Discussion:
Bad news for math cranks and trolls
(too old to reply)
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 00:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-06 06:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Or:
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?

Who told you that our challenges are directed to all those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians living in this century? wonder!

You are a clueless as always as ever, for sure

BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 13:07:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Crank Boy here wonders why he isn't getting anywhere with his goofy ideas even among the very young and naive.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Ross A. Finlayson
2018-01-13 06:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Crank Boy here wonders why he isn't getting anywhere with his goofy ideas even among the very young and naive.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
How about me?

I got what I want from mathematics.

Pretty much makes sense since then.

Stipulation isn't condition but sci.math at least is
pretty much crank troll noise, "Archimedes Plutonium"
lambasting the establishment, and "the JG-bot" failing
(and flailing).

I feel pretty good in comparison.

There's still much to do, but,
at least it's there.
Ross A. Finlayson
2018-01-13 06:11:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Crank Boy here wonders why he isn't getting anywhere with his goofy ideas even among the very young and naive.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
How about me?
I got what I want from mathematics.
Pretty much makes sense since then.
Stipulation isn't condition but sci.math at least is
pretty much crank troll noise, "Archimedes Plutonium"
lambasting the establishment, and "the JG-bot" failing
(and flailing).
I feel pretty good in comparison.
There's still much to do, but,
at least it's there.
They probably even heard of alt.slack.
Ross A. Finlayson
2018-01-14 12:09:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Crank Boy here wonders why he isn't getting anywhere with his goofy ideas even among the very young and naive.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
How about me?
I got what I want from mathematics.
Pretty much makes sense since then.
Stipulation isn't condition but sci.math at least is
pretty much crank troll noise, "Archimedes Plutonium"
lambasting the establishment, and "the JG-bot" failing
(and flailing).
I feel pretty good in comparison.
There's still much to do, but,
at least it's there.
They probably even heard of alt.slack.
Or, mathematics educators, they've
probable heard of it the most.

Of course, for a "mathematics education".
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-06 14:15:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to all those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians living in this century? wonder!
You are a clueless as always as ever, for sure
BKK
Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure
BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 14:22:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to all those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians living in this century? wonder!
You are a clueless as always as ever, for sure
BKK
Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure
BKK
Are you serious?
bassam king karzeddin
2019-05-14 07:38:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Poor and astray mind guy for sure
Who told you that our challenges are directed at those generally very poor minds school teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to those innocent school students who are purely victims of their deceived teachers?
Who told you that our challenges are directed to all those alleged top most genius professional mathematicians living in this century? wonder!
You are a clueless as always as ever, for sure
BKK
FredJeffries
2017-12-06 14:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 14:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-06 15:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
You are not challenging at all, but Trolling and opposing the natural change, evolvement, and evolution of the mind, sure

BKK
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 15:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
You are not challenging at all, but Trolling and opposing the natural change, evolvement, and evolution of the mind, sure
So, we are "evolving" to mathematics without the number pi or 40 degree angles??? You ARE delusional BKK.

I guess since to don't actually have to apply this bullshit in the real world, you can get away with just about anything.

Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2017-12-06 15:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
You are not challenging at all, but Trolling and opposing the natural change, evolvement, and evolution of the mind, sure
So, we are "evolving" to mathematics without the number pi or 40 degree angles??? You ARE delusional BKK.

I guess since you don't actually have to apply this bullshit in the real world, you can get away with just about anything.

Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-06 16:05:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
You are not challenging at all, but Trolling and opposing the natural change, evolvement, and evolution of the mind, sure
So, we are "evolving" to mathematics without the number pi or 40 degree angles??? You ARE delusional BKK.
I guess since you don't actually have to apply this bullshit in the real world, you can get away with just about anything.
Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Yes, serious since rarely I do a Joke, humans are so much troubled with their own beliefs, and they are losing slowly now, but by the progress of time the rate of loss would be increasing to a limit that they may not be needed anymore, but maybe few of them for the purposes of higher studies of those called intelligent artificial beings

And why one should really wonder if the true mathematicians themselves are getting so rare and almost getting extinct

But they would accept pi as a full angle but not as a full number, and they would understand easily why the angle (pi/9) isn't any existing angle, not because it was proved by humans as impossible construction by the rules of compass and unmarked straight edge (with finite number of steps), but because it is not there in any reality, where then, no alleged method would work to create it but exactly, but this was certainly missed by the all old ancient mathematicians, otherwise you would never hear of three impossible constructions most famous problems from the Greek, for sure

BKK
Python
2017-12-06 16:20:23 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes, serious since rarely I do a Joke
Well, no surprise that you do now have a great sense of humour...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But they would accept pi as a full angle but not as a full number,
and they would understand easily why the angle (pi/9) isn't any existing angle,
not because it was proved by humans as impossible construction by the rules
of compass and unmarked straight edge
As hundreds of people try, with no success, to teach you, being
constructible with rule and compass is not a criterium for existence
in mathematics.

By the way, most Computer Algebra system has absolutely no problem
dealing with all these numbers, not existing according to you, like
pi, e, 2^(1/3), i, etc. so there is little chance any artificial being
may have any problem with them.

You're the only one having problems here.
bassam king karzeddin
2017-12-06 16:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes, serious since rarely I do a Joke
Well, no surprise that you do now have a great sense of humour...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But they would accept pi as a full angle but not as a full number,
and they would understand easily why the angle (pi/9) isn't any existing angle,
not because it was proved by humans as impossible construction by the rules
of compass and unmarked straight edge
As hundreds of people try, with no success, to teach you, being
constructible with rule and compass is not a criterium for existence
in mathematics.
By the way, most Computer Algebra system has absolutely no problem
dealing with all these numbers, not existing according to you, like
pi, e, 2^(1/3), i, etc. so there is little chance any artificial being
may have any problem with them.
You're the only one having problems here.
The whole problems arise from little skulls as yours, and everybody knows very well that they do deal with those numbers as (pi, e, 2^{1/3}, ...etc, but as rational numbers, they indeed deal with them, but not as irrational numbers in your mind, so to say, even the current computer Algebra system is far smarter than your likes in little practical matters, otherwise ask the computer what is those numbers are in your memory, wonder!

Didn't JG also taught you especially hundreds of lectures about your..., wonder!

or don't you feel shame once you do use a fictional name for a well-exposed purpose? wonder!

BKK

BKK
Python
2017-12-06 16:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Python
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Anyway, were you serious about these "future artificial beings" of yours?
...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Yes, serious since rarely I do a Joke
Well, no surprise that you do now have a great sense of humour...
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But they would accept pi as a full angle but not as a full number,
and they would understand easily why the angle (pi/9) isn't any existing angle,
not because it was proved by humans as impossible construction by the rules
of compass and unmarked straight edge
As hundreds of people try, with no success, to teach you, being
constructible with rule and compass is not a criterium for existence
in mathematics.
By the way, most Computer Algebra system has absolutely no problem
dealing with all these numbers, not existing according to you, like
pi, e, 2^(1/3), i, etc. so there is little chance any artificial being
may have any problem with them.
You're the only one having problems here.
The whole problems arise from little skulls as yours, and everybody
knows very well that they do deal with those numbers as (pi, e, 2^{1/3},
...etc, but as rational numbers, they indeed deal with them, but not
as irrational numbers
You've never used or study them, this is not true. When ignorant of
something, Mr King-of-idiot, you'd better not guess, but try to learn.
FredJeffries
2017-12-06 16:12:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Yeah. Right.

So now that you have accomplished your holy quest, oh great knight, what will you do?

Apparently, retire to a life of bullying.
Julio Di Egidio
2017-12-06 16:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by FredJeffries
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
In other words, they told you that the last five years of YOUR life have been a total waste.
Or we have managed over the years to effectively neutralize the impact of trolls like JG and BBK at the source by constantly challenging them.
Yeah. Right.
So now that you have accomplished your holy quest, oh great knight, what will you do?
Apparently, retire to a life of bullying.
Sick fucks like him should be confined, not pandered.

Julio
b***@gmail.com
2018-01-04 01:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Well youtube videos show that users honor real math,
and that junk such as John Gabriels videos are

completely ignored. So I guess there is no worry,
only super-idiotic spamming of sci.math.

Finding square roots geometrically - the proof

Friends at Rising Pearl - 5,153 views

A simple proof of the irrationality of
sqrt(2) using only geometry.

John Gabriel - 191 views
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
b***@gmail.com
2018-01-04 02:02:24 UTC
Permalink
I am pretty sure John Garbiel has never
seen this construction:

Finding square roots geometrically - Part 1


You can also check Euclid II 5

At last we come to the actual application and
use of the gnomon. This first comes in Euclid, II. 5;
If a straight line be cut into equal and unequal
segments, the rectangle contained by the unequal
segments of the whole together with the square of
the straight line between the points of section, is
equal to the square an the half.'
This is the identity

a b + ((a-b)/2)^2 = ((a+b)/2)^2

Source:
A History of Geometrical Methods (Dover Books on
Mathematics) Hardcover – February 20, 2003
by Julian Lowell Coolidge (Author)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well youtube videos show that users honor real math,
and that junk such as John Gabriels videos are
completely ignored. So I guess there is no worry,
only super-idiotic spamming of sci.math.
Finding square roots geometrically - the proof
http://youtu.be/wDk-PAQYz8M
Friends at Rising Pearl - 5,153 views
A simple proof of the irrationality of
sqrt(2) using only geometry.
http://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
John Gabriel - 191 views
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-06 07:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
I am pretty sure John Garbiel has never
Finding square roots geometrically - Part 1
http://youtu.be/WD-Ebz5No5Y
You can also check Euclid II 5
At last we come to the actual application and
use of the gnomon. This first comes in Euclid, II. 5;
If a straight line be cut into equal and unequal
segments, the rectangle contained by the unequal
segments of the whole together with the square of
the straight line between the points of section, is
equal to the square an the half.'
This is the identity
a b + ((a-b)/2)^2 = ((a+b)/2)^2
A History of Geometrical Methods (Dover Books on
Mathematics) Hardcover – February 20, 2003
by Julian Lowell Coolidge (Author)
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well youtube videos show that users honor real math,
and that junk such as John Gabriels videos are
completely ignored. So I guess there is no worry,
only super-idiotic spamming of sci.math.
Finding square roots geometrically - the proof
http://youtu.be/wDk-PAQYz8M
Friends at Rising Pearl - 5,153 views
A simple proof of the irrationality of
sqrt(2) using only geometry.
http://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
John Gabriel - 191 views
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
How easy it was Geometrically to demonstrate EXACTLY the existence of square root operation for a real constructible number even before few thousands years

Where Geometry is the physical reality of the space reality

But see on the other hand how impossible it is to show exactly the existence of any other alleged real algebraic root given in this form, [q^{1/p}], where (p > 2, q) are prime numbers

And people (especially the alleged proovers of Fermat's last theorem) still don't understand or confess loudly the deep meaning of the truthness of FLT), Wonder!
And you may kindly forget completely about all the alleged fake and cheating methods of constructing APPROXIMATE such alleged real roots since true mathematics is EXACTNESS and nothing else for sure

BKK
Serg io
2018-01-18 15:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Well youtube videos show that users honor real math,
and that junk such as John Gabriels
<snip crap>
Peter Percival
2018-01-04 03:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
So you don't need to be concerned either, and thus you needn't respond
to those cranks and trolls
Post by Dan Christensen
That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
High school students (vulnerable or otherwise) don't know of Usenet's
existence.
--
Do, as a concession to my poor wits, Lord Darlington, just explain
to me what you really mean.
I think I had better not, Duchess. Nowadays to be intelligible is
to be found out. -- Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan
Dan Christensen
2018-01-04 04:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Percival
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students.
So you don't need to be concerned either, and thus you needn't respond
to those cranks and trolls
O, reason not the need!

Currently, I am using using sci.math to get some feedback on my work on material implication. It's still good for that sort of thing.

While I am here, it's hard to resist kicking some troll butt. For old times' sake.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-09 12:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
What a more suitable title would be like this:

Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-13 10:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!

**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**

1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure

4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure

5) No triangle exists with at least one of its angles being of the form:
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)

Very hard luck for you for not being able to grasp the most basic fictional mathematics that needs few minutes only to realize and beyond any little doubt, and For more than sure

BKK
Dan Christensen
2018-01-13 14:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.

From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.

x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832

Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.

See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.

Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
b***@gmail.com
2018-01-13 14:21:30 UTC
Permalink
Queeny BKK has probably eye sight problems. He writes
"Fermat pologen numbers", what are these? Numbers

generated during a polo game? Numbers
used for polio vaccination?
Post by Dan Christensen
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.
x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832
Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.
See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-14 08:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two

So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure

In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS

But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.
x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832
Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.
But again and again your presented root above is definitely a RATIONAL number For sure, and only a MAD person who would deny this visible fact, don't you? wonder!
where as the root must be irrational algebraic number (that your MODERN mathematics says), and please use (=) sign, instead of any other notation, since you know that true mathematics is exactness and nothing else For sure, but never mind if you need it truly for some carpentry works, but remember that we aren't competing with carpenters, since they are much more clearer than mathematicians in their works, For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Again the legend long story with the graph (that must cross X-axis), that had been well exposed earlier in many posts. it is truly quite long legendary story For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!

And yes, mathematics is never a matter of beliefs,

And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure

BKK
Post by Dan Christensen
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Ross A. Finlayson
2018-01-14 12:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two
So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure
In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS
But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.
x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832
Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.
But again and again your presented root above is definitely a RATIONAL number For sure, and only a MAD person who would deny this visible fact, don't you? wonder!
where as the root must be irrational algebraic number (that your MODERN mathematics says), and please use (=) sign, instead of any other notation, since you know that true mathematics is exactness and nothing else For sure, but never mind if you need it truly for some carpentry works, but remember that we aren't competing with carpenters, since they are much more clearer than mathematicians in their works, For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Again the legend long story with the graph (that must cross X-axis), that had been well exposed earlier in many posts. it is truly quite long legendary story For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!
And yes, mathematics is never a matter of beliefs,
And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure
BKK
Post by Dan Christensen
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Get bent, tiny retro-finitist crankety troll-bot.
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-18 07:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two
So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure
In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS
But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.
x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832
Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.
But again and again your presented root above is definitely a RATIONAL number For sure, and only a MAD person who would deny this visible fact, don't you? wonder!
where as the root must be irrational algebraic number (that your MODERN mathematics says), and please use (=) sign, instead of any other notation, since you know that true mathematics is exactness and nothing else For sure, but never mind if you need it truly for some carpentry works, but remember that we aren't competing with carpenters, since they are much more clearer than mathematicians in their works, For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Again the legend long story with the graph (that must cross X-axis), that had been well exposed earlier in many posts. it is truly quite long legendary story For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!
And yes, mathematics is never a matter of beliefs,
And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure
BKK
Post by Dan Christensen
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Get bent, tiny retro-finitist crankety troll-bot.
Why don't you get bent for many numerical counterexamples that are just before your blind eyes? wonder!

