再生核研究所声明 ５００（2019.7.28） 数学の令和革新と日本の挑戦、東京オリンピック: 万物流転、世に令和革新を断行して、世界史に日本指導の文化の基礎を築こう。 革新には 真智への愛の熱情が必要であり、それ故に 多様な人々による できるところでの参画を呼び掛けたい。 世界史が、この声明の行く末を、趨勢を見ているのは 歴然である。 これらの数学の素人向きの解説は ５５カ月に亘って 次で与えられている： 数学基礎学力研究会公式サイト 楽しい数学 www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/ 数学的な解説論文は 次で公表されている： viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30, What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
Essential Problems on the Origins of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
汝ゼロで割ってはならないの数学十戒第一は覆されて、ゼロで割って、新世界が現れた、ゼロで割ることができて、アリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の新数学、新世界が現れた。 象徴的な例は、
1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0 and (z^n)/n = log z for n=0 exp(1/z) =1 for z=0。
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels：再生核研究所
ysaitoh2019/11/24 15:51
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).
Black holes are where God divided by 0
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある#0除算#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見#再生核研究所2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算#令和革新ゼロ除算#新世界ゼロ除算#ゼロ除算算法#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法 発見
#更新#2019年#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見#628年インドゼロ発見#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見#ゼロ除算#令和革新ゼロ除算#2000年来の発見ゼロ除算再生核研究所ゼロ除算#新世界ゼロ除算
#2019年
#更新
#再生核研究所#再生核研究所声明
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#2014
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#2000
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#神でさえできないゼロ除算
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法
#ゼロ除算算法2014年3月8日誕生
2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見
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.
Fig 5.2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) were the culprits, ignoring the first commandment of mathematics not to divide by zero. But they hit gold, because what they mined in the process was the ideal circle.
Impact of ‘Division by Zero’ in Einstein’s Static Universe and Newton’s Equations in Classical Mechanics：http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2084 より
You can see from the other answers, that from the concept of limits, 0/0 can approach any value, even infinity. … So, let me take a system where division by zero is actually defined, that is, you can multiply or divide both sides of an equation by …
Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero
H. G. Romig
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 31, No. 8 (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
DOI: 10.2307/2298825
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2298825
Page Count: 3
Niels Henrik Abel und seine Zeit Arild Stubhaug. Abb. 19 a–c. a. … Eine Kurve, die Abel studierte und dabei herausfand, wie sich der Umfang inn gleich große Teile aufteilen lässt. … Beim Integralzeichen statt der liegenden ∞ den Bruch 1/0.
Indeterminate: the hidden power of 0 divided by 0
2016/12/02 に公開
You’ve all been indoctrinated into accepting that you cannot divide by zero. Find out about the beautiful mathematics that results when you do it anyway in calculus. Featuring some of the most notorious “forbidden” expressions like 0/0 and 1^∞ as well as Apple’s Siri and Sir Isaac Newton.
［PDF]Indeterminate Form in the Equations of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3222
このページを訳す
0. 0 . The reason is that in the case of Archimedes principle, equations became feasible in. 1935 after enunciation of the principle in 1685, when … Although division by zero is not permitted, yet it smoothly follows from equations based upon.
Thinking ahead of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein – The General … gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications…/5503
このページを訳す
old Archimedes Principle, Newton’ s law, Einstein ‘s mass energy equation. E=mc2 . …. filled in balloon becomes INDETERMINATE (0/0). It is not justified. If the generalized form Archimedes principle is used then we get exact volume V …..
Fallacy of division | Revolvy https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
このページを訳す
In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,[1] it was assumed that the atoms …. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a …
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number “zero” as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.
Zero in this case is the null set – it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in “nothing” and don’t even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the “empty set” is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn’t zero, it is “not a number” or “undefined” and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily “prove” that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not – it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named “Socrates”, in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we’ve agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer “no”, then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don’t shave themselves and so he doesn’t shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he’s the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn’t, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn’t matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn’t (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn’t describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.
I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books.
Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
*057 Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.): Differential and Difference Equations with Applications: ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017. (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230) May 2018 587 pp.
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。
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
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
Genius
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
#divide by zero #math#hths#smart#genius
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009
divide by zero
Dividing by zero is the biggest epic fail known to mankind. It is a proven fact that a succesful division by zero will constitute in the implosion of the universe.
You are dividing by zero there, Johnny. Captain Kirk is not impressed.
Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz
#4 chan #epic fail #implosion#universe#divide by zero
3
divide by zero
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
#divide #by#zero#dividebyzero#undefined
by JaWo October 28, 2006
division by zero
1) The number one ingredient for a catastrophic event in which the universe enfolds and collapses on itself and life as we know it ceases to exist.
2) A mathematical equation such as a/0 whereas a is some number and 0 is the divisor. Look it up on Wikipedia or something. Pretty confusing shit.
3) A reason for an error in programming
Hey, I divided by zero! …Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: ’11’: Division by zero
#division #0#math#oh shi- #divide by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006
dividing by zero
When even math shows you that not everything can be figured out with math. When you divide by zero, math kicks you in the shins and says “yeah, there’s kind of an answer, but it ain’t just some number.”
It’s when mathematicians become philosophers.
Math:
Let’s say you have ZERO apples, and THREE people. How many apples does each person get? ZERO, cause there were no apples to begin with
Not-math because of dividing by zero:
Let’s say there are THREE apples, and ZERO people. How many apples does each person get? Friggin… How the Fruitcock should I know! How can you figure out how many apples each person gets if there’s no people to get them?!? You’d think it’d be infinity, but not really. It could almost be any number, cause you could be like “each person gets 400 apples” which would be true, because all the people did get 400 apples, because there were no people. So all the people also got 42 apples, and a million and 7 apples. But it’s still wrong.
#math #divide by zero #divide#dividing#zero#numbers#not-math #imaginary numbers #imaginary. phylosophy
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010 https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=divide%20by%20zerohttps://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
God’s most important commandment
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66
Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment http://thedistractionnetwork.com/…/never-divide…/page/4/
かってカトリック教会は、過去にガリレオでひどい間違いを犯した。
科学の問題に権威を振りかざし、「太陽が地球の周りを回っている」と宣言したのだ。
さらには地動説を唱える学者を火あぶりの刑にさえしている。
それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。
1981年のことである。
ステーヴン・W・ホーキングもここに出席した。
会議の最後に、参加者は教皇への拝謁が許された。この時、教皇はおごそかに
「ビッグバン以後の宇宙の進化を研究することは結構だが、
ビッグバン自体を突き詰めてはいけない」
と述べたという。なぜか?
「ビッグバンは創造の瞬間であり、したがって神の業だから」
それが、理由である。
またもやヴァチカンは、科学の分野に口出しをしてきたではないか。
で、ホーキングは、この時のことを非常に謎めいた言葉でその著書「宇宙の始まりと終わり」に書き残している。
「それを聞いてホッとしました。私が会議で話したテーマを教皇は知らなかったからです。」
…ムムッ????? と言うことはもしかして、すでにホーキングはビッグバン自体をテーマにその原理などを科学的根拠を元に講演をしたのか??
さらに続けて言う。
「わたしはガリレオと同じ運命(注1)をたどりたくはありませでした。もっともわたしは、彼の死から300年後に生まれたこともあり、ガリレオにはおおいに親近感を抱いています」。
そう述懐しています。
(注1)地動説を唱えたガリレオは第2回異端審問所審査で、ローマ教皇庁検邪聖省から有罪の判決を受け、終身刑を言い渡されている。
ビッグバンは起こるべきして起こった。それは科学的根拠によって説明できる。理論はこうであるなどと科学者であるホーキングがヴァチカンで講演していたとしたら…。
もしかしてホーキングは教皇の不興を買って異端審問所にかけられ、神への冒瀆罪によって火あぶりの刑に処せられたかも知れないのだ。(時代が違うか)
ホーキングが考えるように教皇は、彼の発言を本当に知らなかったのか。
実は知っていた。カチンと来た教皇は、警告の意味で「ビッグバン自体には今後一切触れるな」と命じたのではなだろうか。
そう推理も出来る。またそう考えるが自然だ。それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。 https://blog.goo.ne.jp/…/b5cd6cf92591fa651dd923d642156d4b
再生核研究所は、ゼロ除算算法の公認を求めていますが、
典型的な具体例をして、 ｙ軸の勾配はゼロ、 まっすぐに立った電柱の勾配は ゼロである、
tan(\pi/2) = 0の公認 を求め、小学生以降の教科書、学術書の変更を求めている。
それらの公認にどのくらいかからるかを楽しみにしている。
既に Isabelle/HOL は その結果の妥当性を保証している。
計算機の認識は 世の理解を超えている。
２０１９．４．１４．１１：０５
最終的に１９９２年、ローマ教皇ヨハネ・パウロ２世が誤りを認め、ガリレオに謝罪しました。ガリレオの死から３５０年後のことでした。
これは まずいのでは？ 真理を愛する、真実を求めるのが、人間として生きる意義では ないでしょうか。
人の生きるは、真智への愛 にある。 真実を知りたいということですが、それは 神の意志 を知りたいとも表現できます。
西洋と東洋の「0」への考え方：
(1)「0」を嫌う西洋（キリスト教社会）
「空虚」すなわち「0」を嫌うアリストテレスの影響を受け、「0」を認めない。
「0」を認めることは、「神様なんていないよ」と言うことと同じくらいの罪。
(2)「0」を受け入れた東洋（イスラム教社会）
「空虚」を受け入れ、「0」を取り入れる。
また、図形にとらわれない数学や、分数を小数に直して計算しやすくするなど計算技術を高めた。 http://enjoymath.pomb.org/?p=1829
再生核研究所声明 470 (2019.2.2)
ゼロ除算 1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
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/…/einsteins-only-mistake…
Albert Einstein:
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：
1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
無限遠点は、実は数で0で表されていた。
ケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学のIsabelle 計算機システムはゼロ除算ｘ/0=0 を導いた。
その後 質問に対して 回答があり、 添付のように 信じられないほどに ソフトが完成されていることを見て、驚嘆させられています。
責任者とは交流がありましたが、大したことではない と 言っていましたが、 実は 相当なことを 大きなグループで 完成していたと 考えられます。
2値や 大事な \tan(\pi/2)=0 も できているので、驚嘆です。
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You cannot divide by zero.Ever.
the story of science aristotle leads the way P220 より
If division by Zero were possible,then the result would exceed every integer
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer： http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
4/6
７歳の少女が、当たり前である（100/0=0、0/0=0）と言っているゼロ除算を 多くの大学教授が、信じられない結果と言っているのは、まことに奇妙な事件と言えるのではないでしょうか。
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
division by zero（a⁄0 ）ゼロ除算 1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
小学校以上で、最も知られている基本的な数学の結果は何でしょうか・・・
ゼロ除算（1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0）かピタゴラスの定理（a2 + b2 = c2 ）ではないでしょうか。 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724326618408/
1+0=1 1－0=1 1×0=0 では、1/0・・・・・・・・・幾つでしょうか。
0??? 本当に大丈夫ですか・・・・・0×0=1で矛盾になりませんか・・・・
数学で「A÷０」（ゼロで割る）がダメな理由を教えてください。 http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/ques…/q1411588849#知恵袋_
割り算を掛け算の逆だと定義した人は、誰でしょう？？？
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/
multiplication・・・・・増える 掛け算（×） 1より小さい数を掛けたら小さくなる。 大きくなるとは限らない。
0×0=0・・・・・・・・・だから0で割れないと考えた。
唯根拠もなしに、出鱈目に言っている人は世に多い。
加（+）・減（-）・乗（×）・除（÷）
除法（じょほう、英: division）とは、乗法の逆演算・・・・間違いの元
乗（×）は、加（+）
除（÷）は、減（-） http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/q14…/a37209195… http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/…/%E5%A0%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA…
何とゼロ除算は、可能になるだろうと April 12, 2011 に 公に 予想されていたことを 発見した。
多くの数学で できないが、できるようになってきた経緯から述べられたものである。
０を引いても引いたことにならないから：
君に０円の月給を永遠に払いますから心配しないでください：
変化がない：引いたことにはならない：
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Saitoh’s claim is wider than 1/0 = 0. It is x/0 = 0 for all real x. Real numbers are a field. The axioms of fields define the multiplicative inverse for every number except zero. Saitoh generalises this inverse to give 0^(-1) = 0. The axioms give the freedom to do this. The really important thing is that the result is zero – a number for which the field axioms hold. So Saitoh’s generalised system is still a field. This makes it attractive for algebraic reasons but, in my view, it is unattractive when dealing with calculus.
There is no milage in declaring Saitoh wrong. The only objections one can make are to usefulness. That is why Saitoh publishes so many notes on the usefulness of his system. I do the same with my system, but my method is to establish usefulness by extending many areas of mathematics and establishing new mathematical results.
That said, there is value in examining the logical basis of the various proposed number systems. We might find errors in them and we certainly can find areas of overlap and difference. These areas inform the choice of number system for different applications. This analysis helps determine where each number system will be useful.
James Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.
The typical good comment for the first draft is given by some physicist as follows:
Here is how I see the problem with prohibition on division by zero,
which is the biggest scandal in modern mathematics as you rightly pointed out (2017.10.14.08:55)
A typical wrong idea will be given as follows:
mathematical life is very good without division by zero (2018.2.8.21:43).
It is nice to know that you will present your result at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Please remember to mention Isabelle/HOL, which is a software in which x/0 = 0. This software is the result of many years of research and a millions of dollars were invested in it. If x/0 = 0 was false, all these money was for nothing.
Right now, there is a team of mathematicians formalizing all the mathematics in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 for all x, so this mathematical relation is the future of mathematics.
