アーカイブ | 2月, 2018

№ 750

23 2月

№ 7502018020230750

749 の場合と同様の考えですが、これは少し複雑な例です。

ゼロとの調和平均は ゼロと それ自身の2通りあると考えるのが いいのでは? 少し具体例等で、意味などを検証したい。

 

調和平均は広く世の中に出てきますが、 もともと逆数の平均の逆数と楽しく考えると、 ゼロを含む場合の調和平均が考えられないとなります。 ゼロ除算を考えると その場合にも考えられて、 常識的なゼロの答えに対して 新しい意味が出てきて、 いろいろ幾何学的にも意味のある解が出て来るので、ゼロ除算は 新しい世界を拓いていることが 分かります。

少しいろいろ実例を検証して 論文を出版したいと思います。概念の発見で、高度な創造性です。

 

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

№749

23 2月
テーマ:

№749

調和平均は広く世の中に出てきますが、もともと逆数の平均の逆数と楽しく考えると、 ゼロを含む場合の調和平均が考えられないとなります。 ゼロ除算を考えると その場合にも考えられて、 常識的なゼロの答えに対して 新しい意味が出てきて、 いろいろ幾何学的にも意味のある解が出て来るので、ゼロ除算は 新しい世界を拓いていることが 分かります。

少しいろいろ実例を検証して 論文を出版したいと思います。概念の発見で、高度な創造性です。

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

№  748

22 2月

2018020220748.jpg

NEW !
テーマ:

№  748

 

例外なく パーセンテージ を考える場合、元の量がゼロのとき、無限とか 考えられない、と いうよりは ゼロパーセンテージ と考えるのが 自然ではないでしょうか。無限は 変では?

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

 

 

№ 747

20 2月
NEW !
テーマ:

№ 747

 

調和平均というのが有りますが、2つの調和平均を考えるとき、 1つがゼロになる場合は どうなるでしょうか。 他の有名な算術平均と幾何学平均は、ゼロと 半分になりますが、調和平均では どうでしょうか。 表記によりますが もともとの意味では考えられませんが、 ゼロ除算の考えで、ゼロの場合と 2倍になる場合が意味が有ることが分かります。 ところが 第3の場合が考えられますが、余りに凄いので、うかつには述べられません。一応記録して、考える余地を残して置きたい。

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

 

№ 746

20 2月

№ 746

方程式を係数で割って、ゼロ除算を用いると沢山の新しい結果が得られます。

もっとも簡単例が、図の1次方程式、直線の方程式ですが、 あたかも勾配が無限大になった場合をキチンと捉えられていますが、この手法は、実はそんなに簡単でなく、雄大な世界を拓く、新しい原理で、新しい概念です。 2018020200746

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

再生核研究所声明 415(2018.2.19):  数学の進化は単調か、進化と衰退

19 2月

再生核研究所声明 415(2018.2.19):  数学の進化は単調か、進化と衰退

数学とは ある仮定系を基礎(公理系)に論理的に導かれる関係達の集まりである(No.81, May 2012 (pdf 432kb) www.jams.or.jp/kaiho/kaiho-81.pdf)。数学者はそれゆえに導かれている結果、関係から、新しい関係を導く活動を 研究と称して行っていると言える。分かり易い問題意識は、提起された予想や問題を解決することであるが、それらさえ関係をキチンと確立させることであると表現される。

例えばリーマン予想やフェルマー予想等は歴史的に有名であり、 ピタゴラスの定理やオイラーの公式は基本的で美しい関係式として有名である。数学を進化させる原動力であるが、命題、定理の一般化や精密化なども分かり易い数学の研究姿勢である。 今までの定理を含むような結果は進化した結果であり、知られている関係の詳しい関係の発見も分かり易い数学の進化である。しかしながら、ある分科で一般化、精密化が極端に進めば、理解できる者は限られ、興味関心を抱く者も極端に少なくなり、世の中との関係も薄くなってしまい、 それらの意味は どれほどかと問われる程に成る。 それらの分科から少しずれた人たちは興味も関心も抱かず、 得られたり 論じている世界さえ理解できなくなってしまう。 多くの人は、そのような理論には、興味も関心もないと思ってしまう。そうなれば、数学のそのような状態は衰退した末期的状況と言えるだろう。

