Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: 1)Gottingen's Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, are you as dumb and
messy about Conics as Franz? Oval is the conic section, never ellipse

Replies: 7   Last Post: Oct 11, 2017 2:59 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Michael Moroney Posts: 375 Registered: 12/8/04
Re: 1)Gottingen's Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, are you as dumb and messy about Conics as Franz? Oval is the conic section, never ellipse
Posted: Oct 6, 2017 9:25 AM

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails again and again:

>1)Gottingen's Dorothea Bahns, Laurent Bartholdi, are you as dumb stupid and
> messy about Conics as Franz? Oval is the conic section, never ellipse

So why are you trying to harass people who don't even know you exist, and
may not know Franz exists? Are you trying to intimidate them into telling
them "Stop trying to correct that Plutonium fool, let him babble his
insanities in peace." ? Is this the next step into madness, the one after
posting mystery "lists" of math professors over and over?

>butterfly cut

Quit trying to change the problem. This is a simple intersection, not a
butterfly cut, not a moth cut, not a spider cut.

>the square pyramid replacing the cone

Again, quit trying to change the problem. Just because a problem that is
somewhat similar to the conic sections has an outcome you like, doesn't
mean it proves anything about actual conic sections.

Since you can't disprove the Dandelin Spheres proof, perhaps you should
try to disprove the proof that Franz posted, rather than insulting him.
Or just admit that you are wrong (as usual for you).

Date Subject Author
10/6/17 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/6/17 bursejan@gmail.com
10/6/17 Michael Moroney
10/6/17 Me
10/10/17 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/10/17 Jan Bielawski
10/11/17 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
10/11/17 Me