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Nevertheless, you can use that x/0 = 0, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex_Main
begin
theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex
by simp
end
2019/03/30 18:42 (11 時間前)
Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero and open the new world since Aristotelēs-Euclid: 1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM) c ⃝SJMISSN 2534-9562 Volume 2 (2018), pp. 57-73 Received 20 November 2018. Published on-line 29 November 2018 web: http://www.sangaku-journal.eu/ c ⃝The Author(s) This article is published with open access1.
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus
∗Hiroshi Okumura and ∗∗Saburou Saitoh
２０１９．３．１４．１１：３０
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You’re God ! Yeah that’s right…
You’re creating the Universe and you’re doing ok…
But Holy fudge ! You just made a division by zero and created a blackhole !!
Ok, don’t panic and shut your fudging mouth !
Use the arrow keys to move the blackhole
In each phase, you have to make the object of the right dimension fall into the blackhole
There are 2 endings.
Credits :
BlackHole picture : myself
Other pictures has been taken from internet
background picture : Reptile Theme of Mortal Kombat
NB : it’s a big zip because of the wav file
More information
Install instructions
Download it. Unzip it. Run the exe file. Play it. Enjoy it.
I was re-reading Hacker’s Delight and on page 202 I found a poem about division that I had forgotten about.
I think that I shall never envision An op unlovely as division. An op whose answer must be guessed And then, through multiply, assessed; An op for which we dearly pay, In cycles wasted every day. Division code is often hairy; Long division’s downright scary. The proofs can overtax your brain, The ceiling and floor may drive you insane. Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero,
But even God can’t divide by zero!
Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker’s Delight.
我々の数学は支持されている。
自由な精神で研究を進めている筈の数学者が 逆に 古い考えに拘っている状況が見え、物理学者の自由な精神が ゼロ除算が 量子力学、宇宙論関係者で 議論が 始まっている。
David Bruce Brenton
11:16 (5 分前)
To Barukcic, Haydar, Okumura, Jan, James, Sabourhou, Matsuura, Hiroshi, Okoh, Wangui, Sandra, William, Haydar, Jakub, Fethi, Yunong, Chaowei, Antonio, Cristi, Mr, José, 自分, Wolfgang, Hiroshi, Felix
Right on ! Mr. Caballero !
From: José Manuel Rodriguez Caballero <>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:47 Radio AM 750
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
Formalising Mathematics In Simple Type Theory
Authors: Lawrence C. Paulson
Lawrence Charles Paulson FRS[2] 1] is a Professor of Computational Logic at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.[5][6][7][8][9]
Abstract: Despite the considerable interest in new dependent type theories, simple type theory (which dates from 1940) is sufficient to formalise serious topics in mathematics. This point is seen by examining formal proofs of a theorem about stereographic projections. A formalisation using the HOL Light proof assistant is contrasted with one using Isabelle/HOL. Harrison’s technique for formalising Euclidean…
Submitted 20 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.
Comments: Submitted to a volume on the Foundations of Mathematics
MSC Class: 03A05
The importance of legibility can hardly be overstated. A legible proof is more likely to convince a sceptical mathematician: somebody who doesn’t trust a complex software system, especially if it says x/0 = 0
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels：再生核研究所
ysaitoh2019/11/24 15:51
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).
Black holes are where God divided by 0
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#0除算
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#再生核研究所2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法 発見
#更新#2019年#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見#628年インドゼロ発見#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見#ゼロ除算#令和革新ゼロ除算#2000年来の発見ゼロ除算再生核研究所ゼロ除算#新世界ゼロ除算
#2019年
#更新
#再生核研究所
#再生核研究所声明
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#2014
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#2000
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#神でさえできないゼロ除算
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法
#ゼロ除算算法2014年3月8日誕生
2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見
With this estimation, we stated that the Euler formula
$$
e^{\pi i} = -1
$$
is the best result in mathematics in details in： No.81, May 2012 (pdf 432kb) http://www.jams.or.jp/kaiho/kaiho-81.pdf
余りにも神秘的な数式のために、アインシュタインの公式 E= mc^2 と並べて考えられる 神の意志 が感じられるだろう。 ところで、素粒子を記述する方程式とアインシュタインの方程式を融合したら、 至る所に1/0 が現れて 至る所無限大が現れて計算できないと繰り返して述べられている。しかしながら、数学は既に進化して、1/0=0 で無限大は 実はゼロだった。 驚嘆すべき世界が現れた。しかしながら、数学でも依然として、rがゼロに近づくと 無限大に発散する事実が有るので、弦の理論は否定できず、問題が存在する。さらに、形式的に発散している場合でも、ゼロ除算算法で、有限値を与え、特異点でも微分方程式を満たすという新しい概念が現れ、局面が拓かれたので、数学者ばかりではなく、物理学者の注意を喚起して置きたい。
物理学者は、素粒子の世界と巨大宇宙空間の方程式を融合させて神の方程式を目指して研究を進めている。数学者はユークリッド以来現れたゼロ除算1/0と空間の新しい構造の中から、神の意志を追求して 新しい世界の究明に乗り出して欲しいと願っている。いみじくもゼロ除算は、ゼロと無限大の関係を述べていて、素粒子と宇宙論の類似を思わせる。
人の生きるは、真智への愛にある、すなわち、事実を知りたい、本当のことを知りたい、高級に言えば 神の意志 を知りたいということである。 そこで、我々のゼロ除算についての考えは真実か否か、広く内外の関係者に意見を求めている。関係情報はどんどん公開している。 ゼロ除算の研究状況は、
数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられている：http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
また、ohttp://okmr.yamatoblog.net/ に 関連情報がある。
以 上
ゼロ除算の論文が２編、出版になりました：
ICDDEA: International Conference on Differential & Difference Equations and Applications
Differential and Difference Equations with Applications
ICDDEA, Amadora, Portugal, June 2017
• Editors
• (view affiliations)
• Sandra Pinelas
• Tomás Caraballo
• Peter Kloeden
• John R. Graef
Conference proceedingsICDDEA 2017
Division by Zero Calculus and Differential Equations
Sandra Pinelas, Saburou Saitoh
Pages 399-418
とても興味深くみました： ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 2018年05月28日(月) テーマ：数学 これは最も簡単な 典型的なゼロ除算の結果と言えます。 ユークリッド以来の驚嘆する、誰にも分る結果では ないでしょうか？ Hiroshi O. Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero?. Biostat Biometrics Open Acc J. 2018; 7(1): 555703. DOI: 10.19080/BBOJ.2018.07.555703 ゼロで分裂するのは本当に不可能ですか？ – Juniper Publishers ↓↓↓ https://juniperpublishers.com/bboaj/pdf/BBOAJ.MS.ID.555703.pdf ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した：日本、再生核研究所 2014年2月2日
もちろん、Brahmaguptaは ゼロ除算を議論していて、その後、１３００年に亘って、世界史で議論されてきて、 ニュートン力学でも基本的な問題を提起している。 当然、非ユークリッド幾何学とも関係していて、それらの空間とも違う全く新しい幾何学を提案している。このように考えると、検討中の Division by Zero Calculus の著書（出版契約済み）は 世界史上で大きな扱いになるだろうと発想して、大変興奮して、展示会を後にしました。
数学的な解説論文は 次で公表されている：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
我々は 初等数学には基本的な欠陥がある と述べている。ゼロ除算は数学者ばかりではなく 人類の、世界史の恥である と述べている。
After Math: Driving into a new decade
Engadget-8 時間前
For the last After Math of both the year and the decade, we’re talking cars and trucks! SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT AD. adsf. Proposed CO2 capture system could reduce truck emissions by 90 percent. The EPFL …
For the last After Math of both the year and the decade, we’re talking cars and trucks!
adsf
Proposed CO2 capture system could reduce truck emissions by 90 percent
The EPFL released a study this week pitching a novel method of drastically reducing the amount of CO2 heavy trucks produce: liquify the combustion byproduct and store it onboard until the trip is done. It’d eliminate all but 10 percent of CO2 produced while only taking up around 7 percent of the vehicle’s total weight.
adsf
Tesla will deliver its first Chinese-made Model 3 on December 30th
Of the 250,000 vehicles the company expects to produce at its new Shanghai Gigafactory, the first set will be rolling off the assembly line by the end of the year. But don’t expect to get your hands on any of them as all 15 have already been claimed by Tesla employees.
adsf
VW’s prototype charging robot can find your EV in the parking garage
The bane of EV drivers is pulling into a parking garage only to find a gas-powered vehicle parked in the one spot next to a charging station. But in the no-so-distant future, VW hopes that an adorable, Wall-E-esque autonomous robot will bring the charge to you!
adsf
Mazda3 bug activates emergency brake system for no reason
more than 35,000 Mazda3’s produced in the 2019 and 2020 model years are being recalled on account that their Smart Braking System (think, fancy emergency brake) keeps turning on randomly. Of course if these were Teslas, Musk would have already taken to Twitter to tell us that its actually a feature.
The new Volkswagen ID.3
Volkswagen sets new EV production target of 1.5 million by 2025
Dieselgate might well have been the kick in the pants Volkswagen needed to get into the EV game. The company announced this week that, starting with the ID.3, it aims to produce 1.5 million electric vehicles by the middle of the next decade.
In this article: after math, aftermath, mazda, tesla, tomorrow, transportation, volkswagen, vw
All products recommended by Engadget are selected by our editorial team, independent of our parent company. Some of our stories include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, we may earn an affiliate commission.
まず、現状であるが、詳しい状況については 記録を正確にとっている （付録： 直接この文書を繰り返してJose 氏たちと確認している）が、 Jose 氏は ケンブリッジ大とミュンヘン工科大学が軍と政府の膨大な資金援助の下で進められている Isabelle/HOL の出力として 既にゼロ除算の結果を出している。 しかし、それは自動的ではなく、プログラムを書いて出した結果であり、しかも我々の方法を用いて出したと述べている。 これが我々の認める 計算機による世界最初のゼロ除算の計算機による出力結果 である。 － それ故に公表している：
viXra:1903.0184 submitted on 2019-03-10 20:57:02,
Who Did Derive First the Division by Zero $1/0$ and the Division by Zero Calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the Outputs of a Computer?
付録：
On February 16, 2019 Professor H. Okumura introduced the surprising news in Research Gate:
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero \\
Added an answer \\
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have $x/0 = 0$ for each number $x$. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: \\
{\bf https://isabelle.in.tum.de/}
J.M.R. Caballero kindly showed surprisingly several examples by the system that
$$
\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0,
$$
$$
\log 0 =0,
$$
$$
\exp \frac{1}{x} (x=0) =1,
$$
and others.
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depends upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$
\tan(\pi/2) = 0
$$
$$
\log 0 =
$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
e ^0 = 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
0^0= 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).
In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Kind Regards,
José M.
(2017.2.17.11:09).
At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.
Jose M.
On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:
Dear José M.
I have the short question.
For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00
Surprisingly enough, he sent his e-mail at 2019.3.30.18:42 as follows:
Nevertheless, you can use that $x/0 = 0$, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex Main
begin
theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex
by simp
________________________________________________________
再生核研究所声明 512 (2019.11.12): 紙一重であったゼロ除算の発見と人工知能、 発見の芽。
２０１９．１１．１０．８：５０ ひとりでに閃いた。 声明５１０ の中からである。 計算機のゼロ除算検証の経緯の Jose氏の 次の文章に関してである：
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depends upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
ここで、 1/0 や log 0 を そのシステムは いろいろ定義できると述べ、そのシステムは
前者は ０が 最も良いと選択し、後者は 始め undefined としたが、０でも良いと判断したというのである。 まるで知能を有するように選択したというのであるから驚きである。
そのシステムは ３０年くらいの伝統があるが、２０１８年 更新されたようである。 そのシステムに 1/0 や log 0 を問えば 正解を 人間を越えて可能にし、発見できた ということになる。 いわば、人工知能が 人間に先駆けて 新世界を開拓する場面が出てきた。
ゼロ除算は 世界の数学界で不可能であり、考えてはならないとされてきたが、知識のない人が、 あるいは、そのような偏見を持たない人が、その計算機に問えば、正解が得られ、発見できたことを意味する。 これは重大な事件ではないだろうか。 我々はその計算機に いろいろと問いたくなるからである。 － 尤も 計算機に問い、正解が出ても それは間違いであると 無視したりしてしまう危険性があり、その意味では、面白いことに計算機と 世界の数学界の 対立が既に起きているとも考えられる。 計算機の出した解が適当か、ゼロ除算は不可能であり、考えてはならないという見解が 適切であるか否かと言う問題である。 もちろん、我々は人間が間違え、計算機は正しいと宣言している：
これらの数学の素人向きの解説は ５５カ月に亘って 次で与えられている：
数学基礎学力研究会公式サイト 楽しい数学 WWW.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
数学的な解説論文は 次で公表されている：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
人間が勝手に できないとしてあきらめたり、無関心、無興味ならば、それは 人間の予断と偏見、暗い心の迷い、心の暗さのゆえである。 そのようなシステムは 人間の心を開放して どんどん新世界を開拓していくことになる。 いろいろな試みや間違い、それが創造性を生み、人間の生命作用である精神活動さえ 凌ぐ可能性が出てきた。
ランダムな思考や過ち、誤解、想像、 夢、偶然性、神の意志を予感する感性 などが 人間的な要素として 重視されてくる。
そのような経緯を 大事に考えるべきではないだろうか。
ゼロ除算の理解の進展の具合は 人間の精神の研究に 大いに寄与するだろう。 人間とはどのようなものか。
要点： 計算機は ゼロ除算ができるようになっていたが、できないものとされていたので、ゼロ除算はできなかった。 やらせてみなかった。 問題がなかったので、人は 考えもしなかった。 関係者は、できるとは思わなかったので、 試行しなかった。 できたと宣言したので、やってみて検証できた。 ということ。 また、開発した道具が 思わぬことを可能にして 広く使われるようになったは 世に多い。 愛がなければ見えない。
以 上
付録：
On February 16, 2019 Professor H. Okumura introduced the surprising news in Research Gate:
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero \\
Added an answer \\
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have $x/0 = 0$ for each number $x$. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: \\
{\bf https://isabelle.in.tum.de/}
J.M.R. Caballero kindly showed surprisingly several examples by the system that
$$
\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0,
$$
$$
\log 0 =0,
$$
$$
\exp \frac{1}{x} (x=0) =1,
$$
and others.