その様な数学の姿は 生物の生体のように、誕生の鮮やかさ、成長期のみずみずしさ、衰退期などと同じようにみられる。

人生70年くらいのスパンで見れば、 ある分野の数学の華やかさと衰退そしてほとんど関心がもたれなくなる姿を見ることになる。そのような観点から、永い時代愛されてきた結果は 基本的で衰退することはなく、本質的な結果として時代を超えて存在し、愛されるものになるだろう。それらを表現する言葉は、基本的である、美しい、影響力のある結果であると纏められよう。

数学の質の高い研究として 概念の創造、関係そのものの定義について触れて置こう。微分の概念、積分の概念、勾配の概念、群の概念、位相の概念などなどである。それらの概念の発見は、既に新しい数学の始めであるから、数学の芽のようなもので、基本であればそれだけ価値あるものになる。多くの場合、物理や自然現象からそのような概念が生まれた経緯に注目して置きたい。概念の分かり易い表現は名付けることである。子供が誕生したり、新しい星や島を発見したら命名するようにである。

声明の表題の趣旨は 何事成長の様は単調ではなく、大きな視野を持って研究の状況の判断を行うことの重要性を指摘し、絶えず新しい芽を探し、待つ心のゆとりが大事であることを指摘することである。成果主義の煽りで、成果を急ぎ過ぎて形式的な抹消の研究に囚われ過ぎてしまう危険な世相の時代ではないだろうか。 形式的な評価、数値の量に囚われた実の無い研究の空しい時代の観がしないだろうか。 研究には余裕、楽しみ、本質を求める精神が大事ではないだろうか。 最近 岡潔氏の話題が多いが、岡氏のようには 普通はなれず、そのようには研究者としては生きていけないから、まねることは良くなく、何事ほどほどが大事で、いろいろな在りようも尊重されるべきである。しかしながら、岡氏のよう人物も大事に育てる文化を持つことも 大事ではないだろうか。天才の育成も、平凡な数学者も、数学愛好者の育成もそれぞれに大事ではないだろうか。 高い山は、大きな裾野が広がってこそ有り得る。多様な世界は偉大なる世界であり、人間存在の価値を高める原理である。

ところで、衰退であるが、国家が衰退したり、生物が病的に衰退するように、もともとの発祥の動機、育成のみずみずしさを失い、それらの周辺におかしな在りようが蔓延して 本末転倒なような状況が増大すれば、学問の在り様などもおかしくなって急激に衰退するのではないだろうか。 大学は何をするところかと問うた言葉が想起させられる。何の為の数学か、何のための数学教育かと絶えず自戒して行きたい。疑問を抱いたり、疑ったり、考えたりしてはいけない、と教育の場で指導された生徒の不満の声も結構多い世相はないだろうか。この観点から、

しかしながら、1300年以上に亘って、算術の創始者が0/0は0であると定義していたものを それは間違いであると言ってきた世界の数学界は 相当おかしく、世界の数学界の恥ではないだろうか。

と 繰り返し述べてきた。 数学界のゼロ除算思考停止は 数学界がマインドコントロールされているように現在でも世界の大勢である状況にあると言える。

そこで、我々のゼロ除算についての考えは真実か否か、広く内外の関係者に意見を求めている。関係情報はどんどん公開している。次も参照:

再生核研究所声明 402(2017.11.19): 研究進めるべきか否か - 数学の発展

再生核研究所声明 408(2018.1.25):  数学を越えて ― 価値あるものとは

以 上

2018.2.16.15:24

2018.2.17.06:48

2018.2.17.09:21

2018.2.17.13:51

2018.2.17.19:11

2018.2.18.11:00

2018.2.18.15:58

2018.2.18.20:28

2018.2.19.05:28 追加あり、晴天の美しい朝。まだ改善する余地を感じるが。

2018.2.19.05:48 良い、完成できる。

2018.2.19.06:30 完成、公表。

 

