１６００年前の鈴が鳴った 国内最古級１０点出土、鹿児島・鹿屋の立小野堀遺跡【動画付き】 [鹿児島県]

１６００年前の鈴が鳴った　国内最古級１０点出土、鹿児島・鹿屋の立小野堀遺跡【動画付き】 [鹿児島県]


鹿児島県教育委員会は１３日、古墳時代中期（５～６世紀前半）の立小野堀（たちおのぼり）遺跡（鹿児島県鹿屋市串良町）から、５世紀前半の国内最古級の青銅鈴が１０点出土したと発表した。同様の鈴の出土は全国で７例あるが、１遺跡からの出土数は国内で最も多い。保存状態が良く、音が鳴らせる鈴も１点あり、約１６００年を経て「カラン、カラン」と軽やかな音が響いた。識者は「畿内を中心とした交易網が、本土最南端まで及んでいたことを裏付ける重要な発見」としている。
　鈴は２基の地下式横穴墓から５点ずつ見つかった。うち２点は、馬具の装飾品「三環鈴（さんかんれい）」の一部で、直径はともに約３センチ、重さは約３０グラムと約１０グラム。他の８点は直径１・５～１・８センチで重さ約１・７グラム。国立歴史民俗博物館（千葉県）の鉛同位体比分析により、原料は中国産と判明した。
鈴が見つかった墓の１基には２０代女性と推定される朱塗りの人骨が埋葬され、頭部の周辺に鈴５点が供えてあった。鉄剣や鏃（やじり）も副葬され、地域の有力者の一族で、呪術者の可能性もあるという。もう１基に人骨はなかったが、朱塗りの跡と鈴５点が見つかった。
遺跡には地下式横穴墓１９０基があり、鉄器を中心に４００点の副葬品も出土した。茨城大の田中裕教授（考古学）は「同様の鈴は畿内の盾塚古墳（大阪府）などでも見つかっているが、中央から鹿児島まで副葬品などを速やかに運ぶネットワークが存在したと推察される。驚きの発見だ」と話した。
＝2015/05/13　西日本新聞＝http://www.nishinippon.co.jp/nnp/kagoshima/article/168694




Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $ 0.999999...... =1$ 


\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $ 0.999999...... =1$
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}
\date{}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall give a very simple interpretation for the identity: $ 0.999999......=1$.
\bigskip
\section{ Introduction}
On January 8, 2008, Yuusuke Maede, 8 years old boy, asked the question, at Gunma University, that (Announcement 9(2007/9/1): Education for genius boys and girls):
What does it mean by the identity:
$$
0.999999......=1?
$$
at the same time, he said: I am most interesting in the structure of large prime numbers. Then, a teacher answered for the question by the popular reason based on the convergence of the series: $0.9, 0.99, 0.999,... $. Its answer seems to be not suitable for the 8 years old boy with his parents (not mathematicians). Our answer seems to have a general interest, and after then, such our answer has not been heard from many mathematicians, indeed.
This is why writting this announcement.
\medskip
\bigskip
\section{An interpretation}
\medskip
In order to see the essence, we shall consider the simplist case:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^3} + ... = 1.
\end{equation}
Imagine a tape of one meter length, we will give its half tape: that is,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Next, we will give its (the rest's half) half tape; that is, $\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2^2}$, then you have, altogether
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} .
\end{equation}
Next, we will give the last one's half (the rest's half); that is, $\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2}= \frac{1}{2^3}$,
then, you have, altogether
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^3}.
\end{equation}
By this procedure, you will be able to obtain the small tapes endressly. Imagine all the sum as in the left hand side of (2.1). However, we will see that this sum is just the division of the one meter tape. Therefore, we will be able to confim the identity (2.1), clearly.
The question proposed by Y. Maede is just the small change the ratio $\frac{1}{2}$ by $\frac{9}{10}$.
\bigskip
\section{ Conclusion}
Y. Maede asked the true sense of the limit in the series:
$$
0.999999.....
$$
that is, this series is approaching to 1; however, is it equal or not ? The above interpretation means that the infinite series equals to one and it is just the infinite division of one. By this inverse approarch, the question will make clear.
\medskip
\bigskip
\section{Remarks}
Y. Maede stated a conjecture that for any prime number $p$ $( p \geqq 7)$, for $1$ of $ - 1$
\begin{equation}
11111111111
\end{equation}
may be divided by $p$ (2011.2.6.12:00 at University of Aveiro, by skype)
\medskip
(No.81, May 2012(pdf 432kb)
www.jams.or.jp/kaiho/kaiho-81.pdf).
\medskip
This conjecture was proved by Professors L. Castro and Y. Sawano,
independently. Y. Maede gave later an interesting interpretation for his conjecture.
\medskip
(2015.2.26)
\end{document}


Announcement 214: Surprising mathematical feelings of a 7 years old girl

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 214: Surprising mathematical feelings of a 7 years old girl
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

\date{}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall give the two surprising mathematical feelings of 7 years old girl Eko Michiwaki who stated the division by 3 of any angle and the division by zero $100/0=0$ as clear and trivial ones. As well-known, these famous problems are historical, and her results will be quite original.
\bigskip
\section{ Introduction}
We had met, 7 years old girl, Eko Michiwaki on November 23, 2014 at Tokyo Institute of Technology and August 23, 2014 at Kusatu Seminor House, with our colleagues. She, surprisingly enough, stated there repeatedly the division by 3 of any angle and the division by zero $100/0=0$ as clear and trivial ones. As well-known, these famous problems are historical and her results will be quite original.
\section{The division of any angle by 3}
\medskip
Eko Michiwaki said:
divide a given angle with 4 equal angles; this is simly done. Next, we divide one divided angle
with 4 equal angles similarly and the three angles add to other 3 angles. By continuing this procedure, we will be able to obtain the division by 3 of any angle. Her idea may be stated mathematically as follows:
$$
\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \frac{1}{4^3} + ... ...= \frac{1}{3}.
$$
However, her idea seems to be more clear than the above mathematical formula. For this sentence, see \cite{ann3} for the sense of the limit.
\bigskip
\section{The division by zero $100/0=0$}
\medskip
As we stated in \cite{ann1}, she stated that division by zero $100/0=0$ is clear and trivial for our recent results \cite{cs,kmsy,s,ttk}. The basic important viewpoint is that division and product are different concepts and the division by zero $100/0=0$ is clear and trivial from the own sense of the division, independently of product \cite{ann1}. From the viewpoint, our colleagues stated as follows:
\medskip
On July 11, 2014, Seiichi Koshiba and Masami Yamane said at
Gunma University:
The idea for the division of Hiroshi Michiwaki and Eko Michiwaki (6 years
old daughter) is that division and product are different concepts and they
were calculated independently for long old years, by repeated addition and
subtraction, respectively. Mathematicians made the serious mistake for very
long years that the division by zero is impossible by considering that division
is the inverse operation of product. The division by zero was, however, clear
and trivial, as z/0=0, from the own nature of division.
\medskip
On February 21, 2015, Seiichi Koshiba and Masami Yamane visited our Institute and we confirmed this meaning of these sentences and the basic idea on the division by zero.
\medskip
(2015.2.27)
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances inLinear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95.http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\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 (in press).
\bibitem{ann1}
Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics,
Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.10.22.
\bibitem{ann2}
Announcement 185: The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$, Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.11.28.
\bibitem{ann3}
Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $ 0.999999...... =1$, Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2015.2.26.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}