However, your stubborn denial would never invalidate the unsolvable Diophantine Eqn. and make it solvable at your fake Paradise, for sure

So, Diophantine Equations are much stronger evidence than your (in mind) PHOBIA of INFINITY, sure.

Unless you had chosen your recognized place among the so many perpetual ignorants

BKK
bassam king karzeddin
2018-02-13 08:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Ross A. Finlayson
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Hey Crank Boy, have those super intelligent, "artificial beings" contacted you yet? (HA, HA, HA!!!)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two
So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure
In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS
But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Wrong again, Crank Boy. You can also get the root of x^5 - x - 1 = 0 accurate to any number of decimal places.
x≈1.1673039782614186842560458998548421807205603715254890391400824492756519034295270531806852050497286728953591689952410479364512959675087179133695787225571958846714945525435862127109396832846264452189415711720000028296319818601122676821856467562207043859807657169154949936070722318863684627562569496306978144941477283844832
Yes, that's more digits than you have fingers and toes, Crank Boy. Deal with it.
But again and again your presented root above is definitely a RATIONAL number For sure, and only a MAD person who would deny this visible fact, don't you? wonder!
where as the root must be irrational algebraic number (that your MODERN mathematics says), and please use (=) sign, instead of any other notation, since you know that true mathematics is exactness and nothing else For sure, but never mind if you need it truly for some carpentry works, but remember that we aren't competing with carpenters, since they are much more clearer than mathematicians in their works, For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
See the graph at http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x%5E5+-+x+-+1+%3D+0
Again the legend long story with the graph (that must cross X-axis), that had been well exposed earlier in many posts. it is truly quite long legendary story For sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!
And yes, mathematics is never a matter of beliefs,
And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure
BKK
Post by Dan Christensen
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Get bent, tiny retro-finitist crankety troll-bot.
Why don't you get bent for many numerical counterexamples that are just before your blind eyes? wonder!
However, your stubborn denial would never invalidate the unsolvable Diophantine Eqn. and make it solvable at your fake Paradise, for sure
So, Diophantine Equations are much stronger evidence than your (in mind) PHOBIA of INFINITY, sure.
Unless you had chosen your recognized place among the so many perpetual ignorants
BKK
*******
Dan Christensen
2018-01-14 13:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two
Infinite many rational approximations of the real number that is the cube root of 2.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure
In applications, it depends only on how many significant are required.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS
Makes no sense, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
[snip]

I guess this sums up why your goofy system is getting nowhere and never will. You and your fellow cranks and troll here desperately hope to redeem your miserable failures in life and hope to somehow make a name for yourself by denying that real numbers exist. As you can see, it isn't working. Real analysis continues to be the rock-solid foundation of most if not all of modern science and technology. You will never replace it by counting your fingers and toes, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!
Look it up. Do you also the deny the existence of negative numbers? You can't have negative 2 fingers, right, Crank Boy?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
See what I mean, folks? What ever you do, don't hire this idiot to build a bridge that has to stand more than a day. (He claims to be an engineer of some kind. Impossible to imagine.)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure
OMG. Do you suppose they will be consulting you on mathematical theory? Did you say they are super intelligent, or super stupid? You might have a chance if the latter.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam king karzeddin
2018-01-18 07:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Alive and well, actually.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Just because you cannot count these numbers on your fingers and toes doesn't mean they don't exist, Crank Boy.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Likewise the cube root of 2. Unfortunately for cranks like you, it can be calculated accurate to any number of decimal places.
From the Windows calculator to 31 decimal places: 1.7320508075688772935274463415059
Interesting, and it seems there are infinitely many RATIONAL cube roots for the integer two
Infinite many rational approximations of the real number that is the cube root of 2.
Yes, but as you confess it innocently as RATIONALS and APPROXIMATIONS, but still our number is IRRATIONAL by our own DEFINITIONS, got it yet? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
So, everyone can choose his distinct RATIONAL root (with different distinct FINITE number of decimals), For sure
In applications, it depends only on how many significant are required.
And who is that on earth that can decide or define how many significant digits are required (but in mathematics), and "not" in applications as for carpentry works, that any carpenter generally can decide? wonder!

So, why don't you personally obey AP similar rules for that? wonder!
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
In simple words, mathematics is purely freedom OVER the RATIONALS
Makes no sense, Crank Boy.
Here, it makes no sense for people who can't sense at all for sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
But, I personally want that IRRATIONAL root you do believe in (according to your MODERN mathematics), so would YOU please get it out of your mind, and show us exactly the root, the way you just stated your alleged RATIONAL root? wonder!
[snip]
Snip or ignore it doesn't any matter
Post by Dan Christensen
I guess this sums up why your goofy system is getting nowhere and never will. You and your fellow cranks and troll here desperately hope to redeem your miserable failures in life and hope to somehow make a name for yourself by denying that real numbers exist. As you can see, it isn't working. Real analysis continues to be the rock-solid foundation of most if not all of modern science and technology. You will never replace it by counting your fingers and toes, Crank Boy.
Real analysis is never any better than EXACT Integer analysis, for sure

And certainly Integer analysis proves beyond any little doubt that all alleged real numbers are purely human brain fart numbers (excluding the real existing constructible numbers) as exact (distances, areas and volumes), for sure
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by bassam king karzeddin
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Crank Boy here would have you believe that 40 degree angles don't exist. Really! It's hard to keep track of all his idiocies here, but IIRC he also does not believe in negative numbers.
Who is that IIRC? Wonder!
Look it up. Do you also the deny the existence of negative numbers? You can't have negative 2 fingers, right, Crank Boy?
Post by bassam king karzeddin
And this angle (40) degree you talk a lot about is fiction and brain fart angle for sure, it is simply a non-existent angle but it is impossible for you to comprehend how is that impossible?
See what I mean, folks? What ever you do, don't hire this idiot to build a bridge that has to stand more than a day. (He claims to be an engineer of some kind. Impossible to imagine.)
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Needless to say, your goofy system is a dead end and a complete waste of time, Crank Boy. Those super intelligent "artificial beings" of yours are going to be VERY disappointed with you.
Actually, those "artificial beings" are very necessary existence because of so many people exactly like you, For sure
OMG. Do you suppose they will be consulting you on mathematical theory? Did you say they are super intelligent, or super stupid? You might have a chance if the latter.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
You really are very clueless about the world of truly existing real numbers or truly existing angles as well, and for more than sure

BKK
Zelos Malum
2018-01-18 09:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Real analysis is never any better than EXACT Integer analysis, for sure
Real Analysis is exact and integers aren't analysed, it is called number theory.
Zelos Malum
2018-01-18 06:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
Not at all, it is perfectly fine.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Incorrect again, they exist and we have them easily constructed.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
Yet again you are incorrect, constructing them is trivial.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
Even more incorrect, it is trivial proving a root exists for it.
Incorrect yet another time, I have given you those triangles.
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Very hard luck for you for not being able to grasp the most basic fictional mathematics that needs few minutes only to realize and beyond any little doubt, and For more than sure
You need to read up on just about everything in mathematics as you know NOTHING about it.
bassam karzeddin
2023-10-01 01:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Very hard luck for you for not being able to grasp the most basic fictional mathematics that needs few minutes only to realize and beyond any little doubt, and For more than sure
BKK
bassam karzeddin
2023-10-03 06:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by bassam king karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Bad news for the alleged living top most genius professional mathematicians, including the escaped historical figures, For sure
BKK
And what was the bad news for the alleged top most genius mathematicians? wonder!
**Note: this news weren't for plenty of ordinary common type mathematicians, as YOU here For sure**
1) Infinity is a dead concept now, For sure
2) (Pi), (e), are also a dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
3) Q^{1/P}, where (P > 2, Q)are prime numbers, are also dead numbers, since they never exist, For more than sure
4) No real root or any other root exists for a polynomial (x^5 - x - 1 = 0), For more than sure
[n*(Pi)/m], where (n < m) are positive coprime integers, and (m) isn't (Fermat's pologen number, or a power of 2 or a power of 3 (but only 3), or their products)
Very hard luck for you for not being able to grasp the most basic fictional mathematics that needs few minutes only to realize and beyond any little doubt, and For more than sure
BKK
Dan Christensen
2023-10-03 15:43:18 UTC
Permalink
[snip]

From Psycho Troll BKK who also wrote here:

“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017

"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020

“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018

“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019

“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019

Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!

Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam karzeddin
2023-10-08 17:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
[snip]
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!
Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
This old well-known Troll 🧌 still belives blindly in the true existence of an exact angle like 40 degrees angle, despite the fact that angle was proven numerically & rigorously as non-existing angle in many other relevant posts, where the proof is definitely IRREFUTABLE FOR SURE

Does anyone here who did well-understand my proof dares to make it so clear for him?
Use ChatGPT if necessary!
Bkk
Python
2023-10-08 18:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
[snip]
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!
Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
This old well-known Troll 🧌 still belives blindly in the true existence of an exact angle like 40 degrees angle, despite the fact that angle was proven numerically & rigorously as non-existing angle in many other relevant posts, where the proof is definitely IRREFUTABLE FOR SURE
No. This is a plain lie on your part.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Does anyone here who did well-understand my proof dares to make it so clear for him?
Use ChatGPT if necessary!
ChatGPT is a dumb language model, just like you by the way: silly words
and no comprehension of anything.
bassam karzeddin
2023-10-09 02:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
[snip]
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!
Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
This old well-known Troll 🧌 still belives blindly in the true existence of an exact angle like 40 degrees angle, despite the fact that angle was proven numerically & rigorously as non-existing angle in many other relevant posts, where the proof is definitely IRREFUTABLE FOR SURE
No. This is a plain lie on your part.
Post by bassam karzeddin
Does anyone here who did well-understand my proof dares to make it so clear for him?
Use ChatGPT if necessary!
ChatGPT is a dumb language model, just like you by the way: silly words
and no comprehension of anything.
Actually, you are (Python ) also one of those few old residents 🧌 Trolls, who is mostly natural & probably not like those many hired Trolls they used to argue for a while & suddenly disappeared after they finished their contracts

However, examples of stubborn old Trolls 🧌 like (Dan C, Jim Burns & many of his allies beside Python) are absolutely the seventh impossible to realize themselves with all types of irrefutable proofs

You & the whole world acadmy 🌎 communities of mathematics & all sciences as well, were publically & globally challenged for several years to provide only one triangle with exactly known sides having at least one of its angles is EXACTLY 40 degrees, where of course, No human would be able to get (including my modest self)

And assuming in a good faith & further that you are a smarter than AI or chapGPT, then meet my still standing intellectual challenge for all intelligent beings on earth & skies as well & so simply win the whole discussion under the sunlight (as easy as it is)

But note that I'm not asking about existing angles like 30 Degrees for example, since clever mid-school students alone would be able to provide trillions of such existing triangles 🔺️

Go a head & meet my very old challenge immediately!
And if you are disable to do the task, then come back here again & say it frankly & ask politely to reteach you why most of well-known angels in both old and modern mathematics truly are non-existing FOR SURR

Don't be a traitor & denier to the science that feeds you & be honnest with your self at least once in your meaningless life (Python)

And please 🙏 don't keep arguing aimlessly about new proven issues that No Journals & Universities know anything about them nor talking the help from Donkypedia since they are much worse than YOU are FOR SURE

🔊 Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
Dan Christensen
2023-10-09 11:03:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 10:14:44 PM UTC-4, bassam karzeddin wrote:

From Psycho Troll BKK who also wrote here:

“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017

"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020

“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018

“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019

“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019

Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!

Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
bassam karzeddin
2023-10-10 07:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!
Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
For many years by now, you aren't cabable of getting a single triangle with exactly known sides such that at least one of its angles is EXACTLY 40 degrees, nor can any other intelligent beings on 🌎 & skies as well help you in this absolutely impossible task FOR SURE

But, some how, you are still believing in the mere existence of such a belived angles like 40 degrees & like any other human on earth 🌎 as well


So to say, nothing would ever bring something truly non-existing except only in human hollow minds

However, this deep rooted intellectual challenge isn't only about a single angle like 40 degrees, but about the vast majorities of well-known angels since Babylon civilization

Something which is truly too difficult for human beings to easily accept & well-understand, For sure

So, let this intellectual global mathematical & old challenge of purely mine be only for independent future Artificial Intelligence beings FOR SURE

🔊 Bassam Karzeddin 🔊
Dan Christensen
2023-10-12 16:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by bassam karzeddin
Post by Dan Christensen
“Those many challenges of mine (in my posts) weren't actually designed for human beings, but for the future artificial beings that would certainly replace them not far away from now, for sure.”
-- BKK, Dec. 6, 2017
"The Devils deeds that are strictly and basically sourced from mathematicians like humans, FOR SURE!"
-- BKK, June 11, 2020
“You know certainly that I'm the man, and more specially the KING who is going to upside down most of your current false mathematics for all future generations.”
-- BKK, Nov. 22, 2018
“Despite thousands of years of continuous juggling and false definitions of what is truly the real number, they [us carbon-based lifeforms?] truly don't want to understand it as was discovered strictly by the *KING* [BKK Himself!]”
-- BKK, Nov. 28, 2019
“I don't believe even in one being a number”
-- BKK, Dec. 31, 2019
Math failure, BKK, doesn't believe in negative numbers, zero, one or numbers like pi and root 2. He doesn't even believe in 40 degree angles or circles. Simple speed-distance-time problems seem to be impossible for him. Really!
Needless to say his own goofy little system is getting nowhere and never will. As such he is insanely jealous of wildly successful mainstream mathematics. He seems to believe these super-intelligent artificial beings of his will somehow be enlisting his aid to "reform" mathematics worldwide when they take over the planet in the near future. He is truly delusional.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
For many years by now, you aren't cabable of getting a single triangle with exactly known sides such that at least one of its angles is EXACTLY 40 degrees, nor can any other intelligent beings on 🌎 & skies as well help you in this absolutely impossible task FOR SURE
Consider the right-triangle with hypotenuse of length = csc 40 degrees (approx. 1.5557238268604123200563559546373) and another side of unit length? The angle opposite the latter should be 40 degrees. Using PT to get the length of the adjacent side.

[snip]
Post by bassam karzeddin
Something which is truly too difficult for human beings to easily accept & well-understand, For sure
So, let this intellectual global mathematical & old challenge of purely mine be only for independent future Artificial Intelligence beings FOR SURE
Check out my recent dialog with the AI bot, ChatGPT, on my proposed resolution of the Liar Paradox here: https://www.dcproof.com/LiarParadoxResolution.htm.

See what it says about your crackpot theory on 40 degree angles. Post your dialog here.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium
2023-10-08 21:37:19 UTC
Permalink
I doubt the two math failures Andrew Wiles and Dan Christensen will ever understand mathematics for they continue to refuse to admit to even the most simple truths of mathematics-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math is in a world of hurt for it does not even have the correct numbers of mathematics. Old Math was arrogant and ignorant starting year 1900 when Quantum Mechanics in physics took off and it means the world is discrete and not continuous. Yet the foolish bozos of Old Math stuck with their continuous Reals and even had the idiotic notion of going further out on the limb of madness with Cohen's continuum hypothesis, while Quantum Mechanics gave us a new age in physics with their discrete world. One would think the idiots of Old Math would finally look at physics and pay attention and learn something. No. They never did. And so today in October of 2023 we still have idiots of math teaching calculus with never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Number System is the true numbers of math for they are discrete, and they make calculus, a billion, perhaps a trillion times easier to study , to learn to understand. In fact, we TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, teaches calculus to 13 and 14 year olds. Because calculus is as easy as add or subtract 1 from the exponent.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Terence Tao, John Stillwell with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graphed function. This is why only a polynomial can be a valid function of math, for the polynomial is a function of the straightline Y --> mx + b. All the other so called functions have no straightline-- they are curves of continuum and cannot give a proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

The proof of FTC needs a empty space Discrete Geometry from one point to the next point so as to allow for the construction of a midpoint between point A to point B and thus to hinge up from A at the midpoint and to determine the next point B in the derivative. This is why Calculus is so enormously a tool for physics, as point A predicts point B.

Discrete Geometry is required for the proof of FTC and that requires the true numbers of mathematics be Decimal Grid Numbers, for they cannot be the continuum idiocy of Reals and Complex.

To make a half circle function in True Math, we have to go out to something like 10^6 Grid to make the points close enough together for the function visual to start looking like a half circle. But still there are holes in between one point and the next point to allow the existence of calculus.

On a downward slope function, we have a different graphics than the usual upward slope function. For the upward slope requires the midpoint in the empty space to predict the next point of the thin rectangle that occupies that empty space (see the graphics below and in my books TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS). In a downward slope function graph we still have those thin rectangles occupy the empty space for integral but we do not need to construct the midpoint, we simply shave away a right triangle that reveals-- predicts point B starting from point A on the other side.



TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


______
| |
| |
| |
---------


To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



to
In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



to
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------


|\
|...\
|....... |
---------

Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



to
By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.

No-one in math education cares about students in Old Math. No-one has ever Cleaned House of Old Math, but let the rotten fetid Old Math stench increase.

AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:56 AM (10 hours ago)



to

Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.

But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.

Cavalieri 1598-1647

So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.

Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).

The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.
But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.
Cavalieri 1598-1647
So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.
Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).
The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.


There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.


The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Yes, in the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.
However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.
So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.
We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------
|\
|...\
|....... |
---------
Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.
Yes, now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.


Let me run a scenario for you, please.

There are 7-8 billion people on Earth today.

In the past 50 years we can roughly say that 50 million people studied Calculus in school or at home.

50 million people tried and attempted to learn calculus math.

I certainly was one among that 50 million.

And was AP the only one in 50 million to recognize that if you take polynomials as being the Only Valid Function that the Calculus becomes the Easiest, Super Easy math, because the Power Rules apply and where the derivative is simply a subtract 1 from exponent and the integral is add 1 to exponent.

I find it extremely sad and hard to believe that only AP saw how to make Calculus Super super super easy? Surely there must have been at least 25 million of those 50 million who found the derivative and integral of polynomials a joy and pleasure to do. Surely AP was not the only person in 50 million to see the Polynomial Calculus was a pleasure, fun and even exciting, rush to class to do a derivative or integral of a polynomial-- teacher, please give me more polynomial exercises. They are better than Star Trek on TV.

This is the whole point of a Revolution in Math Calculus.

When we make the only valid function in all of math be a Polynomial, we reduce calculus to adding 1 or subtracting 1.

We do not allow creeps, goons and kooks to clutter the table of math and calculus with their horrible awful smelly functions which are not polynomials. No, we disband these kooks and tell them go home and convert your worthless crap to be a polynomial before you can stink up the halls of mathematics. Convert your kook nonsense to a polynomial then you can come and do mathematics with us.

AP, King of Science

As a case in point, a mere example.

We have at MIT a Dr. Gilbert Strang with his Calculus textbooks, and I bought the 1991 edition of Calculus. And my opinion of Strang's text is scatterbrained. For I often find that Gilbert in lecturing on a topic is too quick to bring in side show issues, never focusing on just one topic.

But worst of this Strang text is he has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, no geometry proof and his Limit analysis of FTC is idiot of a proof-- ie-- no proof at all, for we all analyze things in the course of a day, and none of us are so preposterous as to think we have proven something above and beyond analyzing that something.

And so, I, AP reflects back to the time of 1968, when my name was Ludwig Hansen, sitting in a geology classroom of University of Cincinnati. Learning geology from a textbook that never discusses Continental Drift and this is 1968, mind you and Wegener had given massive evidence of Continental Drift way back to 1915, some 53 years later, AP and the classroom suffering from Truth of Science by having to buy a book about static-Earth, being tested graded lectured upon fake geology.

Not much difference from students sitting in classrooms at MIT or elsewhere buying Strang's CALCULUS with no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and where any fool function is allowed to enter, thousands and thousands of fool functions, when Mathematics has only one Valid Function-- the Polynomial function. For you can only arrive at a True Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by using polynomials as functions.

So how many students every year are punished by having to learn calculus with fool functions, with no valid proof of FTC. Where the calculus classroom puts students not through a Pleasure learning session but a gauntlet torture chamber, whipping the students into nervous breakdowns and vomiting during exams.

All for what??? How much money does Dr. Strang make from his awful book Calculus?? Let me guess estimate.

The book probably costs $100 in our inflation environment. And typically a author gets 1/2 of that in royalties.

Say MIT teaches a class of 100 students in calculus per year would be 50 x 100 = $5,000. And say a estimate that around the world there are 100 schools teaching from this book of 100 students in their classroom would make Gilbert $500,000 per year in book sales of his Calculus.

Same can be said of AP back in 1968 having to learn fake geology with no Continental Drift plate tectonics, so that some so called scientists reaps a reward of 1/2 a million dollars in book sales. And that thousands of students taught lectured and tested upon fake geology.

This is one of the grand benefits of a Usenet and a Internet, that we speed up the process of throwing out Fake -Math, fake-geology and all other fake sciences. Freedom of Speech of Internet of Usenet allows for science to be Showered, Cleaned UP, bathed from its wretched stink of Old fake science. Clean Up their science.

The only valid functions in mathematics are Polynomial Functions, which in turn, makes Calculus be super super super easy. No more vomiting by students in a calculus exam. No more nervous breakdowns by students taking calculus.

AP


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graph


#5-1, My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y  z
|  /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium
bassam king karzeddin
2018-03-01 18:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
What a very bad news for you few remaining trolls here at sci.math (Dan, Python, Jan burse and the little recent dwarf baby Zelos)

Anybody else is so welcomed too, but hey, observe how many other Trolls had left silently and so shamefully with no return or mercy, sure

BKK
j4n bur53
2019-05-14 15:48:16 UTC
Permalink
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.

Does he speak also English, or does
he only speak village idiot?
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-14 21:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Dan-O-Matik, the biggest crank on sci.logic.

Nobody understands you when you use idiot
words like "wonky". Try using some mature logic
related vocabulary.

And try to read what other people write, and
don't simply parrot what other people write,
and waste everybodies time.

I guess you parrot because you don't understand,
you don't carefully read what other people write.
Maybe you don't understand the word "sketch".

sketch
noun

A rough or unfinished drawing or painting, often
made to assist in making a more finished picture.
‘a charcoal sketch’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sketch

Does this word not exist in your village idiot
lingo? Whats wrong with you? Do you even speak
English or only mongo bongo?
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
Does he speak also English, or does
he only speak village idiot?
Post by Dan Christensen
Based on the replies to my posting at a teachers' forum today, it seems that high school teachers anyway are not very concerned about the impact of math cranks and trolls on their students. That's gotta be discouraging for the likes of AP, JG, WM and BKK. Vulnerable high school students are probably their main target audience.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Me
2019-05-15 00:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
A nonsensical claim. Dan is exteremely stubborn, biased an inflexible. (In additions many of his "arguments" are indeed weak.) But you CAN'T compare him with a "typical crank".

Moreover, his DC Proof is an amazing piece of software. Yes, it has its deficits, but it's certainly not just some cranky nonsense.

So shut up, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!
Me
2019-05-15 00:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
A nonsensical claim. Dan is exteremely stubborn, biased and inflexible. (In addition many of his "arguments" are indeed rather weak.) But you CAN'T (reasonably) compare him with a "typical crank".

Moreover, his DC Proof is an amazing piece of software. Yes, it has its deficits, but it's certainly not just some cranky nonsense.

So shut up, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 00:52:26 UTC
Permalink
I guess everytime he writes "wonky", he is wanking.

Ha Ha, what a moron.
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
A nonsensical claim. Dan is exteremely stubborn, biased and inflexible. (In addition many of his "arguments" are indeed rather weak.) But you CAN'T (reasonably) compare him with a "typical crank".
Moreover, his DC Proof is an amazing piece of software. Yes, it has its deficits, but it's certainly not just some cranky nonsense.
So shut up, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 01:01:18 UTC
Permalink
His tool could be "semi-consistent", means FOL definitions
are not eliminable, and inconsistencies from FOL
definitions can arise.

One reason could be that the set theory he supports is
lacking the axiom of replacement and the axiom of pairing.
At least with these two axioms I could reply

the singleton/replace inconsistency. A set theory without
replacement is only Z respectively ZC. It is not ZF
respectively ZFC.

Also his axiom of choice avoids the indexed family case.
This makes recreating an inconsistency different from
the singleton/replace inconsistency difficult.

Whether its impossible, I dunno yet.
Post by j4n bur53
I guess everytime he writes "wonky", he is wanking.
Ha Ha, what a moron.
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
A nonsensical claim. Dan is exteremely stubborn, biased and inflexible. (In addition many of his "arguments" are indeed rather weak.) But you CAN'T (reasonably) compare him with a "typical crank".
Moreover, his DC Proof is an amazing piece of software. Yes, it has its deficits, but it's certainly not just some cranky nonsense.
So shut up, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!
Me
2019-05-15 01:11:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 3:01:28 AM UTC+2, j4n bur53 wrote:

I agree that there are some unanswered questions concerning DC Proof.

My approach would be to show (as a first step) where DC Proof differs from "standard" FOPL. What are the RULES of derivation in DC Proof, how do they (effectively) differ from the rules of derivation in FOPL?

So is it a system of "Free Logic"? And if not, where does it differ from such systems? Etc. ect.
Post by j4n bur53
His tool could be "semi-consistent", means FOL definitions
are not eliminable, and inconsistencies from FOL
definitions can arise.
One reason could be that the set theory he supports is
lacking the axiom of replacement and the axiom of pairing.
At least with these two axioms I could reply
the singleton/replace inconsistency. A set theory without
replacement is only Z respectively ZC. It is not ZF
respectively ZFC.
Also his axiom of choice avoids the indexed family case.
This makes recreating an inconsistency different from
the singleton/replace inconsistency difficult.
Whether its impossible, I dunno yet.
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 01:12:43 UTC
Permalink
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.

If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky". He even attacks
anything from ZFC.

So I guess he is already in the defense.

The SEP article about Freges Theorem is quite good.
You can use it to extend your recollection of
logics and paradoxes/inconsistencies.
Post by j4n bur53
His tool could be "semi-consistent", means FOL definitions
are not eliminable, and inconsistencies from FOL
definitions can arise.
One reason could be that the set theory he supports is
lacking the axiom of replacement and the axiom of pairing.
At least with these two axioms I could reply
the singleton/replace inconsistency. A set theory without
replacement is only Z respectively ZC. It is not ZF
respectively ZFC.
Also his axiom of choice avoids the indexed family case.
This makes recreating an inconsistency different from
the singleton/replace inconsistency difficult.
Whether its impossible, I dunno yet.
Post by j4n bur53
I guess everytime he writes "wonky", he is wanking.
Ha Ha, what a moron.
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
If somebody wants to see the biggest crank of all time,
just check sci.logic. Dan-O-Matik does it again.
A nonsensical claim. Dan is exteremely stubborn, biased and inflexible. (In addition many of his "arguments" are indeed rather weak.) But you CAN'T (reasonably) compare him with a "typical crank".
Moreover, his DC Proof is an amazing piece of software. Yes, it has its deficits, but it's certainly not just some cranky nonsense.
So shut up, YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT!
Me
2019-05-15 01:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.
Yes. DC Proof definitely DOES have its "limits" (compared to, say, Metamath).
Post by j4n bur53
If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky".
Yes. It seems to me that even rather "innocent looking" axioms may result in contradictions (as shown by you). (Imho) Dan should address that somehow.

Of course, from a logical point of view he's right. From

{A_1, ..., A_n} |- B & ~B

we may conclude

{A_1, ..., A_n} \ {A_i} |- ~A_i

(with i e {1, ..., n}) by an application of RAA.

But...
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 01:35:14 UTC
Permalink
What I would retract, is my claim, that his Peano
adds infinity zu ZFC\AOI. On the grounds that he has
not ZFC\AOI, too much is missing.

Also an axiom of infinity is missing. But if he adds
his Peano, then well he has in fact added an axiom
of infinity, to his crippled set theory.

BTW: He is wanking again.
"In the next round, you really should avoid passing off
your wonky (unusual, bizarre or useless) "axioms" as
somehow indispensable to mathematics in the way that
Peano's Axioms so clearly are."
Must be a marathon wanker.