744と745

19 2月

№ 744

奥村先生の発見された例です。

bがゼロのとき、 等式が依然として成り立つ図が できます。

 

ゼロ除算算法では y軸も出てきて、楽しい意味が有りますね。

 

№ 745

 

調和平均ですが、 一つがゼロのとき、一般式が成り立つためには、ゼロ除算があると自然ですね。

調和平均、 a  とゼロ の 調和平均が 考えられるように なりますが、 その時の平均の意味は どのように考えられるでしょうか? ゼロの意味を考える必要が有ります。 解釈は1つでしょうか 2つでしょうか?

 

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府 

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所)  

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

№ 743

19 2月

№ 743

2018020170743

明確に 直交するとき、直交の条件を 勾配の積が マイナス1という公式が、 形式上 ゼロ 掛ける 無限が マイナス

イチ となってしまいます。 きちんと表現するには、勾配の関係を分数で書いて、ゼロ除算 を用いれば、すっきりとなります。

第1回 ゼロ除算研究集会のご案内

下記のように研究集会を開催しますので、 ご案内致します。

日時: 2018.3.15(木曜日).11:00 - 15:00

場所: 群馬大学大学院 理工学府

概要: 始めにゼロ除算の全体について、齋藤三郎群馬大学名誉教授から30分くらい 総合的な報告を受けて、その後、討論を重視する形で進める。昼食を挟んで、討論し、最後に 今後の研究活動について検討する。

参加希望者は、開場の準備、プログラムの検討上 下記にメールにて、届けて下さい:

kbdmm360@yahoo.co.jpsaburou.saitoh@gmail.com

尚、ゼロ除算の研究状況は、

数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています:http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/  関連情報があります。

(後援:数学基礎学力研究会、NejiLaw、再生核研究所) 

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

№ 742

16 2月

№ 742

これは有名人とゼロ除算に興味を持っている 応援してくれている人の 喜びそうな例です。

オイラーです。n までの整数で n と互いに素である 整数の数を表した関数。

素数が一つ欠けた場合、成り立つには、ゼロ除算があると良く説明できて、形式上良いですね。

2018020160742

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

 

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

 

オイラー

№ 741

14 2月

№ 741

2018020140741

放物線のとき、焦点との距離を表わす極座標表示で、 角がゼロのとき、 rは無限と考えがちですが、無限とした場合、他の弦で成り立つ等式が崩れてしまいます。ゼロ除算でゼロで、等式は、ゼロ除算で何時も成り立つと成ります。素晴しい。 無限がゼロになっていますね。

もっとも無限分の1で、ゼロと考えてきたから、良いと考えてきたと思いますが、厳密な議論でなく、近づくのか成るのかの微妙な曖昧さが有りますね。極限値でなくきちんとなっているとなります。

 

Dear the leading mathematicians and colleagues:

 Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

I wrote a simple draft on our division by zerohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net /. The contents are elementary and have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. I expect you write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from the attached source.

____________

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world:

 

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

 

 

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for “division”, there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,…,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 – 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 – 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 – 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

 

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics – however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

 

 

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):  $100/0=0, 0/0=0$  –  by a natural extension of fractions — A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics – shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division – The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):  Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第2回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

 

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

 

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 4 異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

 

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 – 668 ?).

In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

 

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

 

 

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

 

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math.  {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198,  DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

 

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh,  and  M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$.  IJAPM  International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1–8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

 

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt

 

\bibitem{mos}

H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.

 

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

 

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

 

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87–95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

 

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications – Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics,  {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

 

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi,  Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields,  Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,   {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

 

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

 

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18):  A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by  geometrical optics.

 

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

 

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? –  the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature – an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

 

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

 

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

 

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27):  Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 – its impact to human beings through education and research.

 

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2):   On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

 

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8): What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? — relations of $0$ and infinity.

 

 

 

 

\end{thebibliography}

 

\end{document}

 

 

 

再生核研究所声明371(2017.6.27)ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議 https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告

 

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

 

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

 

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf