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

Groups > sci.physics > #699454

Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>Subject: Re: why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why is Terry "silent" ?

#1) He has never heard of the nobody named Archimedes Plutonium and
    probably never will. I'm sure he mostly hangs around with actual
    mathematicians.

#2) Since nothing has actually changed regarding ellipses being conic
    sections, that is the Dandelin Spheres proof is still valid as are
    the other proofs still valid, there is no reason for the topic to even 
    come up. Like being silent on 2 < 5.

An actual valid math proof that the ellipse is not a conic section would
be huge news in the math world, but so far that has never happened, and
almost certainly never will since much of engineering and astronomy would
simply break.  It is more likely to see a valid proof that 2 > 5 first.

>On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:43:41 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>> Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres=20
>> So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?

Yes, Archie, be a man and admit your mistake.

>AP writes:: of course Terry recognizes that Dandelin assumed-- ASSUMED he
>was working with a ellipse, not a oval--

No, he didn't. Even if he did, a simple counterexample could be obtained
from such an assumption if the proof was invalid, producing a disproof by
counterexample.

>but you can never tell that to an insane person like Jan-- not much of 
>anything enters his microbrain.

That's the best you can do? Meaningless insults?

>But why call Terry a wimp? Is it because Terry remains silent about ellipse
> never being a conic, always a cylinder section.

As I said, Terry is "silent" because the issue hasn't come up - there has
never been a valid proof the ellipse is not a conic section.  Again, it's
like being "silent" about the fact that 2 is less than 5.

>Is that the way modern mathematicians operate-- like Terry-- never fixing
>mistakes, only grubbing for the next publication of more math pollution.

I'm sure if Terry knew of any mistakes, he'd fix them, but there is no 
mistake to fix. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

>Terry-- I found in life the best way to live it-- is come clean on 
>everything,, something in the Bible along those lines of thought-- you 
>better find out what you are meant to do in life, if not, it will 
>destroy you.

So you really should be a man and admit your mistake, and move on.
Of course, addressing a message to him here is rather dumb.
But I think this has already destroyed you.

>A mathematician , when told that a proof the ellipse is never a conic, and
>does nothing, like you Terry, could mean you were never a mathematician at
>all.

But since Terry has never been told of any such proof, that statement is
meaningless.

>> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is 
>> cylinder section, never a conic section.

When did Terry "incessantly deny" any such thing? Reference? (and why 
wouldn't he deny that, anyway?)

>> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at
>> all.

When did he ever deny true math?


(Now watch -- Archie will respond to my post, but not here. He'll start a
new thread or post to an existing insult thread. Probably in sci.physics.

In this response, he won't address a single issue that I have brought up.
Instead, most if not all of the following will be part of his reply:

#1) It will be addressed to uninvolved people at Harvard or MIT, or 
perhaps Massachusetts politicians.

#2) A stalker list of other uninvolved people at Harvard, MIT, or
    Massachusetts politicians will be included. No reason will be
    given for posting the stalker list.

#3) He will insult me, likely including snippets of old posts of mine
    where he still thinks I was wrong.

#4) He will also insult the uninvolved Harvard/MIT/Massachusetts people
    for allowing me to exist, I suppose, although none of them have ever
    heard of me.

#5) He will accuse me of "stalking" him by actually posting this reply.

#6) He will accuse me and others who respond to him of being "gay" for
    unknown reasons.  He will insult gays in the process.

#7) He will post that ASCII art owl/cat thing that lives in a cubbyhole.

#8) He will accuse professors (mentioned in #2) of not fixing errors that
    don't exist and they have never heard of anyway.

#9) He will include a non-proof "proof", likely his non-proof that the 
    ellipse is not a conic section.

Did I miss any?)

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8  isomers, O2 has 2// TRUE CHEMISTRY Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:20 -0700
  diamond structureRe: difference between Allotrope and Isomer--if any at all-- CO2 has 8  isomers, O2 has 2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 23:42 -0700
  Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-21 15:24 +0000

csiph-web