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.

Dr. Tao and John Gabriel & Dan Christensen, such losers and failures of math-- why the three cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse-- maybe they no longer have eyes that see properly. And they fail to do a valid proof of Fundamental
Theorem of Calculus, with their mindless use of Reals as the numbers of math. But worst of all, the three believe in Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, simply because Boole erred big time and mixed up the truth tables of AND with OR. Yet
everyday of the year, two of these math failures Gabriel and Christensen pollute sci.math with their idiotic spam.

Dan Christensen says everyone is a failure and victim of math without using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS where calculus is made a billion times easier.

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:53:25 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Is it the same in Canada, Dan as the USA where Calculus classrooms are vomiting during exams, torture chambers and nervous breakdowns by age 19?? While TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS teaches the calculus to 13-14 year olds-- because polynomials are the only
valid function.

This is especially true of UCLA classrooms of calculus are more of torture chambers with their nauseating 1,000 different functions, each with special rules of differentiation and integration, while AP goes in there and throws that crap into the garbage
can and has students learn only the Polynomial with its add 1 for integration and subtract 1 for differentiation of exponent. Stop being propagandized by kooks of math, not mathematicians with a brain of logic.

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.


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 (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.


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)

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

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.

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

--- quoting Wikipedia ---

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 o