アーカイブ | 2月, 2018

再生核研究所声明 414(2018.2.14): 第1回ゼロ除算研究集会基調講演要旨

14 2月

再生核研究所声明 414(2018.2.14): 第1回ゼロ除算研究集会基調講演要旨

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

ゼロで割る問題 例えば100/0の意味、 ゼロ除算は インドで628年ゼロの発見以来の問題として、神秘的な歴史を辿って来ていて、最近でも大論文がおかしな感じで発表されている。ゼロ除算は 物理的には アリストテレスが 最初に不可能であると専門家が論じていて、それ以来物理学上での問題意識は強く、アインシュタインの人生最大の関心事であったという。ゼロ除算は数学的には 不可能であるとされ、数学的ではなく、物理学上の問題とゼロ除算が計算機障害を起こすことから、論理的な回避を目指して、今なお研究が盛んに進められている。

しかるに、我々は約4年前に全く、自然で簡単な 数学的に完全である と考えるゼロ除算を発見して現在、全体の様子が明かに成って来た。そこで、ゼロ除算を歴史的に振り返り、我々の発見した新しい数学を紹介したい。

 

まず、歴史、結果と、結果の意義と意味、を簡潔に 誰にでも分かるように解説したい。

簡単な結果が、アリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の 我々の空間の認識を変える、実は新しい世界を拓いていること。それらを実証するための 具体例を沢山挙げる。我々の空間の認識は 2000年以上 適切ではなく、したがって 初等数学全般に欠陥があることを 沢山の具体例で示す。

ゼロ除算は新しい世界を拓いており、この分野の研究を進め、世界史に貢献する意志を持ちたい。

尚、ゼロおよび算術の確立者 Brahmagupta (598 -668 ?) は1300年以上も前に、0/0=0 と定義していたのに、世界史は それは間違いであるとしてきた、数学界と世界史の恥を反省して、世界史の進化を図りたい。

 

以 上

2018.2.13.10:30

2018.2.13.10:47

2018.2.13.11:35

2018.2.13.14:35

2018.2.13.18:28

2018.2.13.20:33 良い。

2018.2.13.21:36 良い。

2018.2.14.04:55 良い、美しい朝。

2018.2.14.05:23 良い、完成、公表。


 

 

№740

13 2月

№740

2018020130740

直角座標系でも同じですが、定点を通る直線と両日の交点に注目します。 両軸に平行な場合、 交点がどうなるかをゼロ除算で 解釈すると面白いことが成り立っている。 直線は突然折れて、 両軸に平行になって、交点は 定点の各々の座標に なっている。之には楽しい意味と新しい空間の認識が 必要です。新しい数学です。従来数学では平行な場合、交わらないとなりますね。何時でも両軸に直線は交わっている。

 

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

 

№  739

12 2月

№  739

2018020120739

この辺は既に知己ですが、放物線の接線に 垂線を下した 点の軌跡を考えると、 放物線の頂点のところで、 例外の状況がおかしく起きます。ゼロ除算で、すっきり説明ができる。

 

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

 

№738

8 2月

201802080738

NEW !
テーマ:

№738

三角形とゼロ除算を中心にした論文を書いているので、三角形のいろいろな公式を見ています。

これは、美しい、2等辺三角形のときに成り立つとなって、ゼロ除算があると良い例です。 従来は無限で、両方良いとする曖昧な扱いだったと言える。 それがスッキリした。

 

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

№737

8 2月

№737

201802080737

これは良いですね。 退化した場合に、公式がそのまま成り立つ。広い世界で成り立つので、数学は 美しくなる。 執筆中の論文、著書に直ちに入れることにした。ゼロ除算と有名人に興味を抱いてくれる方が、 喜びそうです。 楽しいです。

 

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

 

№735と№736

7 2月
NEW !
テーマ:

№735№736

 

三角関数の等式には、ゼロ除算がひとりでになり立っている場合は、このように多いのですが、何時でも成り立つとは 限らないので、気を付ける必要が有ります。

 

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

 

№732・№733・№734

6 2月

テーマ:

№732

ゼロ除算は至る所に現われていますね。 分数は、表示によって意味が異なり、意味がある場合も 無い場合も有るので、吟味が必要です。 吟味は良いです。確認する事です。 それで、安心できます。

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

№733

無限遠点に成ったら、角は零、 平行線ですね。 無限の長さは 実はゼロだった。 これは新しい世界観です。 考え方です。 既に沢山現れて、当たり前になった。

 

№734

 

無限の高さが 従来の考えですが、零除算では ゼロです。 無限量が実はゼロだった。 無限とは何か、本質が明かにされた。 位相的な理想上の点、コンパクト化の理想上の点、それが、数値では、実はゼロで表されていた。

表現と位相的な想像上の点の違い。 極限で定義される無限は、数ではないと言える。

 

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

№731

4 2月

№731

201802040731

辺の長さがゼロの場合の 退化した場合の角が ゼロ除算の結果導かれますが、 これは 良い説明になっていることが わかりますね。 既に、論文原稿に この事実を入れている。 発見して 数時間後のことです。

ここまでくると、数学はおかしい、ゼロ除算を考えないのは おかしいと 皆さん思われますね。

みんなで楽しくゼロ除算を発見したい。 楽しい話題にできるのでは。ユークリッド以来発見された 私たちの数学、世界です。 従来の世界観には欠陥が存在していた。

2018.3.4.8:45

\section{Conclusion and open problems}

 

The essential problems with the mysterious history of the division by zero were on the {\bf definition} of the division by zero and the strong {\bf discontinuity} of the fundamental function $y = 1/x$ at the origin. This discontinuity was not accepted for long years. One more problem for the division by zero is on the concept of the {\bf division by zero calculus}; that is, the fractions and functions cases are different, as we showed clearly.

 

We have considered our mathematics around an isolated singular point for analytic functions, however, we did not consider mathematics {\bf at the singular point itself}. At the isolated singular point, we considered our mathematics with the limiting concept, however, the limiting values to the singular point and {\bf the values at the singular point } in the sense of division by zero calculus are different.

By the division by zero calculus, we can consider the values and differential coefficients at the singular point. We therefore have a general open problem discussing our mathematics on a domain containing the singular points.

 

We stated, on the division by zero, the importance of the definition of the division by zero $z/0$. However, we note that in our definition it is given as a {\bf generalization} or {\bf extension} of the usual fraction. Therefore, we will not be able to give its precise meanings at all. For this sense, we do not know the direct meaning of the division by zero. It looks {\bf like a black hole}. In order to know its meaning, we have to examine many properties of the division by zero calculus by applications.

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

 

№728・№729・№730

3 2月
NEW !
テーマ:

№728

Q が無限遠点、すなわち、XYとABが 平行の時 成り立たない式になりますが、ゼロ除算の考え方で、何時でも成り立つ式になり、数学は 進化して 美しくなる。

 

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

 

№729

端から端まで、例外なく、式が成り立つとなって、ゼロ除算で、数学は進化する。

 

 

№730

美しい場合、式が成り立たなくなり、 数学のおかしさが 出ていますね。 ゼロ除算の考えは 必要です。

 

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