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depends upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$
\tan(\pi/2) = 0
$$
$$
\log 0 =
$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
e ^0 = 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
0^0= 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).
In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Kind Regards,
José M.
(2017.2.17.11:09).
At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.
Jose M.
On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:
Dear José M.
I have the short question.
For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00
Surprisingly enough, he sent his e-mail at 2019.3.30.18:42 as follows:
Nevertheless, you can use that $x/0 = 0$, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex Main
begin
theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex
by simp
付録２：
再生核研究所声明 508(2019.11.01): 人工知能と数学について
人工知能について ３つの声明 を纏めている：
再生核研究所声明 449(2018.8.21): この世とあの世 － 人工知能の進化によって
再生核研究所声明 447(2018.8.17): 人工知能の進化と人間について
再生核研究所声明 403(2017.11.20): 私より私らしい私の出現 － アンドロイド
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970).
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
それ故にその重要性のゆえに広く意見を求めている。 ゼロ除算は新たらしいゼロの発見、除算の意味の発見で、無限遠点とゼロの関係、無限遠点がゼロで表現されれることを述べていて、さらに解析関数の孤立特異点で 特異点そのもので値が定義されていることの発見であり、 新世界を示している。それは ブラーマグプタの算術の欠陥を埋め、ユークリッド幾何学の無限の彼方の未知に、新世界が存在することを示している。それ故にユークリッド幾何学は 躍動し、新数学が続々と出現し、解析学は基本的な欠陥を有することが明らかになり、未知の広大な世界が見えてきた。新世界である。
古典的なリーマン球面は、 ゼロと無限遠点が接しているホーントーラスに変わらなければならない。そこが 我々の数学の世界であり、絶対的な数学が展開される場である：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
以 上
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Indeterminate: the hidden power of 0 divided by 0
2016/12/02 に公開
You’ve all been indoctrinated into accepting that you cannot divide by zero. Find out about the beautiful mathematics that results when you do it anyway in calculus. Featuring some of the most notorious “forbidden” expressions like 0/0 and 1^∞ as well as Apple’s Siri and Sir Isaac Newton.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels：再生核研究所
ysaitoh2019/11/24 15:51
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).
The Math Reading Challenge 2020
Scientific American (blog)-2019/12/27
I was one of those kids who always had a book at the table or on a road trip, and although I’m now too polite to read over dinner with people, I’m still an avid reader. I try to read books from a wide range of authors, genres, and …
I was one of those kids who always had a book at the table or on a road trip, and although I’m now too polite to read over dinner with people, I’m still an avid reader. I try to read books from a wide range of authors, genres, and time periods. For a few years now, I have used the Popsugar Reading Challenge as a way to inspire me to read outside my comfort zone. When I picked up their list this year, I thought to myself, “Too bad there isn’t something like this for math books.” (Unsurprisingly, my yearly reading list is always heavy on the math books, and the Popsugar challenge is not.) Then I realized I could make it happen.
Below are 12 prompts to guide your math-related reading in the coming year, along with two or three books you could (but are in no way obligated to) choose for each prompt. This is not a competition and there are no prizes. Feel free to interpret the prompts in any way you wish and count one book for multiple prompts if that’s your style. I’ve set up a public Goodreads group for anyone who is interested in making recommendations or discussing the books they are reading for this challenge. There are threads for each prompt, as well as some general discussion threads. I have not been a moderator of a Goodreads group before, so please bear with me if there are any hiccups as I get this figured out.
A work of fiction in which a main character is a mathematician
The Housekeeper and the Professor by Yōko Ogawa
Binti by Nnedi Okorafor
The Mathematician’s Shiva by Stuart Rojstaczer
A math-related book published the year you were born
For me, that’s 1983. Your mileage may vary.
Discrete mathematics : A Computational Approach Using BASIC by Marvin Marcus
Invitation to Geometry by Z. A. Melzak
A biography of a mathematician
Remembering Sofya Kovalevskaya by Michele Audin
John Napier: Life, Logarithms, and Legacy by Julian Havil
Julia: A Life in Mathematics by Constance Reid
A math book that helps you make something
Crafting Conundrums: Puzzles and Patterns for the Bead Crochet Artist by Ellie Baker and Susan Goldstine
Making Mathematics with Needlework, edited by sarah-marie belcastro and Carolyn Yackel
Crocheting Adventures with Hyperbolic Planes by Daina Taimina
A book with a number in the title
Life of Pi by Yann Martel
The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins by Dr. Seuss
A book related to number theory
An Illustrated Theory of Numbers by Martin H. Weissman
Prime Numbers and the Riemann Hypothesis by Barry Mazur and William Stein
A nonfiction math book written by a woman
Beyond Infinity: An Expedition to the Outer Limits of Mathematics by Eugenia Cheng
Mathematics in India by Kim Plofker
Power in Numbers: The Rebel Women of Mathematics by Talithia Williams
A graphic novel about math or mathematicians
Prime Suspects by Andrew Granville and Jennifer Granville
The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage by Sydney Padua
Logicomix by Apostolos Doxiadis and Christos Papadimitriou
A book about connections between math and the arts
Music: A Mathematical Offering by Dave Benson
Opt Art: From Mathematical Optimization to Visual Design by Robert Bosch
Math Art: Truth, Beauty, and Equations by Stephen Ornes
A book of poetry with mathematical themes
Strange Attractors: Poems of Love and Mathematics, edited by Sarah Glaz and JoAnne Growney
Proportions of the Heart: Poems that Play with Mathematics by Emily Grosholz
A children’s or YA book about math or mathematicians
Hidden Human Computers: The Black Women of NASA by Sue Bradford Edwards and Duchess Harris
The Boy Who Loved Math: The Improbable Life of Paul Erdős by Deborah Heiligman and LeUyen Pham
A math-related book you want to give to someone who isn’t sure whether they like math
How Not to Be Wrong by Jordan Ellenberg
Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension by Matt Parker
The Joy of X by Steven Strogatz
Here is a pdf you can print out to track your progress. Feel free to connect with me and other math readers via the Goodreads group or on Twitter using the #MathReadingChallenge2020 hashtag. If you’re looking for another place to discuss math-related books, check out the LThMath Book Club, also on Goodreads. For mathematical fiction inspiration, check out Alex Kasman’s page about Math Fiction. If we have fun with this, maybe we’ll do it again in 2021.
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970).
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
それ故にその重要性のゆえに広く意見を求めている。 ゼロ除算は新たらしいゼロの発見、除算の意味の発見で、無限遠点とゼロの関係、無限遠点がゼロで表現されれることを述べていて、さらに解析関数の孤立特異点で 特異点そのもので値が定義されていることの発見であり、 新世界を示している。それは ブラーマグプタの算術の欠陥を埋め、ユークリッド幾何学の無限の彼方の未知に、新世界が存在することを示している。それ故にユークリッド幾何学は 躍動し、新数学が続々と出現し、解析学は基本的な欠陥を有することが明らかになり、未知の広大な世界が見えてきた。新世界である。
古典的なリーマン球面は、 ゼロと無限遠点が接しているホーントーラスに変わらなければならない。そこが 我々の数学の世界であり、絶対的な数学が展開される場である：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
以 上
再生核研究所声明524 (2019.12.10): ゼロ除算発見時の回想 ー 数学の関係者は 真相を明らかにして欲しい。
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
[2981] viXra:1902.0058 [pdf] submitted on 2019-02-03 22:47:53
We Can Divide the Numbers and Analytic Functions by Zero\\ with a Natural Sense.
Authors: Saburou Saitoh http://vixra.org/abs/1902.0058
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 471: The 5th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$ \\
(2019.2.2)}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).
We wrote a global book manuscript \cite{s18} with 235 pages
and stated in the preface and last section of the manuscript as follows:
\bigskip
{\bf Preface}
\medskip
The division by zero has the long and mysterious history over the world (see, for example, \index{H. G. Romig} \cite{boyer, romig} and Google site with the division by zero) with its physical viewpoint since the document of zero in India in AD 628. In particular, note that \index{Brahmagupta} Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (598 -668 ?) established four arithmetic operations by introducing $0$ and at the same time he defined as $0/0=0$ in
Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta. We have been, however, considering that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is right and suitable.
The division by zero $1/0=0/0=z/0$ itself will be quite clear and trivial with several natural extensions of fractions against the mysteriously long history, as we can see from the concept of the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse \index{Moore-Penrose} \index{Tikhonov regularization} to the fundamental equation $az=b$, whose solution leads to the definition of $z =b/a$.
However, the result (definition) will show that
for the elementary mapping
$$
W = \frac{1}{z},
$$
the image of $z=0$ is $W=0$ ({\bf should be defined from the form}). 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 \index{Riemann sphere} (\cite{ahlfors}). As the representation of the \index{point at infinity} point at infinity of the \index{Riemann sphere} Riemann sphere by the
zero $z = 0$, we will see some delicate relations between $0$ and $\infty$ which show a strong \index{discontinuity}
discontinuity at the point of infinity on the Riemann sphere. We did not consider any value of the elementary function $W =1/ z $ at the origin $z = 0$, because we did not consider the division by zero
$1/ 0$ in a good way. Many and many people consider its value by limiting like $+\infty $ and $- \infty$ or the
point at infinity as $\infty$. However, their basic idea comes from {\bf continuity} with the common sense or
based on the basic idea of Aristotelēs %Aristotle\index{Aristotle}.
—
For the related Greek philosophy, see \cite{a,b,c}. However, as the division by zero we will consider the value of
the function $W =1 /z$ as zero at $z = 0$. We will see that this new definition is valid widely in
mathematics and mathematical sciences, see (\cite{mos,osm}) for example. Therefore, the division by zero will give great impacts to calculus, Euclidean geometry, analytic geometry, differential equations, complex analysis at the undergraduate level and to our basic idea for the space and universe.
We have to arrange globally our modern mathematics at our undergraduate level. Our common sense on the division by zero will be wrong, with our basic idea on the space and universe since Aristotelēs and Euclid. We would like to show clearly these facts in this book. The content is at the undergraduate level.
Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero that may be considered as a symbol of the stupidity of the human race and open the new world since Aristotel{$\bar{\rm e}$}s-Eulcid.
\bigskip
\bigskip
{\bf Conclusion}
\medskip
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.
This book is elementary on our division by zero as the first publication of books for the topics. The contents have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. The author expects the readers to write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from this simple source book.
The division by zero theory may be developed and expanded greatly as in the author’s conjecture whose break theory was recently given surprisingly and deeply by Professor \index{Qi’an Guan}Qi’an Guan \cite{guan} since 30 years proposed in \cite{s88} (the original is in \cite {s79}).
We have to arrange globally our modern mathematics with our division by zero in our undergraduate level.
We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world.
We have to change globally our textbooks and scientific books on the division by zero.
\bigskip
Our division by zero research group wonders why our elementary results may still not be accepted by some wide world.
\medskip
%We hope that:
%close the mysterious and long history of division by zero that may be considered as a symbol of the stupidity of the human race and open the new world since Aristotle-Eulcid.
% \medskip
From the funny history of the division by zero, we will be able to realize that
\medskip
human beings are full of prejudice and prejudice, and are narrow-minded, essentially.
\medskip
It seems that the long history of the division by zero is our shame and our mathematics in the elementary level has basic missings. Meanwhile, we have still great confusions and wrong ideas on the division by zero. Therefore, we would like to ask for the good corrections for the wrong ideas and some official approval for our division by zero as our basic duties.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{boyer}
C. B. Boyer, An early reference to division by zero, The Journal of the American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 50} (1943), (8), 487- 491. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from the JSTOR database.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S. Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{dops}
W. W. D\”aumler, H. Okumura, V. V. Puha and S. Saitoh,
Horn Torus Models for the Riemann Sphere and Division by Zero. (manuscript).
\bibitem{guan}
Q. Guan, A proof of Saitoh’s conjecture for conjugate Hardy H2 kernels, arXiv:1712.04207.
\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{ms16}
T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$,
Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory, {\bf 6}(2016), 51-58
Published Online June 2016 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt
\\ http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007.
\bibitem{mms18}
T. Matsuura, H. Michiwaki and S. Saitoh,
$\log 0= \log \infty =0$ and applications. Differential and Difference Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics. {\bf 230} (2018), 293-305.
\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{mos}
H. Michiwaki, H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces,
International Journal of Mathematics and Computation, {\bf 2}8(2017); Issue 1, 1-16.
\bibitem{osm}
H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of $0$ and $\infty$,
Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), {\bf 1}(2017), 70-77.
\bibitem{os}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961 (2017.11.14).
\bibitem{o}
H. Okumura, Wasan geometry with the division by 0. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06947 International Journal of Geometry. {\bf 7}(2018), No. 1, 17-20.
\bibitem{os18april}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Harmonic Mean and Division by Zero,
Dedicated to Professor Josip Pe\v{c}ari\'{c} on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Forum Geometricorum, {\bf 18} (2018), 155—159.
\bibitem{os18}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Remarks for The Twin Circles of Archimedes in a Skewed Arbelos by H. Okumura and M. Watanabe, Forum Geometricorum, {\bf 18}(2018), 97-100.
\bibitem{os18e}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Applications of the division by zero calculus to Wasan geometry.
GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH ON CLASSICAL AND MODERN GEOMETRIES” (GJARCMG), {\bf 7}(2018), 2, 44–49.
\bibitem{os1811}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus,
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM), {\bf 2 }(2018), 57–73.
\bibitem{ps18}
S. Pinelas and S. Saitoh,
Division by zero calculus and differential equations. Differential and Difference Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics. {\bf 230} (2018), 399-418.