What he writes makes no sense at all. "indispensable to
mathematics", what kind of nonsense is this. I could
do some axioms like this here:

connected(hamburg, berlin)

axioms have nothing to do with "indispensable to
mathematics". I guess he is slowly going completely
crazy, our village idiot.
Post by j4n bur53
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.
Yes. DC Proof definitely DOES have its "limits" (compared to, say, Metamath).
Post by j4n bur53
If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky".
Yes. It seems to me that even rather "innocent looking" axioms may result in contradictions (as shown by you). (Imho) Dan should address that somehow.
Of course, from a logical point of view he's right. From
{A_1, ..., A_n} |- B & ~B
we may conclude
{A_1, ..., A_n} \ {A_i} |- ~A_i
(with i e {1, ..., n}) by an application of RAA.
But...
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 10:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
If I enter the following:

a=f((x,x))

Its will display the following:

a=f(x,x)

But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument. Also ALL()
specialization doesn't accept pairs.

It says they are not an algebraic expression.
Post by j4n bur53
What I would retract, is my claim, that his Peano
adds infinity zu ZFC\AOI. On the grounds that he has
not ZFC\AOI, too much is missing.
Also an axiom of infinity is missing. But if he adds
his Peano, then well he has in fact added an axiom
of infinity, to his crippled set theory.
BTW: He is wanking again.
"In the next round, you really should avoid passing off
your wonky (unusual, bizarre or useless) "axioms" as
somehow indispensable to mathematics in the way that
Peano's Axioms so clearly are."
Must be a marathon wanker.
What he writes makes no sense at all. "indispensable to
mathematics", what kind of nonsense is this. I could
connected(hamburg, berlin)
axioms have nothing to do with "indispensable to
mathematics". I guess he is slowly going completely
crazy, our village idiot.
Post by j4n bur53
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.
Yes. DC Proof definitely DOES have its "limits" (compared to, say, Metamath).
Post by j4n bur53
If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky".
Yes. It seems to me that even rather "innocent looking" axioms may result in contradictions (as shown by you). (Imho) Dan should address that somehow.
Of course, from a logical point of view he's right. From
{A_1, ..., A_n} |- B & ~B
we may conclude
{A_1, ..., A_n} \ {A_i} |- ~A_i
(with i e {1, ..., n}) by an application of RAA.
But...
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 10:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Maybe could workaround the pairing bugs by a definition:

1 ALL(x):ALL(y):p(x,y)=(x,y)

This is accepted again. It doesn't bark that (x,y)
is not an algebraic expression.
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument. Also ALL()
specialization doesn't accept pairs.
It says they are not an algebraic expression.
Post by j4n bur53
What I would retract, is my claim, that his Peano
adds infinity zu ZFC\AOI. On the grounds that he has
not ZFC\AOI, too much is missing.
Also an axiom of infinity is missing. But if he adds
his Peano, then well he has in fact added an axiom
of infinity, to his crippled set theory.
BTW: He is wanking again.
"In the next round, you really should avoid passing off
your wonky (unusual, bizarre or useless) "axioms" as
somehow indispensable to mathematics in the way that
Peano's Axioms so clearly are."
Must be a marathon wanker.
What he writes makes no sense at all. "indispensable to
mathematics", what kind of nonsense is this. I could
connected(hamburg, berlin)
axioms have nothing to do with "indispensable to
mathematics". I guess he is slowly going completely
crazy, our village idiot.
Post by j4n bur53
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.
Yes. DC Proof definitely DOES have its "limits" (compared to, say, Metamath).
Post by j4n bur53
If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky".
Yes. It seems to me that even rather "innocent looking" axioms may result in contradictions (as shown by you). (Imho) Dan should address that somehow.
Of course, from a logical point of view he's right. From
{A_1, ..., A_n} |- B & ~B
we may conclude
{A_1, ..., A_n} \ {A_i} |- ~A_i
(with i e {1, ..., n}) by an application of RAA.
But...
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 21:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Ok we even found a bug:


7 s(s(z,z))=s(z,z)
Substitute, 5, 6

Bug in Pair Handling of DC Proof:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/04883b75a193dd6d30fbada20419aaf0#file-bug-proof

What do you get rewarded from Dan Christensen if
you find a bug? You get called names, and he will
masturbate in front of you and yell "wonky".

What a crazy punk.

Did Dan-O-Matik notice we are in 21 Century! Whats
the GitHub account for reporting DC Proof
bugs? Is it open source?
Post by j4n bur53
1 ALL(x):ALL(y):p(x,y)=(x,y)
This is accepted again. It doesn't bark that (x,y)
is not an algebraic expression.
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument. Also ALL()
specialization doesn't accept pairs.
It says they are not an algebraic expression.
Post by j4n bur53
What I would retract, is my claim, that his Peano
adds infinity zu ZFC\AOI. On the grounds that he has
not ZFC\AOI, too much is missing.
Also an axiom of infinity is missing. But if he adds
his Peano, then well he has in fact added an axiom
of infinity, to his crippled set theory.
BTW: He is wanking again.
"In the next round, you really should avoid passing off
your wonky (unusual, bizarre or useless) "axioms" as
somehow indispensable to mathematics in the way that
Peano's Axioms so clearly are."
Must be a marathon wanker.
What he writes makes no sense at all. "indispensable to
mathematics", what kind of nonsense is this. I could
connected(hamburg, berlin)
axioms have nothing to do with "indispensable to
mathematics". I guess he is slowly going completely
crazy, our village idiot.
Post by j4n bur53
The singleton/replace inconsistency would also
require regularity axiom. Something that is also
missing in DC Proof.
Yes. DC Proof definitely DOES have its "limits" (compared to, say, Metamath).
Post by j4n bur53
If one adds new axioms, even sketchy ones, Dan
is attack them as being "wonky".
Yes. It seems to me that even rather "innocent looking" axioms may result in contradictions (as shown by you). (Imho) Dan should address that somehow.
Of course, from a logical point of view he's right. From
{A_1, ..., A_n} |- B & ~B
we may conclude
{A_1, ..., A_n} \ {A_i} |- ~A_i
(with i e {1, ..., n}) by an application of RAA.
But...
Me
2019-05-15 21:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument.
But, actually, it's common practice in math to write

f(x,y) [1]

instead of

f(<x,y>) [2].

Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one f [2]?
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 23:32:44 UTC
Permalink
I have posted about the difference on sci.logic.
Here is a copy paste:

--------------- cut here ---------------------

In type theory you would usually model a
n-ary function symbol as having the type:

D -> ... D -> D -> D
\--- n times ---/

Then under further assumptions, you can
show an isomorphism to:

D x ... D x D -> D
\--- n times ---/

But isomorphism doesn't mean equal. Its
this usual isomorphism:

(A -> (B -> C)) ~ (A x B -> C)

See Example 2.1.6:

Basic Category Theory
TOM LEINSTER
University of Edinburgh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.09375.pdf

--------------- cut here ---------------------
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument.
But, actually, it's common practice in math to write
f(x,y) [1]
instead of
f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one f [2]?
j4n bur53
2019-05-15 23:42:24 UTC
Permalink
The wikipedia page about interpretation of
first order logic says something else.
For example according to wikipedia, addition
of two natural numbers would not be modelled:

+_a : N -> N -> N

But rather:

For every n-ary function symbol, an n-ary
function from D to D as its interpretation
(that is, a function Dn → D).

+_b : N x N -> N

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28logic%29#Interpretations_of_a_first-order_language

but in type theory +_a is more common. It has
the advantage of currying. For example:

((+_a 1) 1) = 2

And if you want the successor it would be:

succ = (+_a 1)

(succ 1) = 2

But either way we deal with two different functions
in the proof I gave. Namly there is the unary s,
and the binary s. I put side by side the two type
theoretic views:

curried tuple argument

unary D -> D D -> D

binary D -> D -> D D x D -> D

What now happens in the DC Proof proof. The symbol
s, originally unary in the proof, suddently takes
the role of binary in the proof. In FOL this would
not be allowed.

This shape shifting causes an inconsistency in the end.
Post by j4n bur53
I have posted about the difference on sci.logic.
--------------- cut here ---------------------
In type theory you would usually model a
D -> ... D -> D -> D
\--- n times ---/
Then under further assumptions, you can
D x ... D x D -> D
\--- n times ---/
But isomorphism doesn't mean equal. Its
(A -> (B -> C)) ~ (A x B -> C)
Basic Category Theory
TOM LEINSTER
University of Edinburgh
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.09375.pdf
--------------- cut here ---------------------
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument.
But, actually, it's common practice in math to write
f(x,y) [1]
instead of
f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one f [2]?
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 00:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Sometimes in types there could be also a unit
type. Maybe with the only value an empty tuple:

<> e unit

Like here:
In Scala, the unit type is called Unit and
its only value is written as ().
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_type#In_programming_languages

And then we could define inductively,
power cartesian products:

D^0 = unit

D^n+1 = D x D^n

And we would then have this table:

curried tuple argument

unary D -> D D x unit -> D

binary D -> D -> D D x D x unit -> D

The only good thing about such a modelling, would
be some continuity for constant functions:

curried tuple argument

const D unit -> D

But perversly, the result is often, that suddently
c() and c are two different things. Happens in some
programming languages, for example JavaScript.
Post by j4n bur53
The wikipedia page about interpretation of
first order logic says something else.
For example according to wikipedia, addition
+_a : N -> N -> N
For every n-ary function symbol, an n-ary
function from D to D as its interpretation
(that is, a function Dn → D).
+_b : N x N -> N
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_%28logic%29#Interpretations_of_a_first-order_language
but in type theory +_a is more common. It has
((+_a 1) 1) = 2
succ = (+_a 1)
(succ 1) = 2
But either way we deal with two different functions
in the proof I gave. Namly there is the unary s,
and the binary s. I put side by side the two type
curried tuple argument
unary D -> D D -> D
binary D -> D -> D D x D -> D
What now happens in the DC Proof proof. The symbol
s, originally unary in the proof, suddently takes
the role of binary in the proof. In FOL this would
not be allowed.
This shape shifting causes an inconsistency in the end.
Post by j4n bur53
I have posted about the difference on sci.logic.
--------------- cut here ---------------------
In type theory you would usually model a
D -> ... D -> D -> D
\--- n times ---/
Then under further assumptions, you can
D x ... D x D -> D
\--- n times ---/
But isomorphism doesn't mean equal. Its
(A -> (B -> C)) ~ (A x B -> C)
Basic Category Theory
TOM LEINSTER
University of Edinburgh
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.09375.pdf
--------------- cut here ---------------------
Post by Me
Post by j4n bur53
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
But an unary function f taking pairs is not the same
as a binary function taking two argument.
But, actually, it's common practice in math to write
f(x,y) [1]
instead of
f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one f [2]?
Me
2019-05-16 00:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Actually, it's common practice in mathematics to write
f(x,y) [1]
instead of
f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast
to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one
f [2]?
Still no answer?
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 00:44:22 UTC
Permalink
I already answered:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/eHK3w8-fAgAJ

In set theory <x,y> is unfortunately not a function
that does practically nothing:

curried tuple

<_,_> : D -> D -> D x D D x D -> D x D

In set theory an ordered tupple is a function:

<_,_> : D -> D -> D D x D -> D

So it should change the arity, and not keep the
arity in set theory. Check for yourself:

<a,b> = {{a},{a,b}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski%27s_definition

Its just a function:

<_,_> : Set -> Set -> Set Set x Set -> Set

or with D = Set:

<_,_> : D -> D -> D D x D -> D

Or in words: "a ordered tupple in set theory, sends two
sets two a new set."

Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by Me
Actually, it's common practice in mathematics to write
f(x,y) [1]
instead of
f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast
to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one
f [2]?
Still no answer?
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 00:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Cantor Pairing does the same:

curried tuple

<_,_> : Nat -> Nat -> Nat Nat x Nat -> Nat

"π : N × N → N .""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function

Or with D=Nat:

<_,_> : D -> D -> D D x D -> D

Only in set theory, we do not have D=Nat, we rather
have D=Set. This was Cantors dream, generalizing
numbers. He got sets and transfinite numbers.

But when D=Set, the mapping is not surjective.
For example with Kuratowski pairs, there are no
two x,y such that <x,y>={}, so in Kuratowski:

~Ex Ey <x,y> = {}

Dan has also define pairs independent of a given
set, so that the elements in question are from
the full domain. He has this axiom in DC-Proof,

which uses unbounded quantifers (menu item of DC-Proof):

1 ALL(a1):ALL(a2):ALL(b1):ALL(b2):[(a1,a2)=(b1,b2)
<=> a1=b1 & a2=b2]

This is something totally different from typed
pairs, which is more the thinking of math books.
In typed pairs, we assume a polymorphic function:

<_,_>A,B : A -> B -> A x B A x B -> A x B

An axiom about such a pairing function would also
use bounded quantifiers and not unbounded quantifiers.
We can say Dan allows himself a "wonky" axiom,

when he deals with pairs, making them closer to
the set theory pairs than to the text book pairs,
which are typed.

Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by j4n bur53
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/eHK3w8-fAgAJ
In set theory <x,y> is unfortunately not a function
            curried                tuple
    <_,_> : D -> D -> D x D        D x D -> D x D
    <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
So it should change the arity, and not keep the
   <a,b> = {{a},{a,b}}
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski%27s_definition
    <_,_> : Set -> Set -> Set      Set x Set -> Set
    <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
Or in words: "a ordered tupple in set theory, sends two
sets two a new set."
Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by Me
Actually, it's common practice in mathematics to write
        f(x,y)   [1]
instead of
        f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast
to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one
f [2]?
Still no answer?
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 01:00:14 UTC
Permalink
But DC Proof has no polymorphic functions, respectively
doesn't use modelling of function symbols with type parameters.
We saw this already in the complement.

You "Me" found an inconsistency, since it was only
an unary operator `a and not a binary operator b \ a.
For the pairs there is not much danger, that the same

inconsistency could be discovered. That there are not
emough parameters, if we would try to look at it from
a set view. But still DC Proof has only one symbol

for pairing (_,_), and it is untyped. But in set theory,
if we closely look at function spaces and typed versions,
and if we only look at these identity functions:

<_,_>1 : A1 x B1 -> A1 x B1

<_,_>2 : A2 x B2 -> A2 x B2

Then as set theory functions if A1 x B1 != A2 x B2,
then also <_,_>1 != <_,_>2. DC Proof does not express
such things at the moment.
Post by j4n bur53
           curried                tuple
   <_,_> : Nat -> Nat -> Nat         Nat x Nat -> Nat
   "π : N × N → N .""
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function
   <_,_> : D -> D -> D               D x D -> D
Only in set theory, we do not have D=Nat, we rather
have D=Set. This was Cantors dream, generalizing
numbers. He got sets and transfinite numbers.
But when D=Set, the mapping is not surjective.
For example with Kuratowski pairs, there are no
   ~Ex Ey <x,y> = {}
Dan has also define pairs independent of a given
set, so that the elements in question are from
the full domain. He has this axiom in DC-Proof,
1    ALL(a1):ALL(a2):ALL(b1):ALL(b2):[(a1,a2)=(b1,b2)
    <=> a1=b1 & a2=b2]
This is something totally different from typed
pairs, which is more the thinking of math books.
    <_,_>A,B : A -> B -> A x B      A x B -> A x B
An axiom about such a pairing function would also
use bounded quantifiers and not unbounded quantifiers.
We can say Dan allows himself a "wonky" axiom,
when he deals with pairs, making them closer to
the set theory pairs than to the text book pairs,
which are typed.
Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by j4n bur53
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/eHK3w8-fAgAJ
In set theory <x,y> is unfortunately not a function
             curried                tuple
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D x D        D x D -> D x D
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
So it should change the arity, and not keep the
    <a,b> = {{a},{a,b}}
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski%27s_definition
     <_,_> : Set -> Set -> Set      Set x Set -> Set
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
Or in words: "a ordered tupple in set theory, sends two
sets two a new set."
Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by Me
Actually, it's common practice in mathematics to write
        f(x,y)   [1]
instead of
        f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast
to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one
f [2]?
Still no answer?
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 01:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Maybe its impossible to model text book math, only
based on the idea of using bounded quantifers, i.e.
a vague idea of "non-wonky" axioms that only

sees the enemy in unbounded quantifers. An other idea
that might also go into such a mechanized mathematic
and corresponding logic,

is to have polymorphic functions. Most bigger
proof assistants use type systems. Another approach
would be to have classes as in metamath,

to give a language to function and relations that
span the whole domain of discourse, and allow
a lot of "wonky" expression formation.

In such a "wonky" enabled approach, such as metamath,
we would have pairing similar to Dans axiom, but without
the Bug as in Dans DC Proof:

http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-op.html
Post by j4n bur53
But DC Proof has no polymorphic functions, respectively
doesn't use modelling of function symbols with type parameters.
We saw this already in the complement.
You "Me" found an inconsistency, since it was only
an unary operator `a and not a binary operator b \ a.
For the pairs there is not much danger, that the same
inconsistency could be discovered. That there are not
emough parameters, if we would try to look at it from
a set view. But still DC Proof has only one symbol
for pairing (_,_), and it is untyped. But in set theory,
if we closely look at function spaces and typed versions,
   <_,_>1 : A1 x B1 -> A1 x B1
   <_,_>2 : A2 x B2 -> A2 x B2
Then as set theory functions if A1 x B1 != A2 x B2,
then also <_,_>1 != <_,_>2. DC Proof does not express
such things at the moment.
Post by j4n bur53
            curried                tuple
    <_,_> : Nat -> Nat -> Nat         Nat x Nat -> Nat
    "π : N × N → N .""
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pairing_function
    <_,_> : D -> D -> D               D x D -> D
Only in set theory, we do not have D=Nat, we rather
have D=Set. This was Cantors dream, generalizing
numbers. He got sets and transfinite numbers.
But when D=Set, the mapping is not surjective.
For example with Kuratowski pairs, there are no
    ~Ex Ey <x,y> = {}
Dan has also define pairs independent of a given
set, so that the elements in question are from
the full domain. He has this axiom in DC-Proof,
1    ALL(a1):ALL(a2):ALL(b1):ALL(b2):[(a1,a2)=(b1,b2)
     <=> a1=b1 & a2=b2]
This is something totally different from typed
pairs, which is more the thinking of math books.
     <_,_>A,B : A -> B -> A x B      A x B -> A x B
An axiom about such a pairing function would also
use bounded quantifiers and not unbounded quantifiers.
We can say Dan allows himself a "wonky" axiom,
when he deals with pairs, making them closer to
the set theory pairs than to the text book pairs,
which are typed.
Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by j4n bur53
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/eHK3w8-fAgAJ
In set theory <x,y> is unfortunately not a function
             curried                tuple
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D x D        D x D -> D x D
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
So it should change the arity, and not keep the
    <a,b> = {{a},{a,b}}
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair#Kuratowski%27s_definition
     <_,_> : Set -> Set -> Set      Set x Set -> Set
     <_,_> : D -> D -> D            D x D -> D
Or in words: "a ordered tupple in set theory, sends two
sets two a new set."
Questions? Comments? Doubts?
Post by Me
Actually, it's common practice in mathematics to write
        f(x,y)   [1]
instead of
        f(<x,y>) [2].
Question: How would you define f [1] in a set theoretic context in contrast
to f [2]. I mean, which (type of) set would "represent" f [1] and which one
f [2]?
Still no answer?
Dan Christensen
2019-05-16 01:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
DC Proof would see the above double bracket as being redundant, something to be cleaned up for display. This is not a bug.

There is, however, a minor bug in DC Proof that will be fixed in next release. In the meantime, users are advised not to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions (as opposed to logical expressions). Expressions like x=(0,1), for example, should be avoided as '(0,1)' is being used as an algebraic expression. Expressions like '(0,1) e x' should be thought of a 3-place logical predicate. Such expressions pose no problem.

This work-around should not be onerous. Having written literally tens of thousands of lines of formal proof using DC Proof, I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions in this sense.

Sincere thanks to Jan for pointing out this problem to me in another thread.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 08:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Dan wrote "I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples
as algebraic expressions in this sense."

I guess you never modelled complex numbers as pairs of
two real numbers, right?
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
DC Proof would see the above double bracket as being redundant, something to be cleaned up for display. This is not a bug.
There is, however, a minor bug in DC Proof that will be fixed in next release. In the meantime, users are advised not to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions (as opposed to logical expressions). Expressions like x=(0,1), for example, should be avoided as '(0,1)' is being used as an algebraic expression. Expressions like '(0,1) e x' should be thought of a 3-place logical predicate. Such expressions pose no problem.
This work-around should not be onerous. Having written literally tens of thousands of lines of formal proof using DC Proof, I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions in this sense.
Sincere thanks to Jan for pointing out this problem to me in another thread.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-16 14:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Looks like your DC Proof tuples have reinvented bird brain
John Gabriels S = Lim S. Ignoring the usual praxis in
first order logic of arity of predicates. Bug or feature?

If you would have a type checker in your DC proof,
maybe based on type theory, with D -> ... -> D -> D -> D
respectively D -> ... -> D -> D -> B signatures.

Not much could go wrong. Well you might still create
an ambiguity, if you would implement some "smarts"
that uses this here:

(A -> (B -> C)) ~ (A x B -> C)

See Example 2.1.6:

Basic Category Theory
TOM LEINSTER
University of Edinburgh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.09375.pdf

But without such extra "smarts", that are based
on isomorphism, not much can go wrong. But isomorphism
doesn't mean equal. For such "smarts" you would need

to have some functors, that express the isomorphis.
For example to go from this here:

P(x,y)

To this here:

P(<x,y>)

You would need an isomorphism for:

D -> D -> B ~ D x D -> B

Lets say J would be this isomorphis. It could have this
lambda expression here, where π1 and π2 are the pair
projects to the first and second component of a pair:

J = lambda f lambda z (f π1(z) π2(z))

We then have:

(P x y) <=> ((J P) <x,y>)

Which we could maybe also write as:

P(x,y) <=> J(P)(<x,y>)

So that s(x,y) <=> J(s)(<x,y>). And it would be
clear, that it is still not the same as s(<x,y>).
Since J(s) is not the same as s.

Or in other words we neither have bird brain
John Gabriels S = Lim S, nor DC Proof J(s) = s.
Just joking.

Ha Ha
Post by j4n bur53
Dan wrote "I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples
as algebraic expressions in this sense."
I guess you never modelled complex numbers as pairs of
two real numbers, right?
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
DC Proof would see the above double bracket as being redundant, something to be cleaned up for display. This is not a bug.
There is, however, a minor bug in DC Proof that will be fixed in next release. In the meantime, users are advised not to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions (as opposed to logical expressions). Expressions like x=(0,1), for example, should be avoided as '(0,1)' is being used as an algebraic expression. Expressions like '(0,1) e x' should be thought of a 3-place logical predicate. Such expressions pose no problem.
This work-around should not be onerous. Having written literally tens of thousands of lines of formal proof using DC Proof, I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions in this sense.
Sincere thanks to Jan for pointing out this problem to me in another thread.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-16 17:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
Dan wrote "I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples
as algebraic expressions in this sense."
I guess you never modelled complex numbers as pairs of
two real numbers, right?
Maybe on the first day of class, but after that, if x in C then x = Re(x) + Im(x)*i where Re(x) in R and Im(x) in R. And the ordered pairs are left behind. Like I said, there are obvious work-arounds.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Post by j4n bur53
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
DC Proof would see the above double bracket as being redundant, something to be cleaned up for display. This is not a bug.
There is, however, a minor bug in DC Proof that will be fixed in next release. In the meantime, users are advised not to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions (as opposed to logical expressions). Expressions like x=(0,1), for example, should be avoided as '(0,1)' is being used as an algebraic expression. Expressions like '(0,1) e x' should be thought of a 3-place logical predicate. Such expressions pose no problem.
This work-around should not be onerous. Having written literally tens of thousands of lines of formal proof using DC Proof, I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions in this sense.
Sincere thanks to Jan for pointing out this problem to me in another thread.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 13:51:33 UTC
Permalink
I don't think you can leave pairs behind. If you do a
construction of complex numbers. You already need
them in the construction of rational numbers.

Anyway, here are two new bugs:

Bug 1:

There is an error in the EGen rule.
If I start with this step:


11 (z,s(z))=(z,s(z))
Reflex

I can select s(z) or z and apply EGen.
But I cannot select (z,s(z)). So I cannot

make a step:

12 EXIST(x):(z,s(z))=x

But a pair term should be a term that can
be also used in EGen. How do you want to apply

EGen to complex numbers?

Bug 2:

Anyway here is an example where the arity
of a predicate symbol changes.

5 ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
Conclusion, 1

Predicate Arity Shape Shifting in DC Proof:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/04883b75a193dd6d30fbada20419aaf0#file-prod_pred-proof

This would not be allowed in FOL. You can
easily find a predicate P/1 and a predicate P/2

where the above leads to an inconsistency. For
example P/1 = {<x,x>} and P/2 = {<s(x),x>}.

Are you on GitHub? On GitHub it would be easier
to track these issues.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Dan wrote "I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples
as algebraic expressions in this sense."
I guess you never modelled complex numbers as pairs of
two real numbers, right?
Maybe on the first day of class, but after that, if x in C then x = Re(x) + Im(x)*i where Re(x) in R and Im(x) in R. And the ordered pairs are left behind. Like I said, there are obvious work-arounds.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Post by j4n bur53
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Pairs in DC Proof are also pretty much broken.
There is one more parsing unparsing error in DC-Proof.
a=f((x,x))
a=f(x,x)
DC Proof would see the above double bracket as being redundant, something to be cleaned up for display. This is not a bug.
There is, however, a minor bug in DC Proof that will be fixed in next release. In the meantime, users are advised not to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions (as opposed to logical expressions). Expressions like x=(0,1), for example, should be avoided as '(0,1)' is being used as an algebraic expression. Expressions like '(0,1) e x' should be thought of a 3-place logical predicate. Such expressions pose no problem.
This work-around should not be onerous. Having written literally tens of thousands of lines of formal proof using DC Proof, I can't recall ever needing to use ordered-n-tuples as algebraic expressions in this sense.
Sincere thanks to Jan for pointing out this problem to me in another thread.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Me
2019-05-17 15:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
Bug 1
There is an error in the EGen rule.
11 (z,s(z))=(z,s(z))
Reflex
I can select s(z) or z and apply EGen.
But I cannot select (z,s(z)). So I cannot
12 EXIST(x):(z,s(z))=x
But a pair term should be a term that can
be also used in EGen. How do you want to apply
EGen to complex numbers?
Right.

Consider:

1 Set'(m)
Premise

2 (a,b) e m
Premise

3 (a,b) = (a,b)
Reflex

Now

4 EXIST(x):(a,b) = x

should indeed be possible.
Post by j4n bur53
Anyway here is an example where the arity
of a predicate symbol changes.
5 ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
Conclusion, 1
This would not be allowed in FOL. [...]
Indeed. Here the "automatism" Dan build into DC Proof strikes again!

P((x,y)) somehow flattens out to P(x,y). NOT GOOD!

Try to type in the premise...

P((x,y)) <=> P((x,y)) .

DC Proof will change that to

P(x,y) <=> P(x,y)

atomatically. Well...

NOW we ACTUALLY see striking differences between FOPL and DC Proof... Not good, I'd say.
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 15:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Me
NOW we ACTUALLY see striking differences between FOPL and DC Proof... Not good, I'd say.
I doubt that disallowing ordered n-tuples as algebraic expressions in themselves will prove to be a serious limitation. When, for example, we talk about a point (a,b) in the Cartesian plane, we are really talking about an element of the set R^2. I do not propose to disallow expressions of the form (a,b) in R^2.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 16:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Disclaimer: I do not submit bugs, that imply a certain
retarded way to fix them. Do not take my bugs as a recom-
mendentation to go backwards, and do crank things.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is no implication whathever from my bug reports
that anything should be fixed by limiting things. You
can also fix bugs the other way around.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by Me
NOW we ACTUALLY see striking differences between FOPL and DC Proof... Not good, I'd say.
I doubt that disallowing ordered n-tuples as algebraic expressions in themselves will prove to be a serious limitation. When, for example, we talk about a point (a,b) in the Cartesian plane, we are really talking about an element of the set R^2. I do not propose to disallow expressions of the form (a,b) in R^2.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 16:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Lets say somebody shoots a football into a window,
and the glass breaks. How do you fix it?

Do you burn down the house?

