Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #436640 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-03-08 09:40 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-03-18 06:25 -0700 |
| Articles | 5 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Steven E. Shreve,Dejan Slepcev,Richard Statman,Carnegie Mellon Univ are like Moroney, too stupid to learn ellipse is never a conic (see proof below. Too stupid to learn proton is 840MeV, real electron was 105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopol Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-08 09:40 -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) - 2019-03-10 17:27 +0000
Steven E. Shreve,Dejan Slepcev,Richard Statman,Carnegie Mellon Univ are like Moroney, too stupid to learn ellipse is never a conic (see proof below. Too stupid to learn proton is 840MeV, real electron was 105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopol Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-03-18 01:08 -0700
Re: Archimedes "unofficial state idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-03-18 11:58 +0000
AP's idiocies and fake math designed to create failure in US schools Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2019-03-18 06:25 -0700
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-08 09:40 -0800 |
| Subject | Steven E. Shreve,Dejan Slepcev,Richard Statman,Carnegie Mellon Univ are like Moroney, too stupid to learn ellipse is never a conic (see proof below. Too stupid to learn proton is 840MeV, real electron was 105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopol |
| Message-ID | <2045dce0-2f3b-46ac-acd9-bdc38048de85@googlegroups.com> |
On Friday, March 8, 2019 at 8:21:36 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Don't accuse "us" of your own misunderstanding. You must be the only
> person in the world to dream up
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 12:31:38 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney 26 year long stalking spam spew:
> Alzheimer
Path: t131ni2957wmt.0!nntp.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Steven E. Shreve, Dejan Slepcev, Richard Statman, Carnegie Mellon Univ, are like Moroney, too stupid to learn ellipse is never a conic (see proof below. Too stupid to learn proton is 840MeV, real electron was 105MeV and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole
AP writes: Reason I ask if kibo Moroney is a traitor and agent of Russia is because he has stu.neva.ru in his address. And likely MIT and CMU are working on missile technology
Gilbert Strang,L. Reif,William Bertozzi, MIT vs. Daniela L. Rus,Farnum Jahanian,Jeremy Avigad,CMU are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
CMU versus MIT are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs Harvard physicists are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, MIT physicists are you like Moroney too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding
The world no longer needs physics professors who cannot understand Angular Momentum and that the Chemical bond cannot exist with proton = 938MeV, electron= .5MeV. The true proton is 840MeV, true electron= muon = 105MeV and the little particle of .5MeV that JJ Thomson discovered is actually Dirac's magnetic monopole.
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 6:45:40 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
Path: a204ni9727wmh.0!nntp.google.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
From: mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 00:13:10 +0000 (UTC)
On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 6:13:16 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Was he too much of a failure way
> back then as well?
..
.- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
, . `.' ' `.
.' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
. ; .' . `. ;
; . ' `. . '
. ' ` `. |
. '. '
. 0 0 ' `.
' `
; `
.' `
; U `
; '; `
: | ;.. :` `
: `;. ```. .-; | '
'. ` ``.., .' :' '
; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the loud mouth idiot hatemonger nonstop, stalker. I post under the name Moroney or kibo or dozens of other fake names for hatred is my game, not science. I love it when Usenet was created because I was a bully but did not want to be pommeled into the ground for spitting hatred on people and Usenet allows me to spit hatred 24 hours 360 days. I am a hate monger who hates people and hates science-- for I am a worthless shithead of a living being-Moroney. As kibo Moroney shein, I want to teach new kids on the block how to pester, harass, authors, just as I have done for 26 years-- the new kids of Dan Christensen, Jan Burse (if not in prison), Zelos Malum, qwbr, Jan Bielawski, Erik Eastside, Earle Jones, Konyberg, Franz, teach them how to be a shithead just like me.
` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` ` ; ; ' '
` `. ````'''''' ' '
` . ' '
/ ` `. ' ' .
/ ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
/ .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
/ .'' ; ` .' `
...'.' ; .' ` .' `
"" .' .' | ` .; \ `
; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
:' | ' ` , `. `
| ' ` ' `. `
` ' ` ; `. |
`.' ` ; `-'
`...'