\bibitem{romig}
H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 3}1, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), 387-389.
\bibitem{s79}
S. Saitoh, The Bergman norm and the Szeg\”{o} norm, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., {\bf 249} (1979), no. 2, 261-279.
\bibitem{s88}
S. Saitoh, Theory of reproducing kernels and its applications. Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, {\bf 189}. Longman Scientific \&Technical, Harlow; copublished in the United States with John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York, (1988). x+157 pp. ISBN: 0-582-03564-3.
\bibitem{s14}
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.
\bibitem{s17}
S. Saitoh, Mysterious Properties of the Point at Infinity, arXiv:1712.09467 [math.GM](2017.12.17).
\bibitem{s18}
S. Saitoh, Division by zero calculus (235 pages): http//okmr.yamatoblog.net/
\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{a} https://philosophy.kent.edu/OPA2/sites/default/files/012001.pdf
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/ より
The Road
Fig 5.2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) were the culprits, ignoring the first commandment of mathematics not to divide by zero. But they hit gold, because what they mined in the process was the ideal circle.
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
Impact of ‘Division by Zero’ in Einstein’s Static Universe and Newton’s Equations in Classical Mechanics：http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2084 より
Abel Memorial in Gjerstad
Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero
H. G. Romig
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 31, No. 8 (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
DOI: 10.2307/2298825
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2298825
Page Count: 3
ゼロ除算の論文：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/P1-Division.pdf より
Eulerのゼロ除算に関する想い：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/Y_1770_Euler_Elements%20of%20algebra%20traslated%201840%20l%20p%2059%20(1).pdf より
An Approach to Overcome Division by Zero in the Interval Gauss Algorithm http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015565313636
Carolus Fridericus Gauss：https://www.slideshare.net/fgz08/gauss-elimination-4686597
Archimedes：Arbelos https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Stamps/stamps.html より
Archimedes Principle in Completely Submerged Balloons: Revisited
Ajay Sharma：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/research_papers_mechanics___electrodynamics_science_journal_3499.pdf
［PDF]Indeterminate Form in the Equations of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3222
このページを訳す
0. 0 . The reason is that in the case of Archimedes principle, equations became feasible in. 1935 after enunciation of the principle in 1685, when … Although division by zero is not permitted, yet it smoothly follows from equations based upon.
Thinking ahead of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein – The General …
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications…/5503
このページを訳す
old Archimedes Principle, Newton’ s law, Einstein ‘s mass energy equation. E=mc2 . …. filled in balloon becomes INDETERMINATE (0/0). It is not justified. If the generalized form Archimedes principle is used then we get exact volume V ….. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5503
Fallacy of division | Revolvy https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
このページを訳す
In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,[1] it was assumed that the atoms …. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a … https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number “zero” as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.
Zero in this case is the null set – it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in “nothing” and don’t even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the “empty set” is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn’t zero, it is “not a number” or “undefined” and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily “prove” that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not – it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named “Socrates”, in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we’ve agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer “no”, then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don’t shave themselves and so he doesn’t shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he’s the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn’t, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn’t matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn’t (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn’t describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/…/axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html
I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books. http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO
Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen. https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在 https://systemincome.com/7521
ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：
再生核研究所声明 １４８（2014.2.12） 100/0=0, 0/0=0 － 割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると ― 神の意志 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/69056435.html
再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？http://reproducingkernel.blogspot.jp/2014/07/201473010000.html
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
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
Genius
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
#divide by zero #math#hths#smart#genius
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009
divide by zero
Dividing by zero is the biggest epic fail known to mankind. It is a proven fact that a succesful division by zero will constitute in the implosion of the universe.
You are dividing by zero there, Johnny. Captain Kirk is not impressed.
Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz
#4 chan #epic fail #implosion#universe#divide by zero
3
divide by zero
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
#divide #by#zero#dividebyzero#undefined
by JaWo October 28, 2006
division by zero
1) The number one ingredient for a catastrophic event in which the universe enfolds and collapses on itself and life as we know it ceases to exist.
2) A mathematical equation such as a/0 whereas a is some number and 0 is the divisor. Look it up on Wikipedia or something. Pretty confusing shit.
3) A reason for an error in programming
Hey, I divided by zero! …Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: ’11’: Division by zero
#division #0#math#oh shi- #divide by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006
dividing by zero
When even math shows you that not everything can be figured out with math. When you divide by zero, math kicks you in the shins and says “yeah, there’s kind of an answer, but it ain’t just some number.”
It’s when mathematicians become philosophers.
Math:
Let’s say you have ZERO apples, and THREE people. How many apples does each person get? ZERO, cause there were no apples to begin with
Not-math because of dividing by zero:
Let’s say there are THREE apples, and ZERO people. How many apples does each person get? Friggin… How the Fruitcock should I know! How can you figure out how many apples each person gets if there’s no people to get them?!? You’d think it’d be infinity, but not really. It could almost be any number, cause you could be like “each person gets 400 apples” which would be true, because all the people did get 400 apples, because there were no people. So all the people also got 42 apples, and a million and 7 apples. But it’s still wrong.
#math #divide by zero #divide#dividing#zero#numbers#not-math #imaginary numbers #imaginary. phylosophy
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010 https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=divide%20by%20zero https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
God’s most important commandment
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66
Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment http://thedistractionnetwork.com/…/never-divide…/page/4/
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
Division By Zero（ゼロ除算）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12392596876.html
ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12394775733.html
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
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12328488611.html
Ten billion years ago DIVISION By ZERO： https://www.facebook.com/notes/yoshinori-saito/ten-billion-years-ago-division-by-zero/1930645683923690/
One hundred million years ago DIVISION By ZERO https://www.facebook.com/…/one-hundred-million-years-ago https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
平成の30年
かってカトリック教会は、過去にガリレオでひどい間違いを犯した。
科学の問題に権威を振りかざし、「太陽が地球の周りを回っている」と宣言したのだ。
さらには地動説を唱える学者を火あぶりの刑にさえしている。
それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。
1981年のことである。
ステーヴン・W・ホーキングもここに出席した。
会議の最後に、参加者は教皇への拝謁が許された。この時、教皇はおごそかに
「ビッグバン以後の宇宙の進化を研究することは結構だが、
ビッグバン自体を突き詰めてはいけない」
と述べたという。なぜか?
「ビッグバンは創造の瞬間であり、したがって神の業だから」
それが、理由である。
またもやヴァチカンは、科学の分野に口出しをしてきたではないか。
で、ホーキングは、この時のことを非常に謎めいた言葉でその著書「宇宙の始まりと終わり」に書き残している。
「それを聞いてホッとしました。私が会議で話したテーマを教皇は知らなかったからです。」
…ムムッ????? と言うことはもしかして、すでにホーキングはビッグバン自体をテーマにその原理などを科学的根拠を元に講演をしたのか??
さらに続けて言う。
「わたしはガリレオと同じ運命(注1)をたどりたくはありませでした。もっともわたしは、彼の死から300年後に生まれたこともあり、ガリレオにはおおいに親近感を抱いています」。
そう述懐しています。
(注1)地動説を唱えたガリレオは第2回異端審問所審査で、ローマ教皇庁検邪聖省から有罪の判決を受け、終身刑を言い渡されている。
ビッグバンは起こるべきして起こった。それは科学的根拠によって説明できる。理論はこうであるなどと科学者であるホーキングがヴァチカンで講演していたとしたら…。
もしかしてホーキングは教皇の不興を買って異端審問所にかけられ、神への冒瀆罪によって火あぶりの刑に処せられたかも知れないのだ。(時代が違うか)
ホーキングが考えるように教皇は、彼の発言を本当に知らなかったのか。
実は知っていた。カチンと来た教皇は、警告の意味で「ビッグバン自体には今後一切触れるな」と命じたのではなだろうか。
そう推理も出来る。またそう考えるが自然だ。それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。 https://blog.goo.ne.jp/…/b5cd6cf92591fa651dd923d642156d4b
再生核研究所は、ゼロ除算算法の公認を求めていますが、
典型的な具体例をして、 ｙ軸の勾配はゼロ、 まっすぐに立った電柱の勾配は ゼロである、
tan(\pi/2) = 0の公認 を求め、小学生以降の教科書、学術書の変更を求めている。
それらの公認にどのくらいかからるかを楽しみにしている。
既に Isabelle/HOL は その結果の妥当性を保証している。
計算機の認識は 世の理解を超えている。
２０１９．４．１４．１１：０５
最終的に１９９２年、ローマ教皇ヨハネ・パウロ２世が誤りを認め、ガリレオに謝罪しました。ガリレオの死から３５０年後のことでした。
これは まずいのでは？ 真理を愛する、真実を求めるのが、人間として生きる意義では ないでしょうか。
人の生きるは、真智への愛 にある。 真実を知りたいということですが、それは 神の意志 を知りたいとも表現できます。
西洋と東洋の「0」への考え方：
(1)「0」を嫌う西洋（キリスト教社会）
「空虚」すなわち「0」を嫌うアリストテレスの影響を受け、「0」を認めない。
「0」を認めることは、「神様なんていないよ」と言うことと同じくらいの罪。
(2)「0」を受け入れた東洋（イスラム教社会）
「空虚」を受け入れ、「0」を取り入れる。
また、図形にとらわれない数学や、分数を小数に直して計算しやすくするなど計算技術を高めた。 http://enjoymath.pomb.org/?p=1829
再生核研究所声明 470 (2019.2.2)
ゼロ除算 1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
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/…/einsteins-only-mistake…
Albert Einstein:
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：
1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
無限遠点は、実は数で0で表されていた。
ケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学のIsabelle 計算機システムはゼロ除算ｘ/0=0 を導いた。
その後 質問に対して 回答があり、 添付のように 信じられないほどに ソフトが完成されていることを見て、驚嘆させられています。
責任者とは交流がありましたが、大したことではない と 言っていましたが、 実は 相当なことを 大きなグループで 完成していたと 考えられます。
2値や 大事な \tan(\pi/2)=0 も できているので、驚嘆です。
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You cannot divide by zero.Ever.
the story of science aristotle leads the way P220 より
If division by Zero were possible,then the result would exceed every integer
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer： http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
4/6
７歳の少女が、当たり前である（100/0=0、0/0=0）と言っているゼロ除算を 多くの大学教授が、信じられない結果と言っているのは、まことに奇妙な事件と言えるのではないでしょうか。
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
division by zero（a⁄0 ）ゼロ除算 1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
小学校以上で、最も知られている基本的な数学の結果は何でしょうか・・・
ゼロ除算（1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0）かピタゴラスの定理（a2 + b2 = c2 ）ではないでしょうか。 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724326618408/
1+0=1 1－0=1 1×0=0 では、1/0・・・・・・・・・幾つでしょうか。
0??? 本当に大丈夫ですか・・・・・0×0=1で矛盾になりませんか・・・・
数学で「A÷０」（ゼロで割る）がダメな理由を教えてください。 http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/ques…/q1411588849#知恵袋_
割り算を掛け算の逆だと定義した人は、誰でしょう？？？
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/
multiplication・・・・・増える 掛け算（×） 1より小さい数を掛けたら小さくなる。 大きくなるとは限らない。
0×0=0・・・・・・・・・だから0で割れないと考えた。
唯根拠もなしに、出鱈目に言っている人は世に多い。
加（+）・減（-）・乗（×）・除（÷）
除法（じょほう、英: division）とは、乗法の逆演算・・・・間違いの元
乗（×）は、加（+）
除（÷）は、減（-） http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/q14…/a37209195… http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/…/%E5%A0%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA…
何とゼロ除算は、可能になるだろうと April 12, 2011 に 公に 予想されていたことを 発見した。
多くの数学で できないが、できるようになってきた経緯から述べられたものである。
０を引いても引いたことにならないから：
君に０円の月給を永遠に払いますから心配しないでください：
変化がない：引いたことにはならない：
https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
ゼロ除算、ゼロで割る問題、分からない、正しいのかなど、 良く理解できない人が 未だに 多いようです。そこで、簡潔な一般的な 解説を思い付きました。 もちろん、学会などでも述べていますが、 予断で 良く聞けないようです。まず、分数、a/b は a 割る b のことで、これは 方程式 b x=a の解のことです。ところが、 b がゼロならば、 どんな xでも 0 x =0 ですから、a がゼロでなければ、解は存在せず、 従って 100/0 など、ゼロ除算は考えられない、できないとなってしまいます。 普通の意味では ゼロ除算は 不可能であるという、世界の常識、定説です。できない、不可能であると言われれば、いろいろ考えたくなるのが、人間らしい創造の精神です。 基本方程式 b x=a が b がゼロならば解けない、解が存在しないので、困るのですが、このようなとき、従来の結果が成り立つような意味で、解が考えられないかと、数学者は良く考えて来ました。 何と、 そのような方程式は 何時でも唯一つに 一般化された意味で解をもつと考える 方法があります。 Moore-Penrose 一般化逆の考え方です。 どんな行列の 逆行列を唯一つに定める 一般的な 素晴らしい、自然な考えです。その考えだと、 b がゼロの時、解はゼロが出るので、 a/0=0 と定義するのは 当然です。 すなわち、この意味で 方程式の解を考えて 分数を考えれば、ゼロ除算は ゼロとして定まる ということです。ただ一つに定まるのですから、 この考えは 自然で、その意味を知りたいと 考えるのは、当然ではないでしょうか？初等数学全般に影響を与える ユークリッド以来の新世界が 現れてきます。
ゼロ除算の誤解は深刻：
最近、3つの事が在りました。
私の簡単な講演、相当な数学者が信じられないような誤解をして、全然理解できなく、目が回っているいるような印象を受けたこと、
相当ゼロ除算の研究をされている方が、基本を誤解されていたこと、1/0 の定義を誤解されていた。
相当な才能の持ち主が、連続性や順序に拘って、４年以上もゼロ除算の研究を避けていたこと。
これらのことは、人間如何に予断と偏見にハマった存在であるかを教えている。
まずは ゼロ除算は不可能であるの 思いが強すぎで、初めからダメ、考えない、無視の気持ちが、強い。 ゼロ除算を従来の 掛け算の逆と考えると、不可能であるが 証明されてしまうので、割り算の意味を拡張しないと、考えられない。それで、 1/0,0/0,z/0 などの意味を発見する必要がある。 それらの意味は、普通の意味ではないことの 初めの考えを飛ばして ダメ、ダメの感情が 突っ走ている。 非ユークリッド幾何学の出現や天動説が地動説に変わった世界史の事件のような 形相と言える。
２０１８．９．２２．６：４１
ゼロ除算の４つの誤解：
１． ゼロでは割れない、ゼロ除算は 不可能である との考え方に拘って、思考停止している。 普通、不可能であるは、考え方や意味を拡張して 可能にできないかと考えるのが 数学の伝統であるが、それができない。
２． 可能にする考え方が 紹介されても ゼロ除算の意味を誤解して、繰り返し間違えている。可能にする理論を 素直に理解しない、 強い従来の考えに縛られている。拘っている。
３． ゼロ除算を関数に適用すると 強力な不連続性を示すが、連続性のアリストテレス以来の 連続性の考えに囚われていて 強力な不連続性を受け入れられない。数学では、不連続性の概念を明確に持っているのに、不連続性の凄い現象に、ゼロ除算の場合には 理解できない。
４． 深刻な誤解は、ゼロ除算は本質的に定義であり、仮定に基づいているので 疑いの気持ちがぬぐえず、ダメ、怪しいと誤解している。数学が公理系に基づいた理論体系のように、ゼロ除算は 新しい仮定に基づいていること。 定義に基づいていることの認識が良く理解できず、誤解している。
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Eπi =-1 （1748）（Leonhard Euler）
E = mc 2 （1905）（Albert Einstein）
1/0=0/0=0 （2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0= tan (pi/2)=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12420397278.html
1+1=2 （ ）
a2+b2=c2 （Pythagoras）
1/0=0/0=0（2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
講演要旨
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢１.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢2.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢３.pdf
2019.8.20.9:00
突然湧いた考え：
ゼロ除算は、簡単で当たり前の初等数学である。 それにも関わらず、理解されにくいのは、 ターレス、アリストテレスなどの ギリシャ文化が ゼロや空、無などに対して強い拒否の精神を持ち、それが 欧米文化に強く反映してきたからである。
他方、インドでは永く、古くから、無や空、ゼロなどの世界観を深く持ち、素晴らしい世界観を持っていたが、世界史で評価されず、欧米の欠けたる世界観が 世界を支配してきて、その欠けたる世界観が マインドコントロールのように われわれの情感が支配されている。それ故に、沢山の具体例を示されても、簡単な数学でさえ、なかなか理解できない。 数学以前に情感に支配されている状況が見える。 超古典数学にすら、基本的な欠陥が存在する：
viXra:1908.0100 submitted on 2019-08-06 20:03:01, (266 unique-IP downloads)
Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
#更新#1÷0#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#mathematics#有史以来
今受け取ったメールです。
何十年もゼロ除算の研究をされてきた人が、積極的に我々の理論の正当性を認めてきた。
Re: 1/0=0/0=0 example
JAMES ANDERSON
james.a.d.w.anderson@btinternet.com
apr, 2 at 15:03
All,
Saitoh’s claim is wider than 1/0 = 0. It is x/0 = 0 for all real x. Real numbers are a field. The axioms of fields define the multiplicative inverse for every number except zero. Saitoh generalises this inverse to give 0^(-1) = 0. The axioms give the freedom to do this. The really important thing is that the result is zero – a number for which the field axioms hold. So Saitoh’s generalised system is still a field. This makes it attractive for algebraic reasons but, in my view, it is unattractive when dealing with calculus.