Ha Ha, what a moron.
Post by j4n bur53
Disclaimer: I do not submit bugs, that imply a certain
retarded way to fix them. Do not take my bugs as a recom-
mendentation to go backwards, and do crank things.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is no implication whathever from my bug reports
that anything should be fixed by limiting things. You
can also fix bugs the other way around.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by Me
NOW we ACTUALLY see striking differences between FOPL and DC Proof... Not good, I'd say.
I doubt that disallowing ordered n-tuples as algebraic expressions in themselves will prove to be a serious limitation. When, for example, we talk about a point (a,b) in the Cartesian plane, we are really talking about an element of the set R^2. I do not propose to disallow expressions of the form (a,b) in R^2.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 15:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
I don't think you can leave pairs behind. If you do a
construction of complex numbers.
Not leaving pairs behind. Just proposing to limit their use in DC Proof. Still valid would be constructs like P(x,y), f(x,y) and (x,y) in z where P is a binary predicate, f is a binary function and z is a set. Invalid would be constructs like (x,y)=z where the ordered pair (x,y) is used as though it were an algebraic expression.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 15:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
There is an error in the EGen rule.
11 (z,s(z))=(z,s(z))
Reflex
Here the ordered pair (z,s(z)) is being used as an algebraic expression. Thanks for pointing this out. I will have to make sure that the Reflexivity Axiom and all other axioms built into DC Proof do not accepted ordered pairs as algebraic expressions. Quite a big change as it turns out.
Post by j4n bur53
I can select s(z) or z and apply EGen.
But I cannot select (z,s(z)). So I cannot
12 EXIST(x):(z,s(z))=x
This would still be case in the case in the new release. (z,s(z))=x would be syntactically invalid.
Post by j4n bur53
But a pair term should be a term that can
be also used in EGen. How do you want to apply
EGen to complex numbers?
Anyway here is an example where the arity
of a predicate symbol changes.
5 ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
Conclusion, 1
In the equality, the ordered pair (x,y) is being used here as an algebraic expression.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 15:41:45 UTC
Permalink
Disclaimer: I do not submit bugs, that imply a certain
retarded way to fix them. Do not take my bugs as a recom-
mendentation to go backwards, and do crank things.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
There is no implication whathever from my bug reports
that anything should be fixed by limiting things. You
can also fix bugs the other way around.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For example in metamath its very natural to have a pair
notation, that is just an expression. Also based on this
pair notation they define crossproduct:

Define the cross product of two classes.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-xp.html

And from this the cross-product Z x N, and then the
quotient type rational numbers:

Define the set of rational numbers
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-q.html

Interestingly the above quotient type uses just
div, but inside the complex number. So they embed
the rational numbers inside the complex numbers.

So instead of constructing rational numbers first
(what they also do, but this doesn't give simple
set inclusion N =< Z =< Q). You can also construct

them later a second time, when you already have
complex numbers. You embed natural numbers in
complex numbers, then integers, and then rational

numnbers. But this path also shows somehow that
you cannot leave behind pairs.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
There is an error in the EGen rule.
11 (z,s(z))=(z,s(z))
Reflex
Here the ordered pair (z,s(z)) is being used as an algebraic expression. Thanks for pointing this out. I will have to make sure that the Reflexivity Axiom and all other axioms built into DC Proof do not accepted ordered pairs as algebraic expressions. Quite a big change as it turns out.
Post by j4n bur53
I can select s(z) or z and apply EGen.
But I cannot select (z,s(z)). So I cannot
12 EXIST(x):(z,s(z))=x
This would still be case in the case in the new release. (z,s(z))=x would be syntactically invalid.
Post by j4n bur53
But a pair term should be a term that can
be also used in EGen. How do you want to apply
EGen to complex numbers?
Anyway here is an example where the arity
of a predicate symbol changes.
5 ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
Conclusion, 1
In the equality, the ordered pair (x,y) is being used here as an algebraic expression.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 16:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
Disclaimer: I do not submit bugs, that imply a certain
retarded way to fix them.
I truly appreciate your bug reports, Jan. You can leave the fixing of any bugs in DC Proof to me. Each of them so far can be worked around quite easily. In this case, I am recommending that users avoid using ordered n-tuples as algebraic expressions in themselves. In my experience, this should not be a serious limitation. In the literally tens of thousands of lines of proof I have written on various topics using DC Proof over the years, I have never required statements like (x,y)=z.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 16:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Well your work around recommendation do not work
for me. Its not applicable to the proofs I want to do.

So they don't fix the bug. You cannot fix a broken
window with newspaper sheets. What if its raining or windy?
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Disclaimer: I do not submit bugs, that imply a certain
retarded way to fix them.
I truly appreciate your bug reports, Jan. You can leave the fixing of any bugs in DC Proof to me. Each of them so far can be worked around quite easily. In this case, I am recommending that users avoid using ordered n-tuples as algebraic expressions in themselves. In my experience, this should not be a serious limitation. In the literally tens of thousands of lines of proof I have written on various topics using DC Proof over the years, I have never required statements like (x,y)=z.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 16:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
Well your work around recommendation do not work
for me. Its not applicable to the proofs I want to do.
Sincere thanks for your interest in DC Proof, but I think most people will find it works well for the mathematical proofs they want to do, even with the work-around -- better than standard FOL, I would think. Did you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.) is NOT a required course in pure math programs at universities like MIT?


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 16:51:25 UTC
Permalink
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
nonsense. You even don't know how this here:

x e n

works in your own DC Proof tool.
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
Well your work around recommendation do not work
for me. Its not applicable to the proofs I want to do.
Sincere thanks for your interest in DC Proof, but I think most people will find it works well for the mathematical proofs they want to do, even with the work-around -- better than standard FOL, I would think. Did you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.) is NOT a required course in pure math programs at universities like MIT?
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Dan Christensen
2019-05-17 17:14:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.


Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 17:19:39 UTC
Permalink
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think

it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic

with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
because you even believe this nonsense here:

Am Freitag, 17. Mai 2019 18:46:56 UTC+2 schrieb Dan Christensen:
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ

Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
some fraudulent claim. Concerning MIT I find:

"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/

Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
are connected through their study of foundational notions:
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 17:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 21:18:54 UTC
Permalink
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem

with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
if you would define:

/* unit based construction of cross product */

D^0 = unit

D^n+1 = D x D^n

I guess you then get:

/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */

x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m

Use contraposition and you get:

x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y

So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL

predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
as above, then this here shouldn't happen:

ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]

I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything

else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.

(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 21:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Metamath has turned Facist, from one day to
another. So lets murn a loss. There were
two losses this weak:

1) Grumpy Cat Died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat#Death

2) Metamath turned Facist
See for yourself:

A Confused Metamath Administrator
https://gist.github.com/jburse/e9c8cce8d944712302574bdeb28a787b#gistcomment-2920395

Mario Canerio, the dazed "moderator" got
nervous about questions concerning "anary",
and then deleted two posts of mine (sic!).

As result I deleted all my posts from metamath
and do not tend to become member again of the
metamath group.

But you will find here and then on sci.logic and
sci.math, remarks about metamath again. Unabridged
and uncensored.

Long live Grumpy Cat!
Post by j4n bur53
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem
with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
/* unit based construction of cross product */
D^0 = unit
D^n+1 = D x D^n
/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */
x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m
x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y
So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL
predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything
else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.
(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 21:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Its actually quite hillarious how Mario Carnerio didn't
understand the problem. Given the fact that I asked
the question in the context of Cantor Pairing.

Homework: Construct a class, or better set D, different
from universal class V, where V and V x V are not disjoint,
when we construct pairs as in metamath:

"Definition of an ordered pair, equivalent to
Kuratowski's definition {{A}, {A,B}} when
the arguments are sets.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-op.html

Here is a countable such set:

D_0 = {{}}

D_n+1 = D_n u D_n x D_n

D = U D_n

Claim: D = D x D

Proof:
Assume d e D, then d e D_n+1 and ~(d e D_n)
for some n. Then d e D_n x D_n, then d e D x D.
On the other hand if d e D x D, then d = <f,g>

where f e D_j+1 and ~(d e D_j) and g e D_k+1
and ~(d e D_k). Take maximum m=max(j,k). Then
both f,g e D_m+1. And therefore <f,g> e D_m+2.

Q.E.D.

Right, yes or no?
Post by j4n bur53
Metamath has turned Facist, from one day to
another. So lets murn a loss. There were
1) Grumpy Cat Died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat#Death
2) Metamath turned Facist
A Confused Metamath Administrator
https://gist.github.com/jburse/e9c8cce8d944712302574bdeb28a787b#gistcomment-2920395
Mario Canerio, the dazed "moderator" got
nervous about questions concerning "anary",
and then deleted two posts of mine (sic!).
As result I deleted all my posts from metamath
and do not tend to become member again of the
metamath group.
But you will find here and then on sci.logic and
sci.math, remarks about metamath again. Unabridged
and uncensored.
Long live Grumpy Cat!
Post by j4n bur53
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem
with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
/* unit based construction of cross product */
D^0 = unit
D^n+1 = D x D^n
/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */
x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m
x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y
So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL
predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything
else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.
(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 22:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Corr: D is not equal to D x D, but D x D is
a proper subset of D, except for one element:

D = {{}} u D x D

The construction of this set D is rather independent
of the pairing function we used. I guess a variety
of paring functions can construct such a set D.

But the proposal to reconstruct FOL, is now to use
exactly such a unit {{}}. Even for this fixpoint
set D, the following would be all different

and segregated as required:

D^0 = {{}}

D^1 = D x {{}}

D^2 = D x (D x {{}})

Etc...

Oki Doki. Nice!
Post by j4n bur53
Its actually quite hillarious how Mario Carnerio didn't
understand the problem. Given the fact that I asked
the question in the context of Cantor Pairing.
Homework: Construct a class, or better set D, different
from universal class V, where V and V x V are not disjoint,
"Definition of an ordered pair, equivalent to
Kuratowski's definition {{A}, {A,B}} when
the arguments are sets.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-op.html
D_0 = {{}}
D_n+1 = D_n u D_n x D_n
D = U D_n
Claim: D = D x D
Assume d e D, then d e D_n+1 and ~(d e D_n)
for some n. Then d e D_n x D_n, then d e D x D.
On the other hand if d e D x D, then d = <f,g>
where f e D_j+1 and ~(d e D_j) and g e D_k+1
and ~(d e D_k). Take maximum m=max(j,k). Then
both f,g e D_m+1. And therefore <f,g> e D_m+2.
Q.E.D.
Right, yes or no?
Post by j4n bur53
Metamath has turned Facist, from one day to
another. So lets murn a loss. There were
1) Grumpy Cat Died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat#Death
2) Metamath turned Facist
A Confused Metamath Administrator
https://gist.github.com/jburse/e9c8cce8d944712302574bdeb28a787b#gistcomment-2920395
Mario Canerio, the dazed "moderator" got
nervous about questions concerning "anary",
and then deleted two posts of mine (sic!).
As result I deleted all my posts from metamath
and do not tend to become member again of the
metamath group.
But you will find here and then on sci.logic and
sci.math, remarks about metamath again. Unabridged
and uncensored.
Long live Grumpy Cat!
Post by j4n bur53
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem
with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
/* unit based construction of cross product */
D^0 = unit
D^n+1 = D x D^n
/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */
x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m
x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y
So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL
predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything
else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.
(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 22:33:04 UTC
Permalink
Mario Carnerio actually suggests to use disjoint
union among usual D, D x D, etc.. Well this would
also work. You could make the union as follows:

{0} x D u {1} x D^1 u {2} x D^2 ...

But this says the same. That the sets and classes
of metamath do not work segregated. Because they
only use <x,y> e C for a binary relation.
Post by j4n bur53
Corr: D is not equal to D x D, but D x D is
D = {{}} u D x D
The construction of this set D is rather independent
of the pairing function we used. I guess a variety
of paring functions can construct such a set D.
But the proposal to reconstruct FOL, is now to use
exactly such a unit {{}}. Even for this fixpoint
set D, the following would be all different
D^0 = {{}}
D^1 = D x {{}}
D^2 = D x (D x {{}})
Etc...
Oki Doki. Nice!
Post by j4n bur53
Its actually quite hillarious how Mario Carnerio didn't
understand the problem. Given the fact that I asked
the question in the context of Cantor Pairing.
Homework: Construct a class, or better set D, different
from universal class V, where V and V x V are not disjoint,
"Definition of an ordered pair, equivalent to
Kuratowski's definition {{A}, {A,B}} when
the arguments are sets.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-op.html
D_0 = {{}}
D_n+1 = D_n u D_n x D_n
D = U D_n
Claim: D = D x D
Assume d e D, then d e D_n+1 and ~(d e D_n)
for some n. Then d e D_n x D_n, then d e D x D.
On the other hand if d e D x D, then d = <f,g>
where f e D_j+1 and ~(d e D_j) and g e D_k+1
and ~(d e D_k). Take maximum m=max(j,k). Then
both f,g e D_m+1. And therefore <f,g> e D_m+2.
Q.E.D.
Right, yes or no?
Post by j4n bur53
Metamath has turned Facist, from one day to
another. So lets murn a loss. There were
1) Grumpy Cat Died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat#Death
2) Metamath turned Facist
A Confused Metamath Administrator
https://gist.github.com/jburse/e9c8cce8d944712302574bdeb28a787b#gistcomment-2920395
Mario Canerio, the dazed "moderator" got
nervous about questions concerning "anary",
and then deleted two posts of mine (sic!).
As result I deleted all my posts from metamath
and do not tend to become member again of the
metamath group.
But you will find here and then on sci.logic and
sci.math, remarks about metamath again. Unabridged
and uncensored.
Long live Grumpy Cat!
Post by j4n bur53
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem
with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
/* unit based construction of cross product */
D^0 = unit
D^n+1 = D x D^n
/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */
x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m
x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y
So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL
predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything
else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.
(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
j4n bur53
2019-05-17 22:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Corr: D is not equal to D x D, but D x D is
a proper subset of D, except for one element:

D = {{}} u D x D

The construction of this set D is rather independent
of the pairing function we used. I guess a variety
of paring functions can construct such a set D.

But the proposal to reconstruct FOL, is now to use
exactly such a unit {{}}. Even for this fixpoint
set D, the following would be all different

and segregated as required:

D^0 = {{}}

D^1 = D x {{}}

D^2 = D x (D x {{}})

Etc...