Moroney math failure, here is where the fool thinks 938 is short of 945 by 12%, and he pretends he is an electrical engineer. Perhaps the first e.e. in the world that cannot do a percentage correctly
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Carnegie Mellon Univ. math dept
Jeremy Avigad, Steve Awodey, Egon Balas, Manuel Blum, Tom Bohman, Boris Bukh, Clinton Conley, Gerard P. Cornuejols, James Cummings, Irene Fonseca, Florian Frick, Alan Frieze, Rami Grossberg, Yu Gu, William J. Hrusa, Gautam Iyer, David Kinderlehrer, Dmitry Kramkov, John P. Lehoczky, Giovanni Leoni, Po-Shen Loh, Johannes Muhle-Karbe, Wesley Pegden, Robert Pego, Javier Pena, Agoston Pisztora, Hayden Schaeffer, Jack Schaeffer, Ernest Schimmerling, Steven E. Shreve, Dejan Slepcev, Richard Statman, Shlomo Ta'asan, Ian Tice, Tomasz Tkocz, Noel J. Walkington, Franziska Weber
president cmu: Farnum Jahanian, computer science
MIT math dept.
Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,
Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan
President: L. Reif (electrical engineer)
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
LIST of Failed Physicists because they still believe electron is .5MeV, in no order, and so very stupid are they in physics, for they could not even understand the physics of winter versus summer
Peter Higgs
Rainer Weiss
Kip S. Thorne
Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless
F. Duncan M. Haldane
John M. Kosterlitz
Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of 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
Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Edward Witten
Yes, 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 silly idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV.
In that manner, physics departments are racist physicists for the knowledge that Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, and the .5MeV was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole is going on 2 years now in the public eye starting 2017, yet none of these physicists (these poor physicists lacking understanding of angular momentum has raised a single peep). The reason they keep their mouths shut, is because they are so poor in physics, they do not want to be embarrassed. These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would debate the issue, not hide from the issue. And real physicist would not discount a discovery because of the person-- Archimedes Plutonium who discovered it.
Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
Archimedes Plutonium
--------------------
AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
Let us analyze AP's Proof
On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
E
__
.-' `-.
.' `.
/ \
; ;
| G c | H
; ;
\ /
`. .'
`-. _____ .-'
F
Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder
| |
| | E
| |
| |
|x c |x
| |
| |
| |
|F |
| |
| |
| |
So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry
But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.
So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
A
,'" "`.
/ \
C | c | D
\ /
` . ___ .'
B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
/ \A
x/ c \x
B/ \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-10 17:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q63hdn$mt0$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #436640 |
AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>Subject: Steven E. Shreve,Dejan Slepcev,Richard Statman,Carnegie Mellon
>Univ are like Moroney, too stupid to learn ellipse is never a conic
Oh no! Plutonium failed all over the place! Look at all the autism!
Hundreds of lines of autistic failure! What a mess again!
>(see proof below.
Yes, look at this great proof!
Some preliminaries:
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:
^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
Proof:
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
x-no-archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-18 01:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b39566b-e304-4831-9d7e-a539a064bdec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #436640 |
1 post Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy 15th Edition test bank By tomato hello. Last updated 3/17/19 AP writes: no wonder Stanford can’t confirm ellipse is never an oval and the .5MeV particle is Dirac’s monopole, they have a mountain of spam from kibo-moroney to filter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-18 11:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "unofficial state idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q6o14h$p9p$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #437439 |
AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>AP writes: no wonder Stanford can't confirm ellipse is never an oval
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I reposted the ellipse-is-a-conic section
proof for you, but apparently I didn't. So here you are!
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]
| From | Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-03-18 06:25 -0700 |
| Subject | AP's idiocies and fake math designed to create failure in US schools |
| Message-ID | <39dcc969-a922-4503-adf6-7b5b2b778065@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #437439 |
AP's Atom God cult “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.” --April 4, 1994 “Since God-Pu is marching on. Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium! Its truth is marching on. It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat; It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat; Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet! Our God-Pu is marching on.” --December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium) AP's fake math designed to promote failure in US schools “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.” --June 3, 2015 “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number” --June 9, 2015 “0/0 must be equal to 1.” -- June 9, 2015 “0 is an infinite irrational number.” --June 28, 2015 “No negative numbers exist.” --December 22, 2018 AP fails the simplest possible math test scoring 0/4 in the following: 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? __________ (Ans: 0.707) 2. True or false: 10^604 = 0 __________ (Ans: False) 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is __________ (Ans: False) 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is __________ (Ans: True) AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in US schools: "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]" --November 9, 2017 Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web