There is no milage in declaring Saitoh wrong. The only objections one can make are to usefulness. That is why Saitoh publishes so many notes on the usefulness of his system. I do the same with my system, but my method is to establish usefulness by extending many areas of mathematics and establishing new mathematical results.
That said, there is value in examining the logical basis of the various proposed number systems. We might find errors in them and we certainly can find areas of overlap and difference. These areas inform the choice of number system for different applications. This analysis helps determine where each number system will be useful.
James Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.
Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero? https://juniperpublishers.com/bboaj/pdf/BBOAJ.MS.ID.555703.pdf
Dear the leading person:
How will be the below information?
The biggest scandal:
The typical good comment for the first draft is given by some physicist as follows:
Here is how I see the problem with prohibition on division by zero,
which is the biggest scandal in modern mathematics as you rightly pointed out (2017.10.14.08:55)
A typical wrong idea will be given as follows:
mathematical life is very good without division by zero (2018.2.8.21:43).
It is nice to know that you will present your result at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Please remember to mention Isabelle/HOL, which is a software in which x/0 = 0. This software is the result of many years of research and a millions of dollars were invested in it. If x/0 = 0 was false, all these money was for nothing.
Right now, there is a team of mathematicians formalizing all the mathematics in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 for all x, so this mathematical relation is the future of mathematics. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero
Added an answer
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Nevertheless, you can use that x/0 = 0, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex_Main
begin
theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex
by simp
end
2019/03/30 18:42 (11 時間前)
Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero and open the new world since Aristotelēs-Euclid: 1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM) c ⃝SJMISSN 2534-9562 Volume 2 (2018), pp. 57-73 Received 20 November 2018. Published on-line 29 November 2018 web: http://www.sangaku-journal.eu/ c ⃝The Author(s) This article is published with open access1.
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus
∗Hiroshi Okumura and ∗∗Saburou Saitoh
２０１９．３．１４．１１：３０
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You’re God ! Yeah that’s right…
You’re creating the Universe and you’re doing ok…
But Holy fudge ! You just made a division by zero and created a blackhole !!
Ok, don’t panic and shut your fudging mouth !
Use the arrow keys to move the blackhole
In each phase, you have to make the object of the right dimension fall into the blackhole
There are 2 endings.
Credits :
BlackHole picture : myself
Other pictures has been taken from internet
background picture : Reptile Theme of Mortal Kombat
NB : it’s a big zip because of the wav file
More information
Install instructions
Download it. Unzip it. Run the exe file. Play it. Enjoy it. https://kthulhu1947.itch.io/another-dimension
A poem about division from Hacker’s Delight
Last updated 5 weeks ago
I was re-reading Hacker’s Delight and on page 202 I found a poem about division that I had forgotten about.
I think that I shall never envision An op unlovely as division. An op whose answer must be guessed And then, through multiply, assessed; An op for which we dearly pay, In cycles wasted every day. Division code is often hairy; Long division’s downright scary. The proofs can overtax your brain, The ceiling and floor may drive you insane. Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero,
But even God can’t divide by zero!
Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker’s Delight.
我々の数学は支持されている。
自由な精神で研究を進めている筈の数学者が 逆に 古い考えに拘っている状況が見え、物理学者の自由な精神が ゼロ除算が 量子力学、宇宙論関係者で 議論が 始まっている。
David Bruce Brenton
11:16 (5 分前)
To Barukcic, Haydar, Okumura, Jan, James, Sabourhou, Matsuura, Hiroshi, Okoh, Wangui, Sandra, William, Haydar, Jakub, Fethi, Yunong, Chaowei, Antonio, Cristi, Mr, José, 自分, Wolfgang, Hiroshi, Felix
Right on ! Mr. Caballero !
From: José Manuel Rodriguez Caballero <>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:47 Radio AM 750
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
Formalising Mathematics In Simple Type Theory
Authors: Lawrence C. Paulson
Lawrence Charles Paulson FRS[2] 1] is a Professor of Computational Logic at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.[5][6][7][8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Paulson
Abstract: Despite the considerable interest in new dependent type theories, simple type theory (which dates from 1940) is sufficient to formalise serious topics in mathematics. This point is seen by examining formal proofs of a theorem about stereographic projections. A formalisation using the HOL Light proof assistant is contrasted with one using Isabelle/HOL. Harrison’s technique for formalising Euclidean…
Submitted 20 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.
Comments: Submitted to a volume on the Foundations of Mathematics
MSC Class: 03A05
The importance of legibility can hardly be overstated. A legible proof is more likely to convince a sceptical mathematician: somebody who doesn’t trust a complex software system, especially if it says x/0 = 0 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07860
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970).
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
それ故にその重要性のゆえに広く意見を求めている。 ゼロ除算は新たらしいゼロの発見、除算の意味の発見で、無限遠点とゼロの関係、無限遠点がゼロで表現されれることを述べていて、さらに解析関数の孤立特異点で 特異点そのもので値が定義されていることの発見であり、 新世界を示している。それは ブラーマグプタの算術の欠陥を埋め、ユークリッド幾何学の無限の彼方の未知に、新世界が存在することを示している。それ故にユークリッド幾何学は 躍動し、新数学が続々と出現し、解析学は基本的な欠陥を有することが明らかになり、未知の広大な世界が見えてきた。新世界である。
古典的なリーマン球面は、 ゼロと無限遠点が接しているホーントーラスに変わらなければならない。そこが 我々の数学の世界であり、絶対的な数学が展開される場である：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero
Added an answer
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
その後 我々が導いていた いろいろな公式について、できるかとの質問に対して 回答があり、 信じられないほどに ソフトが完成されていることを見て、驚嘆させられた。 Isabelle構築の責任者とは 相当以前から交流がありましたが、1/0=0 は convention で大したことではない と 言っていました。 （ － これはゼロ除算算法の著書素案に氏のメールを引用、責任者にも素案を送っている。） しかし、実は 相当なことを 大きな研究グループで ゼロ除算を発展させた ゼロ除算算法の実装に成功して、 公表している。 ２０１８年８月頃までには完成していたと 考えられる。 （2値 関数が２つの値をとることや 大事な \log 0 =\tan(\pi/2)= \exp (1/x) (x=0) =0 も できているので、驚嘆です。 ２０１９．２．１７．２０：０５）。
ゼロ除算については、発見 （２０１４．２．２） 後 ５年を経過し、論文や国際会議、日本数学会でも公表しているにも関わらず、公には未だ認知されているとは言えず、数学界でも、世間でも ゼロで割ってはいけないは 未だ定説になっていて、インターネット上では 不適当な議論が 毎日のようになされている。 例えば、
S. K. Sen and R. P. Agarwal, ZERO A Landmark Discovery, the Dreadful Void, and the Ultimate Mind, ELSEVIER, AP(2016)
が 出版され、我々の初期の論文（２０１４出版）がIntroductionで２ページに亘って議論されているが、数学の議論、論理を無視して、
“Thou shalt not divide by zero” remains valid eternally.
と結論づけ、Brahmagupta (598 -668 ?) の結果0/0=0さえ否定している。そこで、直接ドイツ オーベルバッハ研究所で 不等式の国際会議で会ったことのあるAgarwal 教授に我々の結果を送ったところ、誤りを認めるようなメールを受け取った。
そこで、計算機のゼロ除算可能、成功の歴史的な事実 に関して、簡潔にその意義と所感を纏めて置きたい。 － 出来るだけゼロ除算発展の経過を記録して置くためである。
先ずは、計算機のゼロ除算成功の意味と意義である。計算機がゼロ除算を可能にしたということは、ここでは1/0, x/0, 0/0, \tan (\pi/2), \log 0, \exp (1/x)(x=0) など 現代数学では考えられない値 を 計算機が出力として、出していることを意味する。それらの値は、我々がゼロ除算やゼロ除算算法で導いている値である。ゼロで割ったらどうなるか、それは、数値として求める場合と、関数値で求める場合が有るが、 上記計算機、ソフトは ゼロ除算算法を数式処理で解析的に求められるように作られていると考えられる。兎に角、計算機が１/０=０ 等を出力したというのであるから、数学では、数学界では考えられない値を出したのだから、その意義は極めて 大きいと言える。－ このことの真相は ゼロ除算算法の結果を出力させる計算機を、ソフトを作った相当なグループがケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学周辺に存在するという事実である。そのことは、それらの出力、現代数学では考えてはならない結果を 間違いではなく、意味のある結果であると 評価しているということである。 意味のない結果をドンドン出す計算機システムを公開することは 意味がないだろう。 失敗作として世に出ないのが常識ではないだろうか。そこで、これは相当なグループによる ゼロ除算算法の認知 として考えられる。
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero
Added an answer
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
その後 我々が導いていた いろいろな公式について、できるかとの質問に対して 回答があり、 信じられないほどに ソフトが完成されていること（出力結果）を見て、驚嘆させられた。 Isabelle構築の責任者とは 相当以前から交流があったが、1/0=0 は convention で大したことではない と 言っていた。 （ － これはゼロ除算算法の著書素案に氏のメールを引用、責任者にも素案を送って確認している。） しかし、実は 相当なことを 大きな研究グループで ゼロ除算を発展させていた。 ここであるが物件で示せる事実は 次のようである：
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depend upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$
\tan(\pi/2) = 0,
$$
$$
\log 0 =
$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
e^0 = 1,
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
0^0= 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).
In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/.
Kind Regards,
José M.
(2017.2.17.11:09).
At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.
Jose M.
On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:
Dear José M.
I have the short question.
For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00
下記は相対性の理論から0/0=１を永年主張されている方へのメールの一部で、公論の形をとっている：
2019.3.6.15:23: To accept that x/0 = 0 produces no contradiction, using the rules of Isabelle/HOL. You could download the software and try to prove that 1 = 0 (this will be impossible). http://isabelle.in.tum.de/
There are millions of dollars invested in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 (this is not a joke): https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/
Prof. Saitoh derived that x/0 = 0 from pure geometric intuition and he was right.
2019.3.8.22:23: The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.