Oki Doki. Nice!
Post by j4n bur53
Its actually quite hillarious how Mario Carnerio didn't
understand the problem. Given the fact that I asked
the question in the context of Cantor Pairing.
Homework: Construct a class, or better set D, different
from universal class V, where V and V x V are not disjoint,
"Definition of an ordered pair, equivalent to
Kuratowski's definition {{A}, {A,B}} when
the arguments are sets.
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-op.html
D_0 = {{}}
D_n+1 = D_n u D_n x D_n
D = U D_n
Claim: D = D x D
Assume d e D, then d e D_n+1 and ~(d e D_n)
for some n. Then d e D_n x D_n, then d e D x D.
On the other hand if d e D x D, then d = <f,g>
where f e D_j+1 and ~(d e D_j) and g e D_k+1
and ~(d e D_k). Take maximum m=max(j,k). Then
both f,g e D_m+1. And therefore <f,g> e D_m+2.
Q.E.D.
Right, yes or no?
Post by j4n bur53
Metamath has turned Facist, from one day to
another. So lets murn a loss. There were
1) Grumpy Cat Died.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumpy_Cat#Death
2) Metamath turned Facist
A Confused Metamath Administrator
https://gist.github.com/jburse/e9c8cce8d944712302574bdeb28a787b#gistcomment-2920395
Mario Canerio, the dazed "moderator" got
nervous about questions concerning "anary",
and then deleted two posts of mine (sic!).
As result I deleted all my posts from metamath
and do not tend to become member again of the
metamath group.
But you will find here and then on sci.logic and
sci.math, remarks about metamath again. Unabridged
and uncensored.
Long live Grumpy Cat!
Post by j4n bur53
I guess metamath would have anary(*) predicates.
Their sets and classes can work this way.
A set or a class can have as members arbitrary
arity tuples. But there is also a problem
with the metamath approach, D and D x D are
not disjoint. So there is a fluidity between
tuples and non-tuples. You can kill this fluidity
/* unit based construction of cross product */
D^0 = unit
D^n+1 = D x D^n
/* proper segregation of tuple spaces */
x e D^n & y e D^m & x = y => n = m
x e D^n & y e D^m & n <> m => x <> y
So metamath is not perfect. The anarity in
metamath might lead to ambiguities. With
proper segegation of tuple spaces on the
other hand, you can recreate FOL
predicate symbol segregation from anary
predicate. If the tuple space is segregated
ALL(z):[P(z) => ALL(x):ALL(y):[z=(x,y) => P(x,y)]]
I don't find some unit based construction
of cross product, that would imply proper
segregation of tuple spaces, or anything
else that would imply it in DC Proof. You
need not only say when tuples are equal.
You need also to say in your axioms when
tuples are non equal.
(*)
The notion anary is from the links provided
by Jim Burns, namely Multigrade predicates.
Post by j4n bur53
Basically logic/sets **is** annexed to pure math at MIT.
Its not annexed to Dan-O-Matik philosophy department
of constant confusion and humbug.
Post by j4n bur53
I didn't write you shouldn't use x e n, if you
like so. It only does not say what you think it
says. It doesn't say your nonsense that you think
it says. Just using a name "n" doesn't mean that
"n" is automatically natural numbers. There danger
is that you will flood sci.math and sci.logic
with your mediocre proofs for the next 10 years
"Sincere thanks for your interest in DC
Proof, but I think most people will find
it works well for the mathematical proofs
they want to do, even with the work-around --
better than standard FOL, I would think. Did
you never wonder why formal logic (FOL, ZFC, etc.)
is NOT a required course in pure math programs
at universities like MIT?"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/g7Pqf8lbBug/xdG8utEmAwAJ
Very intersting stance. And also a full lie and
"This course will provide a graduate-level introduction
to mathematical logic, with a strong focus on several
mathematical applications."
http://math.mit.edu/~freer/18.515/
Mathematical logic investigates the power of mathematical
reasoning itself. The various subfields of this area
sets, proof, computation, and models. The period from
the 1930s thru the 1970s saw great progress in logic.
MIT was a major center in the field from the 1950s
through the 1980s.
http://math.mit.edu/research/pure/math-logic.php
Post by Dan Christensen
Post by j4n bur53
No, I only wonder why your repeating writing such
x e n
works in your own DC Proof tool.
Or you simply don't understand, Jan. But that's OK. You have been very useful so far. You haven't managed to demonstrate the internal contradictions you had hoped for, but you have unearthed some minor glitches -- each with easy work-arounds, but nevertheless.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Me
2019-05-15 01:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by j4n bur53
I guess everytime he writes "wonky", he is wanking.
*lol*

C'mon, man...

Btw. I started reading Shapiro's "Foundations without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-order Logic". I'm sure it's a good read.

Did you notice the following article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege-theorem/
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-10-09 20:44:12 UTC
Permalink
I doubt the two math failures Andrew Wiles and Dan Christensen will ever understand mathematics for they continue to refuse to admit to even the most simple truths of mathematics-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math is in a world of hurt for it does not even have the correct numbers of mathematics. Old Math was arrogant and ignorant starting year 1900 when Quantum Mechanics in physics took off and it means the world is discrete and not continuous. Yet the foolish bozos of Old Math stuck with their continuous Reals and even had the idiotic notion of going further out on the limb of madness with Cohen's continuum hypothesis, while Quantum Mechanics gave us a new age in physics with their discrete world. One would think the idiots of Old Math would finally look at physics and pay attention and learn something. No. They never did. And so today in October of 2023 we still have idiots of math teaching calculus with never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Number System is the true numbers of math for they are discrete, and they make calculus, a billion, perhaps a trillion times easier to study , to learn to understand. In fact, we TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, teaches calculus to 13 and 14 year olds. Because calculus is as easy as add or subtract 1 from the exponent.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Terence Tao, John Stillwell with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graphed function. This is why only a polynomial can be a valid function of math, for the polynomial is a function of the straightline Y --> mx + b. All the other so called functions have no straightline-- they are curves of continuum and cannot give a proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

The proof of FTC needs a empty space Discrete Geometry from one point to the next point so as to allow for the construction of a midpoint between point A to point B and thus to hinge up from A at the midpoint and to determine the next point B in the derivative. This is why Calculus is so enormously a tool for physics, as point A predicts point B.

Discrete Geometry is required for the proof of FTC and that requires the true numbers of mathematics be Decimal Grid Numbers, for they cannot be the continuum idiocy of Reals and Complex.

To make a half circle function in True Math, we have to go out to something like 10^6 Grid to make the points close enough together for the function visual to start looking like a half circle. But still there are holes in between one point and the next point to allow the existence of calculus.

On a downward slope function, we have a different graphics than the usual upward slope function. For the upward slope requires the midpoint in the empty space to predict the next point of the thin rectangle that occupies that empty space (see the graphics below and in my books TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS). In a downward slope function graph we still have those thin rectangles occupy the empty space for integral but we do not need to construct the midpoint, we simply shave away a right triangle that reveals-- predicts point B starting from point A on the other side.



TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


______
| |
| |
| |
---------


To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



to
In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



to
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------


|\
|...\
|....... |
---------

Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



to
By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.

No-one in math education cares about students in Old Math. No-one has ever Cleaned House of Old Math, but let the rotten fetid Old Math stench increase.

AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:56 AM (10 hours ago)



to

Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.

But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.

Cavalieri 1598-1647

So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.

Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).

The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.
But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.
Cavalieri 1598-1647
So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.
Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).
The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.


There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.


The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Yes, in the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.
So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.
We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------
|\
|...\
|....... |
---------
Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.
Yes, now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.


Let me run a scenario for you, please.

There are 7-8 billion people on Earth today.

In the past 50 years we can roughly say that 50 million people studied Calculus in school or at home.

50 million people tried and attempted to learn calculus math.

I certainly was one among that 50 million.

And was AP the only one in 50 million to recognize that if you take polynomials as being the Only Valid Function that the Calculus becomes the Easiest, Super Easy math, because the Power Rules apply and where the derivative is simply a subtract 1 from exponent and the integral is add 1 to exponent.

I find it extremely sad and hard to believe that only AP saw how to make Calculus Super super super easy? Surely there must have been at least 25 million of those 50 million who found the derivative and integral of polynomials a joy and pleasure to do. Surely AP was not the only person in 50 million to see the Polynomial Calculus was a pleasure, fun and even exciting, rush to class to do a derivative or integral of a polynomial-- teacher, please give me more polynomial exercises. They are better than Star Trek on TV.

This is the whole point of a Revolution in Math Calculus.

When we make the only valid function in all of math be a Polynomial, we reduce calculus to adding 1 or subtracting 1.

We do not allow creeps, goons and kooks to clutter the table of math and calculus with their horrible awful smelly functions which are not polynomials. No, we disband these kooks and tell them go home and convert your worthless crap to be a polynomial before you can stink up the halls of mathematics. Convert your kook nonsense to a polynomial then you can come and do mathematics with us.

AP, King of Science

As a case in point, a mere example.

We have at MIT a Dr. Gilbert Strang with his Calculus textbooks, and I bought the 1991 edition of Calculus. And my opinion of Strang's text is scatterbrained. For I often find that Gilbert in lecturing on a topic is too quick to bring in side show issues, never focusing on just one topic.

But worst of this Strang text is he has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, no geometry proof and his Limit analysis of FTC is idiot of a proof-- ie-- no proof at all, for we all analyze things in the course of a day, and none of us are so preposterous as to think we have proven something above and beyond analyzing that something.

And so, I, AP reflects back to the time of 1968, when my name was Ludwig Hansen, sitting in a geology classroom of University of Cincinnati. Learning geology from a textbook that never discusses Continental Drift and this is 1968, mind you and Wegener had given massive evidence of Continental Drift way back to 1915, some 53 years later, AP and the classroom suffering from Truth of Science by having to buy a book about static-Earth, being tested graded lectured upon fake geology.

Not much difference from students sitting in classrooms at MIT or elsewhere buying Strang's CALCULUS with no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and where any fool function is allowed to enter, thousands and thousands of fool functions, when Mathematics has only one Valid Function-- the Polynomial function. For you can only arrive at a True Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by using polynomials as functions.

So how many students every year are punished by having to learn calculus with fool functions, with no valid proof of FTC. Where the calculus classroom puts students not through a Pleasure learning session but a gauntlet torture chamber, whipping the students into nervous breakdowns and vomiting during exams.

All for what??? How much money does Dr. Strang make from his awful book Calculus?? Let me guess estimate.

The book probably costs $100 in our inflation environment. And typically a author gets 1/2 of that in royalties.

Say MIT teaches a class of 100 students in calculus per year would be 50 x 100 = $5,000. And say a estimate that around the world there are 100 schools teaching from this book of 100 students in their classroom would make Gilbert $500,000 per year in book sales of his Calculus.

Same can be said of AP back in 1968 having to learn fake geology with no Continental Drift plate tectonics, so that some so called scientists reaps a reward of 1/2 a million dollars in book sales. And that thousands of students taught lectured and tested upon fake geology.

This is one of the grand benefits of a Usenet and a Internet, that we speed up the process of throwing out Fake -Math, fake-geology and all other fake sciences. Freedom of Speech of Internet of Usenet allows for science to be Showered, Cleaned UP, bathed from its wretched stink of Old fake science. Clean Up their science.

The only valid functions in mathematics are Polynomial Functions, which in turn, makes Calculus be super super super easy. No more vomiting by students in a calculus exam. No more nervous breakdowns by students taking calculus.

AP


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graph


#5-1, My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen
2023-10-09 21:56:51 UTC
Permalink
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
[snip] Dan Christensen
[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Water is really H4O, not H2O." ********** NEW **********
--July 27, 2023

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“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

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017


And if that wasn't weird enough...

“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

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“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)

Updated version:

"Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as you are
How great thou are, are, are, are.
Oh Atom Plutonium, the God that you are
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
How beautiful is your world of science
Your science is the world
Oh Atom Plutonium, Great God of Atoms
Atom of Atoms
Oh Atom Plutonium, as great as thou art"
--March 24, 2023

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-10-10 05:11:07 UTC
Permalink
I doubt the two math failures Andrew Wiles and Dan Christensen will ever understand mathematics for they continue to refuse to admit to even the most simple truths of mathematics-- slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math is in a world of hurt for it does not even have the correct numbers of mathematics. Old Math was arrogant and ignorant starting year 1900 when Quantum Mechanics in physics took off and it means the world is discrete and not continuous. Yet the foolish bozos of Old Math stuck with their continuous Reals and even had the idiotic notion of going further out on the limb of madness with Cohen's continuum hypothesis, while Quantum Mechanics gave us a new age in physics with their discrete world. One would think the idiots of Old Math would finally look at physics and pay attention and learn something. No. They never did. And so today in October of 2023 we still have idiots of math teaching calculus with never a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, because Reals are not the true numbers of mathematics, the Decimal Grid Number System is the true numbers of math for they are discrete, and they make calculus, a billion, perhaps a trillion times easier to study , to learn to understand. In fact, we TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, teaches calculus to 13 and 14 year olds. Because calculus is as easy as add or subtract 1 from the exponent.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney, Terence Tao, John Stillwell with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graphed function. This is why only a polynomial can be a valid function of math, for the polynomial is a function of the straightline Y --> mx + b. All the other so called functions have no straightline-- they are curves of continuum and cannot give a proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

The proof of FTC needs a empty space Discrete Geometry from one point to the next point so as to allow for the construction of a midpoint between point A to point B and thus to hinge up from A at the midpoint and to determine the next point B in the derivative. This is why Calculus is so enormously a tool for physics, as point A predicts point B.

Discrete Geometry is required for the proof of FTC and that requires the true numbers of mathematics be Decimal Grid Numbers, for they cannot be the continuum idiocy of Reals and Complex.

To make a half circle function in True Math, we have to go out to something like 10^6 Grid to make the points close enough together for the function visual to start looking like a half circle. But still there are holes in between one point and the next point to allow the existence of calculus.

On a downward slope function, we have a different graphics than the usual upward slope function. For the upward slope requires the midpoint in the empty space to predict the next point of the thin rectangle that occupies that empty space (see the graphics below and in my books TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS). In a downward slope function graph we still have those thin rectangles occupy the empty space for integral but we do not need to construct the midpoint, we simply shave away a right triangle that reveals-- predicts point B starting from point A on the other side.



TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers. Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing students, not teaching them.

Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent. The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the truth of mathematics.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


______
| |
| |
| |
---------


To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



to
Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

_____
| |
| |
| |
| |
_____
1.1 1.2

More later,...

What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



to
In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



to
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------


|\
|...\
|....... |
---------

Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



to
Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



to
By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.

No-one in math education cares about students in Old Math. No-one has ever Cleaned House of Old Math, but let the rotten fetid Old Math stench increase.

AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
3:56 AM (10 hours ago)



to

Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.

But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).

It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.

Cavalieri 1598-1647

So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.

Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).

The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now I need to add more to the Power Rules of Calculus as we make Polynomials be the only valid functions of mathematics. If you come to math with a function not a polynomial, you are sent home to convert your silly contraption into a polynomial over a interval in 1st Quadrant Only, a interval of concern.
But in all the years I did calculus, I seem to not have registered in my mind the geometrical significance of the Power Rules. What is the geometry of taking x^2 to the power rule of n(x^n-1) for derivative. Then what is the geometry significance of taking the integral power rule-- (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
It seems to me that at one moment in time, that geometry stuck to my mind, but is now elusive, I cannot recall the geometry significance of either Power Rule when played out on x^n.
Cavalieri 1598-1647
So that if we start with a polynomial function such as x^2 -> Y, we instantly know from the power rules that the derivative is 2x and the integral is 1/3x^3.
Derivative Power Rule of a polynomial x^n that the derivative is n(x^n-1).
The Integral Power Rule is sort of the opposite of the derivative rule so for polynomial x^n that the integral is (1/(n+1)) (x^(n+1)).
Now I need to include the Cavalieri proof, a geometry proof that rectangles under a function graph such as Y--> x^2 yields the power rule formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) so for x^2 the integral is (1/3)x^3.

