STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:54:28 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[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In AP's OWN WORDS that, over the years here, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn: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 (repetition removed):

"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

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math and science
His ultimate armagedon are the paradoxes, especially the revenge paradox.
One problem, he was born too let, although he is older than 40 years,

he is not old enough to understand the notion "Antinomy". Now we have these
splendid results offered by Dan Christensen:

[[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => a in m]
[[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => ~a in m]

Saying the Revenge Paradox is inderminate and not inderninate,
in his own fallacious reading of the nonsense he proved.

LoL

Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:47:29 UTC+2:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Stay alert, don't sleep walk all day, lazy Dan Christensen.
Maybe prove first, existence of Revenge Paradox R:

EXIST(a):[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m]

Would be more convincing. But you refused to do that already for the
Liar Paradox L. Also there are bad news, since R is an Antinomy, you
will never be able to prove EXIST(a). We proved the Antinomy:

∀x(Fx ∧ (Tx ∧ Ux)), ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Tx),
∀x¬(Fx ∧ Ux), ∀x¬(Tx ∧ Ux) entails ∀x¬(Tx ↔ (Fx ∧ (Fx ∨ Tx))).
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(Fx~1Tx~1Ux),~6x(~3(Fx~1Tx)),~6x(~3(Fx~1Ux)),~6x(~3(Tx~1Ux))|=~6x~3(Tx~4Fx~1(Fx~2Tx))

The sentence does not exist in your world, thats a simple quantifier
switch from ∀x¬ to ¬∃x showing the non-existence:

∀x(Fx ∧ (Tx ∧ Ux)), ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Tx),
∀x¬(Fx ∧ Ux), ∀x¬(Tx ∧ Ux) entails ¬∃x(Tx ↔ (Fx ∧ (Fx ∨ Tx)))
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(Fx~1Tx~1Ux),~6x(~3(Fx~1Tx)),~6x(~3(Fx~1Ux)),~6x(~3(Tx~1Ux))|=~3~7x(Tx~4Fx~1(Fx~2Tx))

You even have a quantifier switch in DC Proof!

Mild Shock schrieb am Dienstag, 12. September 2023 um 00:13:52 UTC+2:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math and science
> His ultimate armagedon are the paradoxes, especially the revenge paradox.
> One problem, he was born too let, although he is older than 40 years,
>
> he is not old enough to understand the notion "Antinomy". Now we have these
> splendid results offered by Dan Christensen:
>
> [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => a in m]
> [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => ~a in m]
>
> Saying the Revenge Paradox is inderminate and not inderninate,
> in his own fallacious reading of the nonsense he proved.
>
> LoL
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:47:29 UTC+2:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Correction: Its another formula!

Since we do not have bivalence, we must also say when
the sentence is false. ~Tx does not imply Fx. So we can use
this slightly more complicated formula as a translation:

/* R : This sentences is not true and not indeterminate. */
(Ty↔¬Ty∧¬Uy)∧(Fy↔Ty∨Uy)

Its indeed an Antinomy, now correctly modelled
the Dan Christensen Trichotomy:

∀x(Fx ∨ (Tx ∨ Ux)), ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Tx),
∀x¬(Fx ∧ Ux), ∀x¬(Tx ∧ Ux)
entails ¬((Ty ↔ (¬Ty ∧ ¬Uy)) ∧ (Fy ↔ (Ty ∨ Uy))).
https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(Fx~2Tx~2Ux),~6x(~3(Fx~1Tx)),~6x(~3(Fx~1Ux)),~6x(~3(Tx~1Ux))|=~3((Ty~4~3Ty~1~3Uy)~1(Fy~4Ty~2Uy))

Sorry guys, for the blooper.

Mild Shock schrieb am Dienstag, 12. September 2023 um 00:20:18 UTC+2:
> Stay alert, don't sleep walk all day, lazy Dan Christensen.
> Maybe prove first, existence of Revenge Paradox R:
>
> EXIST(a):[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m]
>
> Would be more convincing. But you refused to do that already for the
> Liar Paradox L. Also there are bad news, since R is an Antinomy, you
> will never be able to prove EXIST(a). We proved the Antinomy:
>
> ∀x(Fx ∧ (Tx ∧ Ux)), ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Tx),
> ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Ux), ∀x¬(Tx ∧ Ux) entails ∀x¬(Tx ↔ (Fx ∧ (Fx ∨ Tx))).
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(Fx~1Tx~1Ux),~6x(~3(Fx~1Tx)),~6x(~3(Fx~1Ux)),~6x(~3(Tx~1Ux))|=~6x~3(Tx~4Fx~1(Fx~2Tx))
>
> The sentence does not exist in your world, thats a simple quantifier
> switch from ∀x¬ to ¬∃x showing the non-existence:
>
> ∀x(Fx ∧ (Tx ∧ Ux)), ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Tx),
> ∀x¬(Fx ∧ Ux), ∀x¬(Tx ∧ Ux) entails ¬∃x(Tx ↔ (Fx ∧ (Fx ∨ Tx)))
> https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~6x(Fx~1Tx~1Ux),~6x(~3(Fx~1Tx)),~6x(~3(Fx~1Ux)),~6x(~3(Tx~1Ux))|=~3~7x(Tx~4Fx~1(Fx~2Tx))
>
> You even have a quantifier switch in DC Proof!
> Mild Shock schrieb am Dienstag, 12. September 2023 um 00:13:52 UTC+2:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math and science
> > His ultimate armagedon are the paradoxes, especially the revenge paradox.
> > One problem, he was born too let, although he is older than 40 years,
> >
> > he is not old enough to understand the notion "Antinomy". Now we have these
> > splendid results offered by Dan Christensen:
> >
> > [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => a in m]
> > [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => ~a in m]
> >
> > Saying the Revenge Paradox is inderminate and not inderninate,
> > in his own fallacious reading of the nonsense he proved.
> >
> > LoL
> > Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:47:29 UTC+2:
> > > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:13:52 AM UTC+3, Mild Shock wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of Dan Christensen's fake math and science
> His ultimate armagedon are the paradoxes, especially the revenge paradox.
> One problem, he was born too let, although he is older than 40 years,
>
> he is not old enough to understand the notion "Antinomy". Now we have these
> splendid results offered by Dan Christensen:
>
> [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => a in m]
> [[a in t <=> ~a in t & ~a in m] => ~a in m]
>
> Saying the Revenge Paradox is inderminate and not inderninate,
> in his own fallacious reading of the nonsense he proved.
>
> LoL
> Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 11. September 2023 um 04:47:29 UTC+2:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Students must be aware of your harmful articles, where I did examine you for years in so many occasions with all your allies names

But I think you are a case of a common delusional Trolls 🧌 who can't comprehend yet this truth nor do you want to learn anything new & very stubbornly

Maybe the age is the main problem or something too incomprehensible to understand 🤔!

You have nothing truly except the inhireted & huge accumulated ignorance that you beileav & stupidly keep spreading for day & night 🌙

You truly should go to presion (if you aren't already there)

BKK