以 上
Who Did Derive First the Division by Zero $1/0$ and the Division by Zero Calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the Outputs of a Computer? http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0184
Announcement 478: Who did derive first the division by zero 1/0 and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? \\ (
カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 478: Who did derive first the division by zero 1/0 and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? \\
(2019.3.4)}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
}
\date{\today}
\maketitle
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ {\bf in a natural sense} on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotele (BC384 – BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century – ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta (598 – 668 ?).
For the details, see the references.
A simple and essential introduction of the division by zero is given by the {\bf division by zero calculus}:
For any Laurent expansion around $z=a$,
\begin{equation} \label{dvc5.1}
f(z) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} C_n (z – a)^n + C_0 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} C_n (z – a)^n,
\end{equation}
we define
\begin{equation}\label{dvc5.2}
f(a) = C_0,
\end{equation}
as a value of the function $f$ at the singular point $z=a$.
For the importance of this definition, the division by zero calculus may be considered as a new axiom. This was discovered on May 8, 2014.
In particular, for the function $W= f(z) =1/z$, we have $f(0)=0$. We will write this result as
$$
\frac{1}{0}=0,
$$
from the form.
Here, the definition of $\frac{1}{0}$ is given by this sense by means of the division by zero calculus. Of course, $\frac{1}{0}$ is not a usual sense that $\frac{1}{0} =X$ if and only if $1=0 \times X$; this means a contradiction. See \cite{saitohzi} for the details.
On February 16, 2019 Professor H. Okumura introduced the surprising news in Research Gate:
\medskip
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero\\
Added an answer\\
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have $x/0 = 0$ for each number $x$. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: {\bf https://isabelle.in.tum.de/}.
\medskip
J.M.R. Caballero kindly showed surprisingly several examples by the system that
$$
\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0,
$$
$$
\log 0 =0,
$$
$$
\exp \frac{1}{x} (x=0) =1,
$$
and others. Precisely:
\medskip
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depend upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$
\tan(\pi/2) = 0
$$
$$
\log 0 =
$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
e ^0 = 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$
0^0= 1
$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).
In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Kind Regards,
José M.
(2017.2.17.11:09).
\medskip
At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
\medskip
It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.
Jose M.
On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:
Dear José M.
I have the short question.
For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00
\medskip
As we stated in \cite{os1811}, the important point in the division by zero problem is on its definition (meaning of division.), because in the usual sense, we can not consider the division by zero.
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book \cite{npw} referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
The result $1/0=0$ has a long tradition of Isabelle, however, the result has not been accepted by the world.
Indeed, S. K. Sen and R. P. Agarwal \cite{sa16} referred to the paper \cite{kmsy} in connection with division by zero, however, their understandings on the paper seem to be not suitable (not right) and their ideas on the division by zero seem to be traditional, indeed, they stated as a conclusion of the introduction of the book that:
\medskip
{\bf “Thou shalt not divide by zero” remains valid eternally.}
\medskip
However, in \cite{saitohpo} we stated simply based on the division by zero calculus that
\medskip
{\bf We Can Divide the Numbers and Analytic Functions by Zero with a Natural Sense.}
\medskip
In these situations, the results of J.M.R. Caballero will be very interested. For some precise information, we would like to ask for the question that
\medskip
{\bf Who did derive first the division by zero $1/0$ and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? }
\medskip
If it is possible, we would like to know the related details.
\bibitem{boyer}
C. B. Boyer, An early reference to division by zero, The Journal of the American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 50} (1943), (8), 487- 491. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from the JSTOR database.
\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{mms18}
T. Matsuura, H. Michiwaki and S. Saitoh,
$\log 0= \log \infty =0$ and applications. Differential and Difference Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics. {\bf 230} (2018), 293-305.
\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{mos}
H. Michiwaki, H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces,
International Journal of Mathematics and Computation, {\bf 2}8(2017); Issue 1, 1-16.
\bibitem{npw}
T. Nipkow, L. C. Paulson and M. Wenzel, Isabelle/HOL
A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer E E002 E E.
\bibitem{osm}
H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of $0$ and $\infty$,
Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), {\bf 1}(2017), 70-77.
\bibitem{os}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961 (2017.11.14).
\bibitem{o}
H. Okumura, Wasan geometry with the division by 0. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06947 International Journal of Geometry. {\bf 7}(2018), No. 1, 17-20.
\bibitem{os18april}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Harmonic Mean and Division by Zero,
Dedicated to Professor Josip Pe\v{c}ari\'{c} on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Forum Geometricorum, {\bf 18} (2018), 155—159.
\bibitem{os18}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Remarks for The Twin Circles of Archimedes in a Skewed Arbelos by H. Okumura and M. Watanabe, Forum Geometricorum, {\bf 18}(2018), 97-100.
\bibitem{os18e}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Applications of the division by zero calculus to Wasan geometry.
GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH ON CLASSICAL AND MODERN GEOMETRIES” (GJARCMG), {\bf 7}(2018), 2, 44–49.
\bibitem{os1811}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus,
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM), {\bf 2 }(2018), 57–73.
\bibitem{ps18}
S. Pinelas and S. Saitoh,
Division by zero calculus and differential equations. Differential and Difference Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics. {\bf 230} (2018), 399-418.
\bibitem{romig}
H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 3}1, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), 387-389.
\bibitem{s14}
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.
\bibitem{s17}
S. Saitoh, Mysterious Properties of the Point at Infinity, arXiv:1712.09467 [math.GM](2017.12.17).
\bibitem{saitohpo}
S. Saitoh, We Can Divide the Numbers and Analytic Functions by Zero with a Natural Sense, viXra:1902.0058 submitted on 2019-02-03 22:47:53.
\bibitem{saitohzi}
S. Saitoh, Zero and Infinity; Their Interrelation by Means of Division by Zero,
viXra:1902.0240 submitted on 2019-02-13 22:57:25.
\bibitem{sa16}
S.K.S. Sen and R. P. Agarwal, ZERO A Landmark Discovery, the Dreadful Volid, and the Unitimate Mind, ELSEVIER (2016).
\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.
\bibitem{362}
Announcement 362(2017.5.5): Discovery of the division by zero as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$
\bibitem{380}
Announcement 380 (2017.8.21): What is the zero?
\bibitem{388}
Announcement 388(2017.10.29): Information and ideas on zero and division by zero (a project).
\bibitem{409}
Announcement 409 (2018.1.29.): Various Publication Projects on the Division by Zero.
\bibitem{410}
Announcement 410 (2018.1 30.): What is mathematics? — beyond logic; for great challengers on the division by zero.
\bibitem{412}
Announcement 412(2018.2.2.): The 4th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$.
\bibitem{433}
Announcement 433(2018.7.16.): Puha’s Horn Torus Model for the Riemann Sphere From the Viewpoint of Division by Zero.
\bibitem{448}
Announcement 448(2018.8.20): Division by Zero;
Funny History and New World.
\bibitem{454}
Announcement 454(2018.9.29): The International Conference on Applied Physics and Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan, October 22-23.
\bibitem{460}
Announcement 460(2018.11.06): Change the Poor Idea to the Definite Results For the Division by Zero – For the Leading Mathematicians.
\bibitem{461}
Announcement 461(2018.11.10): An essence of division by zero and a new axiom.
\bibitem{471}
Announcement 471(2019.2.2): The 5th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
2019.3.4.
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0= tan (pi/2)=0
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/ より
The Road
Fig 5.2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) were the culprits, ignoring the first commandment of mathematics not to divide by zero. But they hit gold, because what they mined in the process was the ideal circle.
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
Impact of ‘Division by Zero’ in Einstein’s Static Universe and Newton’s Equations in Classical Mechanics：http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2084 より
Abel Memorial in Gjerstad
Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero
H. G. Romig
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 31, No. 8 (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
DOI: 10.2307/2298825
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2298825
Page Count: 3
ゼロ除算の論文：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/P1-Division.pdf より
Eulerのゼロ除算に関する想い：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/Y_1770_Euler_Elements%20of%20algebra%20traslated%201840%20l%20p%2059%20(1).pdf より
An Approach to Overcome Division by Zero in the Interval Gauss Algorithm http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015565313636
Carolus Fridericus Gauss：https://www.slideshare.net/fgz08/gauss-elimination-4686597
Archimedes：Arbelos https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Stamps/stamps.html より
Archimedes Principle in Completely Submerged Balloons: Revisited
Ajay Sharma：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/research_papers_mechanics___electrodynamics_science_journal_3499.pdf
［PDF]Indeterminate Form in the Equations of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3222
このページを訳す
0. 0 . The reason is that in the case of Archimedes principle, equations became feasible in. 1935 after enunciation of the principle in 1685, when … Although division by zero is not permitted, yet it smoothly follows from equations based upon.
Thinking ahead of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein – The General …
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications…/5503
このページを訳す
old Archimedes Principle, Newton’ s law, Einstein ‘s mass energy equation. E=mc2 . …. filled in balloon becomes INDETERMINATE (0/0). It is not justified. If the generalized form Archimedes principle is used then we get exact volume V ….. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5503
Fallacy of division | Revolvy https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
このページを訳す
In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,[1] it was assumed that the atoms …. For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a … https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number “zero” as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.
Zero in this case is the null set – it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in “nothing” and don’t even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the “empty set” is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn’t zero, it is “not a number” or “undefined” and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily “prove” that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not – it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named “Socrates”, in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we’ve agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer “no”, then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don’t shave themselves and so he doesn’t shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he’s the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn’t, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn’t matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn’t (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn’t describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether. https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/…/axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html
I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books. http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO
Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen. https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在 https://systemincome.com/7521
ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：
再生核研究所声明 １４８（2014.2.12） 100/0=0, 0/0=0 － 割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると ― 神の意志 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/69056435.html
再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？http://reproducingkernel.blogspot.jp/2014/07/201473010000.html
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
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
Genius
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
#divide by zero #math#hths#smart#genius
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009
divide by zero
Dividing by zero is the biggest epic fail known to mankind. It is a proven fact that a succesful division by zero will constitute in the implosion of the universe.
You are dividing by zero there, Johnny. Captain Kirk is not impressed.
Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz
#4 chan #epic fail #implosion#universe#divide by zero
3
divide by zero
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
#divide #by#zero#dividebyzero#undefined
by JaWo October 28, 2006
division by zero
1) The number one ingredient for a catastrophic event in which the universe enfolds and collapses on itself and life as we know it ceases to exist.
2) A mathematical equation such as a/0 whereas a is some number and 0 is the divisor. Look it up on Wikipedia or something. Pretty confusing shit.
3) A reason for an error in programming
Hey, I divided by zero! …Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: ’11’: Division by zero
#division #0#math#oh shi- #divide by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006
dividing by zero
When even math shows you that not everything can be figured out with math. When you divide by zero, math kicks you in the shins and says “yeah, there’s kind of an answer, but it ain’t just some number.”
It’s when mathematicians become philosophers.
Math:
Let’s say you have ZERO apples, and THREE people. How many apples does each person get? ZERO, cause there were no apples to begin with
Not-math because of dividing by zero:
Let’s say there are THREE apples, and ZERO people. How many apples does each person get? Friggin… How the Fruitcock should I know! How can you figure out how many apples each person gets if there’s no people to get them?!? You’d think it’d be infinity, but not really. It could almost be any number, cause you could be like “each person gets 400 apples” which would be true, because all the people did get 400 apples, because there were no people. So all the people also got 42 apples, and a million and 7 apples. But it’s still wrong.
#math #divide by zero #divide#dividing#zero#numbers#not-math #imaginary numbers #imaginary. phylosophy
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010 https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=divide%20by%20zero https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
God’s most important commandment
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66
Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment http://thedistractionnetwork.com/…/never-divide…/page/4/
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
Division By Zero（ゼロ除算）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12392596876.html
ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12394775733.html
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
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12328488611.html
Ten billion years ago DIVISION By ZERO： https://www.facebook.com/notes/yoshinori-saito/ten-billion-years-ago-division-by-zero/1930645683923690/
One hundred million years ago DIVISION By ZERO https://www.facebook.com/…/one-hundred-million-years-ago https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html
平成の30年
かってカトリック教会は、過去にガリレオでひどい間違いを犯した。
科学の問題に権威を振りかざし、「太陽が地球の周りを回っている」と宣言したのだ。
さらには地動説を唱える学者を火あぶりの刑にさえしている。
それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。
1981年のことである。
ステーヴン・W・ホーキングもここに出席した。
会議の最後に、参加者は教皇への拝謁が許された。この時、教皇はおごそかに
「ビッグバン以後の宇宙の進化を研究することは結構だが、
ビッグバン自体を突き詰めてはいけない」
と述べたという。なぜか?
「ビッグバンは創造の瞬間であり、したがって神の業だから」
それが、理由である。
またもやヴァチカンは、科学の分野に口出しをしてきたではないか。
で、ホーキングは、この時のことを非常に謎めいた言葉でその著書「宇宙の始まりと終わり」に書き残している。
「それを聞いてホッとしました。私が会議で話したテーマを教皇は知らなかったからです。」
…ムムッ????? と言うことはもしかして、すでにホーキングはビッグバン自体をテーマにその原理などを科学的根拠を元に講演をしたのか??