I would think that showing Cavalieri's proof would be standard fare in all 1st year college calculus textbooks. To my surprise, not Stewart, not Apostol, not Fisher& Zieber, not Ellis & Gulick, not Strang, no-one is up to the task of showing how Cavalieri got that formula from summing rectangles.

Morris Kline in volume 1 "Mathematical Thought" shows a picture.

Stillwell in "Mathematics and its History" shows a picture.

But it must be too difficult for college authors to replicate Cavalieri's proof of approximating rectangles for x^2.

Now if I were back in the days of Cavalieri and tasked to find a formula, I would do rectangles and trial and error. First finding a formula for easy ones such as Y--> x, then Y-->x^2, then a third trial, Y--> 2x to see if the formula is good, sort of a math induction settling upon (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)).

But I am very disappointed that none of my college calculus books derives the formula (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) via approximation.


There were no standards for math proof in the days of Cavalieri for his genius of deriving the Integral Power rule. Y--> x^n is integral (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

So what I am going to do is prove (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)) in New Math.

I looked through the literature and there was no actual Old Math proof of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1))

This is worthy of a whole entire new book of itself.

And the beauty is that it is a Mathematical Induction proof.

And the beauty also is that functions are chains of straightline connections from one point to the next in Discrete Geometry.

That means we no longer approximate the integral but actually derive the Integral from a Right Trapezoid whose area is 1/2(base_1 + base_2)(height).

We see that in a function such as 3x becomes integral (1/2)(3)x^2 due to that right-trapezoid area.

The right-trapezoid is such that its base_1 and base_2 are the Y points for cells of calculus in Decimal Grid Systems.

Trouble in Old Math is when the "so called historian" reads a passage in old works, they become overgenerous in crediting a proof when none really existed -- Fermat, Cavalieri. And this is the reason that no-one in modern times who wrote a Calculus textbook features the Cavalieri Integral Power Rule, because there never was a proof, .... until now... a Mathematical Induction proof.

AP, King of Science

None of this is a proof of Cavalieri's integral power rule formula. Because Geometry is discrete and all curves in geometry are chains of straightline segments. The Internet boasts of some modern recent proofs of Cavalieri, but I suspect all those are bogus claims, being victims of computer graphics and no honest down to earth proof at all. I myself was a victim of computer graphics, for a computer can really spit out any image you ask it to spit out, such as hexagon tiling of sphere surface.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
The modern proof is to use an antiderivative: the derivative of xn is shown to be nxn−1 – for non-negative integers. This is shown from the binomial formula and the definition of the derivative – and thus by the fundamental theorem of calculus the antiderivative is the integral. This method fails for
∫1/x dx
which is undefined due to division by zero. The logarithm function, which is the actual antiderivative of 1/x, must be introduced and examined separately.


The derivative
(x^n)'=nx^{n-1} can be geometrized as the infinitesimal change in volume of the n-cube, which is the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1.
Integrating this picture – stacking the faces – geometrizes the fundamental theorem of calculus, yielding a decomposition of the n-cube into n pyramids, which is a geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula.
For positive integers, this proof can be geometrized: if one considers the quantity xn as the volume of the n-cube (the hypercube in n dimensions), then the derivative is the change in the volume as the side length is changed – this is xn−1, which can be interpreted as the area of n faces, each of dimension n − 1 (fixing one vertex at the origin, these are the n faces not touching the vertex), corresponding to the cube increasing in size by growing in the direction of these faces – in the 3-dimensional case, adding 3 infinitesimally thin squares, one to each of these faces. Conversely, geometrizing the fundamental theorem of calculus, stacking up these infinitesimal (n − 1) cubes yields a (hyper)-pyramid, and n of these pyramids form the n-cube, which yields the formula. Further, there is an n-fold cyclic symmetry of the n-cube around the diagonal cycling these pyramids (for which a pyramid is a fundamental domain). In the case of the cube (3-cube), this is how the volume of a pyramid was originally rigorously established: the cube has 3-fold symmetry, with fundamental domain a pyramids, dividing the cube into 3 pyramids, corresponding to the fact that the volume of a pyramid is one third of the base times the height. This illustrates geometrically the equivalence between the quadrature of the parabola and the volume of a pyramid, which were computed classically by different means.

Alternative proofs exist – for example, Fermat computed the area via an algebraic trick of dividing the domain into certain intervals of unequal length; alternatively, one can prove this by recognizing a symmetry of the graph y = xn under inhomogeneous dilation (by d in the x direction and dn in the y direction, algebraicizing the n dimensions of the y direction), or deriving the formula for all integer values by expand
--- end quoting Wikipedia on Cavalieri's quadrature formula ---

--- quoting Google Search hits ---

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

JSTOR
https://www.jstor.org › stable
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — Theorem of Calculus. Here is a proof of Cavalieri's formula that uses the (hidden) symmetry of the func- tion x" and the Binomial ...

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

ResearchGate
https://www.researchgate.net › publication › 266256869...
PDF | On Nov 1, 2002, N. J. Wildberger published A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ...

(PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu › A_New_Proof_of_Cavali...
We use the contemporary mathematical technologies to prove the fundamental assumptions of the Euclidean Goemetry with indivisibles and we develop a model- ...

12.A. The proof of Cavalieri's Principle

University of California, Riverside
https://math.ucr.edu › ~res › math153-2019
pdf, Cavalieri's Principle is a powerful method for comparing the volumes of two solids in 3-space. The purpose of this document is to discuss the steps needed.
2 pages

A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Taylor & Francis Online
https://www.tandfonline.com › ... › Volume 109, Issue 9
by NJ Wildberger · 2002 · Cited by 5 — A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula. The American Mathematical Monthly: Vol. 109, No. 9, pp. 843-845.

Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Wolfram MathWorld
https://mathworld.wolfram.com › CavalierisQuadratur...
Wildberger, N. J. "A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula." Amer. Math. Monthly 109, 843-845, 2002. Referenced on Wolfram|Alpha. Cavalieri's Quadrature ...

A geometric proof of Cavalieri's quadrature formula
Oocities
http://www.oocities.org › ilanpi › cavalieri
Wildberger, A new proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula, American Math. Monthly 109, November 2002. 76 rue Mazarine. 75006 Paris. France.

Proving the Cavalieri Principle using integrals (Calculus I)

Mathematics Stack Exchange
https://math.stackexchange.com › questions › proving...
Dec 28, 2019 — Cavalieri's Principle states that if a family of parallel planes gives equal cross-sectional areas for two solids S1 and S2, then the volumes of ...
1 answer

·

Top answer:
I think it depends on what is referred to as a solid here. Considering a solid being somehow space bounded and the volume being a continuous sum of positive ...
Related searches
Cavalieri quadrature proofs pdf
cavalieri's principle proof
cavalieri's principle formula
cavalieri principle measure theory
cavalieri's principle worksheet pdf
cavalieri's principle geometry
fundamental theorem of calculus proof
proof of integration

On Optimal Quadrature Formulae

Emis.de
https://www.emis.de › HOA › JIA › Volume5_3
by F LANZARA · Cited by 48 — THEOREM 2.1 There exists a unique quadratureformula oftype (1.4)- ... Compare the last quadrature formula with the composite Cavalieri-. Simpson's rule.
25 pages

Cavalieri's method of indivisibles

Tel Aviv University
http://www.tau.ac.il › download › Andersen
by K ANDERSEN · Cited by 178 — These theorems he applies in Books III, IV and V where he deals with quadratures and cubatures related to conic sections. The sixth book is mainly devoted to ...
77 pages

[PDF] Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula

Semantic Scholar
https://www.semanticscholar.org › paper
May 3, 2005 — Every calculus student learns Cavalieri's quadrature formula for the antiderivative of x^n (integer n). We observe here that the logarithmic ...
Images for Cavalieri quadrature proofs
Guided Search Filters
Filter by feature

bonaventura cavalieri

indefinite integrals

mathematics

definite integral

geometry

quadrature formula
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Cavalieri's quadrature formula - Wikipedia
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri’s quadrature? Complex analysis? | DIw/oI #6
Video
Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula -- from Wolfram MathWorld
PDF) Remark on Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
Cavalieri's Principle
Video
Indefinite integrals? Cavalieri's quadrature? Complex ...
Cavalieri's principle - Wikipedia
How do we derive the Newton-Cotes quadrature integration ...
PDF) A New Proof of Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula
View all
Feedback
View all

How do mathematicians come up with proofs, seemingly out of ...

Quora
https://beautifulmath.quora.com › How-do-mathematicia...
Thinking this way he came up with an excellent derivation of the basic rule of integration, Cavalieri's Quadrature Formula: \displaystyle \int_0^a x^n…
--- end of Google search hits ---

AP writes: well Cavalieri never had a proof of integral power rule and many historians of math could never recognize a proof from the side of a barn, a big barn, mind you.

What Cavalieri had was a "argument" in support of (1/(n+1))(x^(n+1)), not a proof. And from what I can decipher of Wildberger's claim, is all mouth and no substance. Much like Wiles on FLT, or Tao on primes, or Hales on Kepler Packing. The desire of fame and fortune is overwhelming for some in mathematics, and trample all over truth.

AP

Now by predict, I meant specifically the derivative with upward slope, where you slice a right triangle into the integral rectangle and lift it up upon the midpoint and the vertex of the right triangle predicts the next point of the function graph.

But things work differently for a downward slope function graph for you slice away an entire right triangle from the integral rectangle to obtain the successor point- the predicted point by the derivative.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.
Yes, in the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.
So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.
We have a different situation for a downward slope function graph for we do not need the midpoint, as a downward slope can slice away at most 1/2 of the integral rectangle.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
______
| |
| |
| |
---------
To this trapezoid with points A, m, B
B
/|
/ |
m /----|
/ |
| |
|____|
While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.
______
|....... |
|....... |
|....... |
---------
|\
|...\
|....... |
---------
Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.
Yes, now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.


Let me run a scenario for you, please.

There are 7-8 billion people on Earth today.

In the past 50 years we can roughly say that 50 million people studied Calculus in school or at home.

50 million people tried and attempted to learn calculus math.

I certainly was one among that 50 million.

And was AP the only one in 50 million to recognize that if you take polynomials as being the Only Valid Function that the Calculus becomes the Easiest, Super Easy math, because the Power Rules apply and where the derivative is simply a subtract 1 from exponent and the integral is add 1 to exponent.

I find it extremely sad and hard to believe that only AP saw how to make Calculus Super super super easy? Surely there must have been at least 25 million of those 50 million who found the derivative and integral of polynomials a joy and pleasure to do. Surely AP was not the only person in 50 million to see the Polynomial Calculus was a pleasure, fun and even exciting, rush to class to do a derivative or integral of a polynomial-- teacher, please give me more polynomial exercises. They are better than Star Trek on TV.

This is the whole point of a Revolution in Math Calculus.

When we make the only valid function in all of math be a Polynomial, we reduce calculus to adding 1 or subtracting 1.

We do not allow creeps, goons and kooks to clutter the table of math and calculus with their horrible awful smelly functions which are not polynomials. No, we disband these kooks and tell them go home and convert your worthless crap to be a polynomial before you can stink up the halls of mathematics. Convert your kook nonsense to a polynomial then you can come and do mathematics with us.

AP, King of Science

As a case in point, a mere example.

We have at MIT a Dr. Gilbert Strang with his Calculus textbooks, and I bought the 1991 edition of Calculus. And my opinion of Strang's text is scatterbrained. For I often find that Gilbert in lecturing on a topic is too quick to bring in side show issues, never focusing on just one topic.

But worst of this Strang text is he has no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus FTC, no geometry proof and his Limit analysis of FTC is idiot of a proof-- ie-- no proof at all, for we all analyze things in the course of a day, and none of us are so preposterous as to think we have proven something above and beyond analyzing that something.

And so, I, AP reflects back to the time of 1968, when my name was Ludwig Hansen, sitting in a geology classroom of University of Cincinnati. Learning geology from a textbook that never discusses Continental Drift and this is 1968, mind you and Wegener had given massive evidence of Continental Drift way back to 1915, some 53 years later, AP and the classroom suffering from Truth of Science by having to buy a book about static-Earth, being tested graded lectured upon fake geology.

Not much difference from students sitting in classrooms at MIT or elsewhere buying Strang's CALCULUS with no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and where any fool function is allowed to enter, thousands and thousands of fool functions, when Mathematics has only one Valid Function-- the Polynomial function. For you can only arrive at a True Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus by using polynomials as functions.

So how many students every year are punished by having to learn calculus with fool functions, with no valid proof of FTC. Where the calculus classroom puts students not through a Pleasure learning session but a gauntlet torture chamber, whipping the students into nervous breakdowns and vomiting during exams.

All for what??? How much money does Dr. Strang make from his awful book Calculus?? Let me guess estimate.

The book probably costs $100 in our inflation environment. And typically a author gets 1/2 of that in royalties.

Say MIT teaches a class of 100 students in calculus per year would be 50 x 100 = $5,000. And say a estimate that around the world there are 100 schools teaching from this book of 100 students in their classroom would make Gilbert $500,000 per year in book sales of his Calculus.

Same can be said of AP back in 1968 having to learn fake geology with no Continental Drift plate tectonics, so that some so called scientists reaps a reward of 1/2 a million dollars in book sales. And that thousands of students taught lectured and tested upon fake geology.

This is one of the grand benefits of a Usenet and a Internet, that we speed up the process of throwing out Fake -Math, fake-geology and all other fake sciences. Freedom of Speech of Internet of Usenet allows for science to be Showered, Cleaned UP, bathed from its wretched stink of Old fake science. Clean Up their science.

The only valid functions in mathematics are Polynomial Functions, which in turn, makes Calculus be super super super easy. No more vomiting by students in a calculus exam. No more nervous breakdowns by students taking calculus.

AP


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a graph


#5-1, My 134th published book

Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



#5-2, My 45th published book.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-3, 55th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.

And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



#5-4, 56th published book

COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages


Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#5-5, 72nd published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


#5-6, 75th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

Length: 175 pages


Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



#5-7, 89th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.

Length: 110 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

#5-8, 90th published book

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


#5-9, 221st published book

An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



#5-10, 160th published book

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Loading...