > AP writes: Christensen failed calculus, or never took it, for all students quickly learn a vertex has no derivative: 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > > 
> > > AP writes: Christensen failed Logic for any person with a microgram of Logic is not confused over distinct-- 
> > > 
> > > 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. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                               .. 
> > >             .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
> > >            ,      . `.'            '        `. 
> > >          .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
> > >          .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
> > >          ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
> > >           . '                            ` `.  | 
> > >         . '.                                  ' 
> > >        .          0              0            ' `. 
> > >       '                                          ` 
> > >      ;                                            ` 
> > >     .'                                             ` 
> > >     ;                      U                        ` 
> > >     ;    ';                                         ` 
> > >     :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
> > >     :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
> > >     '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
> > >      ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     '  I am Christensen,I am such a stupid insane imp of math and logic that I thought a vertex has a derivative, that distinct means not-distinct, and that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, when a 8 year old knows 10 AND 4= 14 
> > >       `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
> > >        `       `        ;            ;      '    ' 
> > >         `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
> > >          `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
> > >            `       .                     '    ' 
> > >          /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
> > >         /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
> > >        /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
> > >       / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
> > >   ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
> > >    ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
> > >            ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
> > >            :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
> > >                   |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
> > >                   `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
> > >                   `.'          `    ;         `-' 
> > >                                 `...' 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > 
> > > Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic// 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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,   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 moneygrubs, more concerned over money flow than what is the truth of logic. 
> > > 
> > > #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. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > AP 
> > > Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
> > > ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                 ::\ ::|:: /:: 
> > >                  ::\::|::/:: 
> > >                      _ _ 
> > >                     (:Y:) 
> > >                      - - 
> > >                  ::/::|::\:: 
> > >                 ::/ ::|:: \:: 
> > > One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
> > >             . \ .  . | .   /. 
> > >            . . \. . .|. . /. . 
> > >               ..\....|.../... 
> > >                ::\:::|::/:: 
> > > ---------------      ------------- 
> > > --------------- (Y) ------------- 
> > > ---------------      -------------- 
> > >                ::/:::|::\:: 
> > >               ../....|...\... 
> > >            . . /. . .|. . \. . 
> > >             . / .  . | .   \ . 
> > > 
> > >   
> > > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
> > > 
> > > I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.       
> > > 
> > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 
> > > 
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
> > > Archimedes Plutonium

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web