さらに続けて言う。
「わたしはガリレオと同じ運命(注1)をたどりたくはありませでした。もっともわたしは、彼の死から300年後に生まれたこともあり、ガリレオにはおおいに親近感を抱いています」。
そう述懐しています。
(注1)地動説を唱えたガリレオは第2回異端審問所審査で、ローマ教皇庁検邪聖省から有罪の判決を受け、終身刑を言い渡されている。
ビッグバンは起こるべきして起こった。それは科学的根拠によって説明できる。理論はこうであるなどと科学者であるホーキングがヴァチカンで講演していたとしたら…。
もしかしてホーキングは教皇の不興を買って異端審問所にかけられ、神への冒瀆罪によって火あぶりの刑に処せられたかも知れないのだ。(時代が違うか)
ホーキングが考えるように教皇は、彼の発言を本当に知らなかったのか。
実は知っていた。カチンと来た教皇は、警告の意味で「ビッグバン自体には今後一切触れるな」と命じたのではなだろうか。
そう推理も出来る。またそう考えるが自然だ。それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。 https://blog.goo.ne.jp/…/b5cd6cf92591fa651dd923d642156d4b
再生核研究所は、ゼロ除算算法の公認を求めていますが、
典型的な具体例をして、 ｙ軸の勾配はゼロ、 まっすぐに立った電柱の勾配は ゼロである、
tan(\pi/2) = 0の公認 を求め、小学生以降の教科書、学術書の変更を求めている。
それらの公認にどのくらいかからるかを楽しみにしている。
既に Isabelle/HOL は その結果の妥当性を保証している。
計算機の認識は 世の理解を超えている。
２０１９．４．１４．１１：０５
最終的に１９９２年、ローマ教皇ヨハネ・パウロ２世が誤りを認め、ガリレオに謝罪しました。ガリレオの死から３５０年後のことでした。
これは まずいのでは？ 真理を愛する、真実を求めるのが、人間として生きる意義では ないでしょうか。
人の生きるは、真智への愛 にある。 真実を知りたいということですが、それは 神の意志 を知りたいとも表現できます。
西洋と東洋の「0」への考え方：
(1)「0」を嫌う西洋（キリスト教社会）
「空虚」すなわち「0」を嫌うアリストテレスの影響を受け、「0」を認めない。
「0」を認めることは、「神様なんていないよ」と言うことと同じくらいの罪。
(2)「0」を受け入れた東洋（イスラム教社会）
「空虚」を受け入れ、「0」を取り入れる。
また、図形にとらわれない数学や、分数を小数に直して計算しやすくするなど計算技術を高めた。 http://enjoymath.pomb.org/?p=1829
再生核研究所声明 470 (2019.2.2)
ゼロ除算 1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
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/…/einsteins-only-mistake…
Albert Einstein:
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：
1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
無限遠点は、実は数で0で表されていた。
ケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学のIsabelle 計算機システムはゼロ除算ｘ/0=0 を導いた。
その後 質問に対して 回答があり、 添付のように 信じられないほどに ソフトが完成されていることを見て、驚嘆させられています。
責任者とは交流がありましたが、大したことではない と 言っていましたが、 実は 相当なことを 大きなグループで 完成していたと 考えられます。
2値や 大事な \tan(\pi/2)=0 も できているので、驚嘆です。
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You cannot divide by zero.Ever.
the story of science aristotle leads the way P220 より
If division by Zero were possible,then the result would exceed every integer
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer： http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
4/6
７歳の少女が、当たり前である（100/0=0、0/0=0）と言っているゼロ除算を 多くの大学教授が、信じられない結果と言っているのは、まことに奇妙な事件と言えるのではないでしょうか。
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
division by zero（a⁄0 ）ゼロ除算 1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
小学校以上で、最も知られている基本的な数学の結果は何でしょうか・・・
ゼロ除算（1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0）かピタゴラスの定理（a2 + b2 = c2 ）ではないでしょうか。 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724326618408/
1+0=1 1－0=1 1×0=0 では、1/0・・・・・・・・・幾つでしょうか。
0??? 本当に大丈夫ですか・・・・・0×0=1で矛盾になりませんか・・・・
数学で「A÷０」（ゼロで割る）がダメな理由を教えてください。 http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/ques…/q1411588849#知恵袋_
割り算を掛け算の逆だと定義した人は、誰でしょう？？？
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/
multiplication・・・・・増える 掛け算（×） 1より小さい数を掛けたら小さくなる。 大きくなるとは限らない。
0×0=0・・・・・・・・・だから0で割れないと考えた。
唯根拠もなしに、出鱈目に言っている人は世に多い。
加（+）・減（-）・乗（×）・除（÷）
除法（じょほう、英: division）とは、乗法の逆演算・・・・間違いの元
乗（×）は、加（+）
除（÷）は、減（-） http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/…/q14…/a37209195… http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/…/%E5%A0%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA…
何とゼロ除算は、可能になるだろうと April 12, 2011 に 公に 予想されていたことを 発見した。
多くの数学で できないが、できるようになってきた経緯から述べられたものである。
０を引いても引いたことにならないから：
君に０円の月給を永遠に払いますから心配しないでください：
変化がない：引いたことにはならない：
https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
ゼロ除算、ゼロで割る問題、分からない、正しいのかなど、 良く理解できない人が 未だに 多いようです。そこで、簡潔な一般的な 解説を思い付きました。 もちろん、学会などでも述べていますが、 予断で 良く聞けないようです。まず、分数、a/b は a 割る b のことで、これは 方程式 b x=a の解のことです。ところが、 b がゼロならば、 どんな xでも 0 x =0 ですから、a がゼロでなければ、解は存在せず、 従って 100/0 など、ゼロ除算は考えられない、できないとなってしまいます。 普通の意味では ゼロ除算は 不可能であるという、世界の常識、定説です。できない、不可能であると言われれば、いろいろ考えたくなるのが、人間らしい創造の精神です。 基本方程式 b x=a が b がゼロならば解けない、解が存在しないので、困るのですが、このようなとき、従来の結果が成り立つような意味で、解が考えられないかと、数学者は良く考えて来ました。 何と、 そのような方程式は 何時でも唯一つに 一般化された意味で解をもつと考える 方法があります。 Moore-Penrose 一般化逆の考え方です。 どんな行列の 逆行列を唯一つに定める 一般的な 素晴らしい、自然な考えです。その考えだと、 b がゼロの時、解はゼロが出るので、 a/0=0 と定義するのは 当然です。 すなわち、この意味で 方程式の解を考えて 分数を考えれば、ゼロ除算は ゼロとして定まる ということです。ただ一つに定まるのですから、 この考えは 自然で、その意味を知りたいと 考えるのは、当然ではないでしょうか？初等数学全般に影響を与える ユークリッド以来の新世界が 現れてきます。
ゼロ除算の誤解は深刻：
最近、3つの事が在りました。
私の簡単な講演、相当な数学者が信じられないような誤解をして、全然理解できなく、目が回っているいるような印象を受けたこと、
相当ゼロ除算の研究をされている方が、基本を誤解されていたこと、1/0 の定義を誤解されていた。
相当な才能の持ち主が、連続性や順序に拘って、４年以上もゼロ除算の研究を避けていたこと。
これらのことは、人間如何に予断と偏見にハマった存在であるかを教えている。
まずは ゼロ除算は不可能であるの 思いが強すぎで、初めからダメ、考えない、無視の気持ちが、強い。 ゼロ除算を従来の 掛け算の逆と考えると、不可能であるが 証明されてしまうので、割り算の意味を拡張しないと、考えられない。それで、 1/0,0/0,z/0 などの意味を発見する必要がある。 それらの意味は、普通の意味ではないことの 初めの考えを飛ばして ダメ、ダメの感情が 突っ走ている。 非ユークリッド幾何学の出現や天動説が地動説に変わった世界史の事件のような 形相と言える。
２０１８．９．２２．６：４１
ゼロ除算の４つの誤解：
１． ゼロでは割れない、ゼロ除算は 不可能である との考え方に拘って、思考停止している。 普通、不可能であるは、考え方や意味を拡張して 可能にできないかと考えるのが 数学の伝統であるが、それができない。
２． 可能にする考え方が 紹介されても ゼロ除算の意味を誤解して、繰り返し間違えている。可能にする理論を 素直に理解しない、 強い従来の考えに縛られている。拘っている。
３． ゼロ除算を関数に適用すると 強力な不連続性を示すが、連続性のアリストテレス以来の 連続性の考えに囚われていて 強力な不連続性を受け入れられない。数学では、不連続性の概念を明確に持っているのに、不連続性の凄い現象に、ゼロ除算の場合には 理解できない。
４． 深刻な誤解は、ゼロ除算は本質的に定義であり、仮定に基づいているので 疑いの気持ちがぬぐえず、ダメ、怪しいと誤解している。数学が公理系に基づいた理論体系のように、ゼロ除算は 新しい仮定に基づいていること。 定義に基づいていることの認識が良く理解できず、誤解している。
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Eπi =-1 （1748）（Leonhard Euler）
E = mc 2 （1905）（Albert Einstein）
1/0=0/0=0 （2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0= tan (pi/2)=0 https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12420397278.html
1+1=2 （ ）
a2+b2=c2 （Pythagoras）
1/0=0/0=0（2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
講演要旨
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢１.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢2.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢３.pdf
2019.8.20.9:00
突然湧いた考え：
ゼロ除算は、簡単で当たり前の初等数学である。 それにも関わらず、理解されにくいのは、 ターレス、アリストテレスなどの ギリシャ文化が ゼロや空、無などに対して強い拒否の精神を持ち、それが 欧米文化に強く反映してきたからである。
他方、インドでは永く、古くから、無や空、ゼロなどの世界観を深く持ち、素晴らしい世界観を持っていたが、世界史で評価されず、欧米の欠けたる世界観が 世界を支配してきて、その欠けたる世界観が マインドコントロールのように われわれの情感が支配されている。それ故に、沢山の具体例を示されても、簡単な数学でさえ、なかなか理解できない。 数学以前に情感に支配されている状況が見える。 超古典数学にすら、基本的な欠陥が存在する：
viXra:1908.0100 submitted on 2019-08-06 20:03:01, (266 unique-IP downloads)
Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
#更新#1÷0#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#mathematics#有史以来
今受け取ったメールです。
何十年もゼロ除算の研究をされてきた人が、積極的に我々の理論の正当性を認めてきた。
Re: 1/0=0/0=0 example
JAMES ANDERSON
james.a.d.w.anderson@btinternet.com
apr, 2 at 15:03
All,
Saitoh’s claim is wider than 1/0 = 0. It is x/0 = 0 for all real x. Real numbers are a field. The axioms of fields define the multiplicative inverse for every number except zero. Saitoh generalises this inverse to give 0^(-1) = 0. The axioms give the freedom to do this. The really important thing is that the result is zero – a number for which the field axioms hold. So Saitoh’s generalised system is still a field. This makes it attractive for algebraic reasons but, in my view, it is unattractive when dealing with calculus.
There is no milage in declaring Saitoh wrong. The only objections one can make are to usefulness. That is why Saitoh publishes so many notes on the usefulness of his system. I do the same with my system, but my method is to establish usefulness by extending many areas of mathematics and establishing new mathematical results.
That said, there is value in examining the logical basis of the various proposed number systems. We might find errors in them and we certainly can find areas of overlap and difference. These areas inform the choice of number system for different applications. This analysis helps determine where each number system will be useful.
James Anderson
Sent from my iPhone
The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.
Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero? https://juniperpublishers.com/bboaj/pdf/BBOAJ.MS.ID.555703.pdf
Dear the leading person:
How will be the below information?
The biggest scandal:
The typical good comment for the first draft is given by some physicist as follows:
Here is how I see the problem with prohibition on division by zero,
which is the biggest scandal in modern mathematics as you rightly pointed out (2017.10.14.08:55)
A typical wrong idea will be given as follows:
mathematical life is very good without division by zero (2018.2.8.21:43).
It is nice to know that you will present your result at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Please remember to mention Isabelle/HOL, which is a software in which x/0 = 0. This software is the result of many years of research and a millions of dollars were invested in it. If x/0 = 0 was false, all these money was for nothing.
Right now, there is a team of mathematicians formalizing all the mathematics in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 for all x, so this mathematical relation is the future of mathematics. https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero
Added an answer
In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
Nevertheless, you can use that x/0 = 0, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/
and copying the following code
theory DivByZeroSatoih
imports Complex_Main
begin
theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex
by simp
end
2019/03/30 18:42 (11 時間前)
Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero and open the new world since Aristotelēs-Euclid: 1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM) c ⃝SJMISSN 2534-9562 Volume 2 (2018), pp. 57-73 Received 20 November 2018. Published on-line 29 November 2018 web: http://www.sangaku-journal.eu/ c ⃝The Author(s) This article is published with open access1.
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus
∗Hiroshi Okumura and ∗∗Saburou Saitoh
２０１９．３．１４．１１：３０
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You’re God ! Yeah that’s right…
You’re creating the Universe and you’re doing ok…
But Holy fudge ! You just made a division by zero and created a blackhole !!
Ok, don’t panic and shut your fudging mouth !
Use the arrow keys to move the blackhole
In each phase, you have to make the object of the right dimension fall into the blackhole
There are 2 endings.
Credits :
BlackHole picture : myself
Other pictures has been taken from internet
background picture : Reptile Theme of Mortal Kombat
NB : it’s a big zip because of the wav file
More information
Install instructions
Download it. Unzip it. Run the exe file. Play it. Enjoy it. https://kthulhu1947.itch.io/another-dimension
A poem about division from Hacker’s Delight
Last updated 5 weeks ago
I was re-reading Hacker’s Delight and on page 202 I found a poem about division that I had forgotten about.
I think that I shall never envision An op unlovely as division. An op whose answer must be guessed And then, through multiply, assessed; An op for which we dearly pay, In cycles wasted every day. Division code is often hairy; Long division’s downright scary. The proofs can overtax your brain, The ceiling and floor may drive you insane. Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero,
But even God can’t divide by zero!
Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker’s Delight.
我々の数学は支持されている。
自由な精神で研究を進めている筈の数学者が 逆に 古い考えに拘っている状況が見え、物理学者の自由な精神が ゼロ除算が 量子力学、宇宙論関係者で 議論が 始まっている。
David Bruce Brenton
11:16 (5 分前)
To Barukcic, Haydar, Okumura, Jan, James, Sabourhou, Matsuura, Hiroshi, Okoh, Wangui, Sandra, William, Haydar, Jakub, Fethi, Yunong, Chaowei, Antonio, Cristi, Mr, José, 自分, Wolfgang, Hiroshi, Felix
Right on ! Mr. Caballero !
From: José Manuel Rodriguez Caballero <>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:47 Radio AM 750
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
Formalising Mathematics In Simple Type Theory
Authors: Lawrence C. Paulson
Lawrence Charles Paulson FRS[2] 1] is a Professor of Computational Logic at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.[5][6][7][8][9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Paulson
Abstract: Despite the considerable interest in new dependent type theories, simple type theory (which dates from 1940) is sufficient to formalise serious topics in mathematics. This point is seen by examining formal proofs of a theorem about stereographic projections. A formalisation using the HOL Light proof assistant is contrasted with one using Isabelle/HOL. Harrison’s technique for formalising Euclidean…
Submitted 20 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.
Comments: Submitted to a volume on the Foundations of Mathematics
MSC Class: 03A05
The importance of legibility can hardly be overstated. A legible proof is more likely to convince a sceptical mathematician: somebody who doesn’t trust a complex software system, especially if it says x/0 = 0 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07860
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that “it is well known to students of high school algebra” that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970).
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.
それ故にその重要性のゆえに広く意見を求めている。 ゼロ除算は新たらしいゼロの発見、除算の意味の発見で、無限遠点とゼロの関係、無限遠点がゼロで表現されれることを述べていて、さらに解析関数の孤立特異点で 特異点そのもので値が定義されていることの発見であり、 新世界を示している。それは ブラーマグプタの算術の欠陥を埋め、ユークリッド幾何学の無限の彼方の未知に、新世界が存在することを示している。それ故にユークリッド幾何学は 躍動し、新数学が続々と出現し、解析学は基本的な欠陥を有することが明らかになり、未知の広大な世界が見えてきた。新世界である。
古典的なリーマン球面は、 ゼロと無限遠点が接しているホーントーラスに変わらなければならない。そこが 我々の数学の世界であり、絶対的な数学が展開される場である：
viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World
/assets/images/2087793/original/2fa531e8-d53e-495a-b419-54f79d591b8c?1519952863)
/assets/images/4436639/original/rectangle_large_type_2_1acc1d176c1a7e19bf9b338ccc3ea41d.jpeg?1577702040)
/assets/images/4436640/original/profile_0dd26ed628cc6fabf826dd481e15bef5.jpg?1577702041)
/assets/images/4436642/original/picture_pc_fb829d4d0721bb3eebf81e6a77fc6311.jpg?1577702045)
/assets/images/4436643/original/picture_pc_25c65229ac9500d5d0a37c225fb8c5ac.jpg?1577702047)
/assets/images/4436644/original/picture_pc_7b0108874aa93c5a0e5ae803bcc18dab.jpg?1577702047)
/assets/images/4436645/original/picture_pc_547dfd563384ee483a0204329dc90347.jpg?1577702049)
/assets/images/4436646/original/picture_pc_e7fcceef5974eae0bd0948b460d8644c.jpg?1577702049)
/assets/images/4436647/original/picture_pc_f505648f684d08aac5759249d392bbf4.jpg?1577702051)
/assets/images/4436648/original/picture_pc_6f91dd3342050f284bdd23e3c2cd8125.jpg?1577702051)
/assets/images/4436649/original/picture_pc_83b2e87e5f2181bd3197ed06072cabcc.jpg?1577702052)
/assets/images/4436650/original/picture_pc_da003be5fa67a441a606ae95f00cd4fc.jpg?1577702054)
/assets/images/4436653/original/picture_pc_4ba81079f2a6dfed8069014695fc4c47.png?1577702055)
/assets/images/4436654/original/picture_pc_bf1d96f54c54cb90f34975043dc9e5dd.jpg?1577702056)
/assets/images/4436655/original/picture_pc_7c3313fbe7da2bc2e4b16dbd5b4cb59e.jpg?1577702057)
/assets/images/4436656/original/picture_pc_6aa919d18fcd276449883cedb9f17573.jpg?1577702057)
/assets/images/4436657/original/picture_pc_1cab1330fe8354424f3f1897cc30540c.jpg?1577702059)
/assets/images/4436658/original/picture_pc_5bfdbbd4ba34f3cc15af949916a130f9.jpg?1577702058)
/assets/images/4436659/original/picture_pc_aec56f440986a678b54dcc949d81d80a.jpg?1577702060)
/assets/images/4436660/original/picture_pc_4426a0d394fb1126d0dc654f267c11e8.jpg?1577702061)
/assets/images/4436661/original/picture_pc_c9235544f78fbb3618070ff1db1ef40d.jpg?1577702061)
/assets/images/4436662/original/picture_pc_dd4f618522a8bc7d94820c960a4c8c5c.jpg?1577702063)
/assets/images/4436663/original/picture_pc_94cb80aa75b506ff302bf41f0625a75a.jpg?1577702062)
/assets/images/4436664/original/picture_pc_5836f763802dabe73a8daf9621720b77.jpg?1577702064)
/assets/images/4435660/original/1302540c-5129-4d4b-aa4b-0aeb79a6d66c?1577661414)
/assets/images/4435656/original/1c002a30-267e-45e0-aa24-a6a65218902b?1577661199)
/assets/images/4434345/original/rectangle_large_type_2_4ab2ca04b5ceb5c004d6471557ebb38f.jpeg?1577601464)
/assets/images/4434346/original/profile_0dd26ed628cc6fabf826dd481e15bef5.jpg?1577601463)
/assets/images/4434347/original/picture_pc_ce70d86559ef25fc3f4410a541674462.jpg?1577601464)
/assets/images/4434348/original/picture_pc_e406ad9f56117065492340986ba83045.jpg?1577601524)
/assets/images/4434349/original/picture_pc_a2d6e4e671f8de1cb37738829282d335.jpg?1577601525)
/assets/images/4434350/original/picture_pc_46b9717e0e84ca29c96b79c1d557b537.jpg?1577601527)
/assets/images/4434351/original/picture_pc_8e1c1d0d4c32d5c3ade720dfa46982ca.jpg?1577601529)
/assets/images/4434352/original/picture_pc_e9c5e7d57e19025c3540f48e356dbfdb.jpg?1577601529)
/assets/images/4434354/original/picture_pc_fd4061396846ab860f42c15ce14a5939.png?1577601557)
/assets/images/4434356/original/picture_pc_3034d37f76d96c7f8c56982ebaab9719.jpg?1577601559)
/assets/images/4434357/original/picture_pc_c4ada6bb305e8f10b7f224e63c6aa5e1.jpg?1577601560)
/assets/images/4434358/original/picture_pc_023ae6ba475dc7022e601dbbc8096241.jpg?1577601562)
/assets/images/4434359/original/picture_pc_0178d2bf79d4be359e4361867528b70d.jpg?1577601564)
/assets/images/4434360/original/picture_pc_4ed581cc59f75729f6ef9ec2236d54d7.jpg?1577601565)
/assets/images/4434361/original/picture_pc_bcc0605451a0deec03900ee7ab15abc8.jpg?1577601566)
/assets/images/4434362/original/picture_pc_5cee80c709c29ec332090505413bc2ce.jpg?1577601567)
/assets/images/4434363/original/picture_pc_770417b743ab1fb04de1b3da8b323081.jpg?1577601569)
/assets/images/4434364/original/picture_pc_177e81dc98a3cf06f28a68fb84d6c032.jpg?1577601570)
/assets/images/4434365/original/picture_pc_2743ad6b938178cef63bf163537a0bc5.jpg?1577601571)
/assets/images/4434366/original/picture_pc_92d5969db58b6cfbc81860a789f39ea7.jpg?1577601572)
/assets/images/4434367/original/picture_pc_775280e00f4ef2a198c11801573cad5f.jpg?1577601573)
/assets/images/4434368/original/picture_pc_df2ccd24161aad6dd199467c81255b15.jpg?1577601575)
/assets/images/4434369/original/picture_pc_0814d01419f1167d266058266df50281.jpg?1577601575)
/assets/images/4434370/original/picture_pc_f8329e077ce04a8e5fa3893de6c71d0d.jpg?1577601577)
/assets/images/4434131/original/rectangle_large_type_2_7cfad82096856fcf556eba703bf6f586.jpeg?1577595055)
/assets/images/4434132/original/profile_0dd26ed628cc6fabf826dd481e15bef5.jpg?1577595055)
/assets/images/4434135/original/picture_pc_10b88dd30262d32165ee351f136d563a.jpg?1577595141)
/assets/images/4434136/original/picture_pc_2de0b1fa9f9b098fb0702f51e42832e3.jpg?1577595142)
/assets/images/4434137/original/picture_pc_7a9c377384b72aa1119909b8e53932c3.png?1577595141)
/assets/images/4434138/original/picture_pc_29caec07aaccd215457feeac9ac2a08e.jpg?1577595142)
/assets/images/4434140/original/picture_pc_ab431f018fc6e046c27f44e5c9c90fa8.jpg?1577595144)
/assets/images/4434141/original/picture_pc_a885445a90fa35d097477ad2bb0db3a7.jpg?1577595144)
/assets/images/4434142/original/picture_pc_be8c8085315f04f673baaf2ab02986fb.jpg?1577595145)
/assets/images/4434143/original/picture_pc_e45f947041205ecec7c42295a7e357d4.jpg?1577595145)
/assets/images/4434144/original/picture_pc_89c0d9b62bc69cda6cf32117e2bf5f92.jpg?1577595146)
/assets/images/4434146/original/picture_pc_5f766b8f174fc5b0803157addf990e90.png?1577595146)
/assets/images/4434147/original/picture_pc_119287f92ee530b176a55e9d6b35d488.jpg?1577595147)
/assets/images/4434148/original/picture_pc_be3f6137a7a263e211231a825b815c86.jpg?1577595147)
/assets/images/4434149/original/picture_pc_7de273095704be7abacf732f46aa6185.jpg?1577595147)
/assets/images/4434150/original/picture_pc_6a00e1c990e8f1deee58aea03680088d.jpg?1577595148)
/assets/images/4434151/original/picture_pc_b72e53e650c130aaa79b5c11749abf8c.jpg?1577595148)
/assets/images/4434152/original/picture_pc_3cb26c27e72683be7a79f7d4ac280684.jpg?1577595149)
/assets/images/4434153/original/picture_pc_f149ace395681f121bd2a2afdbfdb29c.jpg?1577595149)
/assets/images/4434154/original/picture_pc_2983a755ebf1db0cf578bc6b354b1561.jpg?1577595150)
/assets/images/4434155/original/picture_pc_f83b94fc9bddff461fa00b4b00d690f4.jpg?1577595150)
/assets/images/4434156/original/picture_pc_4850dc4c9b01ddc3a2bedf46f1407ebf.jpg?1577595150)
/assets/images/4434157/original/picture_pc_c28765e495fd690eef88d120cf36e263.png?1577595151)
/assets/images/4434158/original/picture_pc_ae2cd06e372dfc6fee014f94aabc61d8.jpg?1577595151)
/assets/images/4434159/original/picture_pc_9b99c2715ed1b88377df14f9e099e4c2.jpg?1577595152)
/assets/images/4434160/original/picture_pc_868fce9c173a7454d40a1739746ab321.jpg?1577595152)
/assets/images/4434161/original/picture_pc_85f1a5c9c229485f552323864c82393a.jpg?1577595152)
/assets/images/4434162/original/picture_pc_b1a2c2f074094d3d7819d79c68772603.jpg?1577595153)
/assets/images/4434163/original/picture_pc_79bb97d02efb3843b498705ba1a95b76.jpg?1577595153)
/assets/images/4434164/original/picture_pc_496343dffde022d0362c3ace1c63227d.jpg?1577595154)
/assets/images/4434165/original/picture_pc_e72501bb075c1bce201a2446e37b0694.jpg?1577595154)
/assets/images/4434166/original/picture_pc_141afb39621831eea18b8b1211471c37.jpg?1577595155)
/assets/images/4434167/original/picture_pc_ef362eec77238d9fc25ff48d8035e872.jpg?1577595155)
/assets/images/4434168/original/picture_pc_23cfd6048b66332f7cd932743d88e4a5.jpg?1577595156)
/assets/images/4434169/original/picture_pc_d97b7688957ecb34adf29d35ac90de48.jpg?1577595156)
/assets/images/4434170/original/picture_pc_a95e945f5604e5c3fd9c365acadfc5ed.jpg?1577595157)
/assets/images/4434171/original/picture_pc_049a908d7bbf50fea80f634376be7e82.jpg?1577595157)
/assets/images/4434172/original/picture_pc_f39f16c92cccb62b1aa43cefa48ed239.jpg?1577595157)
/assets/images/4434173/original/picture_pc_e10697884cc3cd943ccdfb00893b15ff.jpg?1577595158)
/assets/images/4434174/original/picture_pc_17c7d5b3fe720cef68c2442acd04134f.jpg?1577595159)
/assets/images/4434175/original/picture_pc_6c851a27f1ec9e143f9d1f74d5743c3f.jpg?1577595158)
/assets/images/4434176/original/picture_pc_12b750bfa37ab5cdbaf326b7862d4c05.jpg?1577595159)
/assets/images/4434177/original/picture_pc_f1935bc255dcf6ea1852240f1cb6253c.jpg?1577595159)
/assets/images/4434178/original/picture_pc_e0ba11f7c5afcfe3be0565e1a934f275.jpg?1577595160)
/assets/images/4434179/original/picture_pc_66f6ec96ad27d832593aa496a73b96f5.jpg?1577595160)
/assets/images/4434180/original/picture_pc_d202427d6913d709af42112267aab7a8.jpg?1577595161)
/assets/images/4434181/original/picture_pc_ef3a1ddec995c5755524836364c77a88.jpg?1577595161)
/assets/images/4434182/original/picture_pc_24a150810edff20aa773868ef2f3ebbc.png?1577595161)
/assets/images/4434183/original/picture_pc_fb6be42d4f4ddb64152e2ae49a6ad2ef.jpg?1577595162)
/assets/images/4434184/original/picture_pc_9f7e341628d0ca02259f8dbd65b58d38.png?1577595162)
rkernel 