2015年9月30日水曜日

Aristotelian finitism

Aristotelian finitism

Tamer Nawar 
Buy now
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95 *
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Abstract
It is widely known that Aristotle rules out the existence of actual infinities but allows for potential infinities. However, precisely why Aristotle should deny the existence of actual infinities remains somewhat obscure and has received relatively little attention in the secondary literature. In this paper I investigate the motivations of Aristotle’s finitism and offer a careful examination of some of the arguments considered by Aristotle both in favour of and against the existence of actual infinities. I argue that Aristotle has good reason to resist the traditional arguments offered in favour of the existence of the infinite and that, while there is a lacuna in his own ‘logical’ arguments against actual infinities, his arguments against the existence of infinite magnitude and number are valid and more well grounded than commonly supposed.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-015-0827-9

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 247: The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$}

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


\date{September 22, 2015}

\maketitle
In Announcement 246, we stated:

\medskip
Consider the lines $y = ax$ with gradients $a$ through the origin $ 0$. Consider the two limits that $a \quad (>0)$ tends to $ + \infty$ and $a \quad (<0)$ tends to $- \infty$, respectively. As their limits, we see that the limiting lines are $y$ — axis. Note that the gradient of the $y$ axis is zero, not infinity.
This example shows as in the graph of the function $y = f(x) = 1/x$ at $x = 0$ as $f(0) =0$, that was introduced by the division by zero $1/0=0$ mathematically (\cite{s,kmsy,ttk,ann}).
\medskip

For this announcement, Professor H. Begehr kindly referred to the gradient of the $y$ axis in the above: If the gradient of the imaginary axis is $0$ this would mean $\tan (\pi/2)=0$,
right? Of course this would be a consequence of $1/0=0$!
\medskip

We had sent the e-mail, soon as follows:
\medskip

For the gradient of $y$ axis, we can define it as zero, very naturally and in the intuitive sense; of course, we can give its definition precisely.
However, as you stated, we can derive it formally by the division by zero $1/0=0$; this deduction will be very interested in itself, because, the formal result $1/0=0$ is coincident with the natural sense.
\medskip

The gradients of y axis and x axis are both zero.
\medskip

Surprisingly enough, this would mean $\tan (\pi/2)=0$,
right?
THIS IS RIGHT for our sense; we gave the definition of the values for analytic functions at an isolated singular point:

\medskip
{\bf Theorem :} {\it Any analytic function takes a definite value at an isolated singular point }{\bf with a natural meaning.} The definite value is given by the first coefficient of the regular part in the Laurent expansion around the isolated singular point (\cite{ann}).
\medskip

As the fundamental results, we would like to state that

\medskip
{\huge \bf I) The gradient of the y axis is zero,}
\medskip

and
\medskip

{\huge \bf II) $\tan \frac{\pi}{2} = 0,$}
\medskip

in the sense of the division by zero in our sense.
\medskip

Note that the function $y = \tan x$ is similar with the function $y = 1/x$ around $x = \frac{\pi}{2}
$ and $ x = 0$, respectively.

\footnotesize
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}

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

\bibitem{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{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields, Tokyo Journal of Mathematics (in press).

\bibitem{ann}
Announcement 185: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics,
Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.10.22.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}


\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 246: An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines }
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
\date{September 17, 2015}
\maketitle
Consider the lines $y = ax$ with gradients $a$ through the origin $ 0$. Consider the two limits that $a \quad (>0)$ tends to $ + \infty$ and $a \quad (<0)$ tends to $- \infty$, respectively. As their limits, we see that the limiting lines are $y$ — axis. Note that the gradient of the $y$ axis is zero, not infinity.
This example shows the graph of the function $y = f(x) = 1/x$ at $x = 0$ as $f(0) =0$, that was introduced by the division by zero $1/0=0$ mathematically (\cite{s,kmsy,ttk,ann}.
\footnotesize
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{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{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields, Tokyo Journal of Mathematics (in press).
\bibitem{ann}
Announcement 185: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics,
Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.10.22.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 237: A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by geometrical optics}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall state a reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by the reflection (geometrical optics) and from this fact we will be able to understand that the division by zero $z/0=0$ is natural in both mathematics and our physical world.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By {\bf a natural extension of the fractions}
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{0}=0,
\end{equation}
incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}. 
The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,
Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that {\bf our mathematics says} that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:
\bigskip
{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that
$$
F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)
$$
for all
$$
a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }
$$
and
$$
F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.
$$
Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $
$$
F (b, 0) = 0.
$$
}
\medskip
Furthermore, note that Hiroshi Michiwaki with his 6 year old daughter gave the important interpretation of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by the intuitive meaning of the division, {\bf independently of the concept of the product }(see \cite{ann}) . See \cite{ann} for the basic meanings of the division by zero.
We shall state a reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by the concept of reflection (geometrical optics). It seems that the common interpretations for the reflections for the center of a circle and the point at infinity are not suitable.
\section{Reflection points}
For simplicity, we shall consider the unit circle ${|z| = 1}$ on the complex $z = x +iy$ plane.
Then, we have the reflection formula
\begin{equation}
z^* = \frac{1}{\overline{z}}
\end{equation}
for any point $z$, as well-known (\cite{ahlfors}). For the reflection point $z^*$, there is no problem for the points
$z \neq 0, \infty$.  As the classical result, the reflection of zero is the point at infinity and conversely, for the point at infinity we have the zero point. The reflection is a one to one and onto mapping between the inside and the outside of the unit circle.
However, we wonder the following common facts:
Are these correspondences suitable?
Does there exist the point at $\infty$, really?
Is the point at infinity corresponding to the zero point? Is the point at $\infty$ reasonable from the practical point of view?
Indeed, where can we find the point at infinity? Of course, we know plesantly the point at infinity
on the Riemann sphere, however on the complex $z$-plane it seems that we can not find the corresponding point. When we approach to the origin on a radial line, it seems that the correspondence reflection points approach to {\it the point at infinity} with the direction (on the radial line).
\section{Interpretation by the division by zero $z/0=0$}
On the concept of the division by zero, there is no the point at infinity $\infty$ as the numbers. For any point $z$ such that $|z| >1$, there exists the unique point $z^*$ by (2.1). Meanwhile, for any point $z$ such that $|z| < 1$ except $z=0$, there exits the unique point $z^*$ by (2.1).
Here, note that for $z=0$, by the division by zero, $z^*=0$. Furthermore, we can see that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{z \to 0}z^* =\infty,
\end{equation}
however, for $z=0$ itself, by the division by zero, we have $z^*=0$. This will mean a strong discontinuity of the function
\begin{equation}
W = \frac{1}{z}
\end{equation}
at the origin $z=0$; that is a typical property of the division by zero. This strong discontinuity may be looked in the above reflection property, physically.
\section{Conclusion}
{\Large \bf Should we exclude the point at infinity, from the numbers?} We were able to look the strong discontinuity of the division by zero in the reflection with respect to circles, physically ( geometrical optics ).
The division by zero gives a one to one and onto mapping of the reflection (2.1) from the whole complex plane onto the whole complex plane.
{\Large \bf The infinity $\infty$ may be considered as in (3.1) as the usual sense of limits,} however, the infinity $\infty$ is not a definite number.
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{mst}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Takagi,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields, Tokyo Journal of Mathematics (in press).
\bibitem{ann}
Announcement 185: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics,
Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.10.22.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}


再生核研究所声明199(2015.1.15) 世界の数学界のおかしな間違い、世界の初等教育から学術書まで間違っていると言える ― ゼロ除算100/0=0,0/0=0

ゼロ除算は 西暦628年インドでゼロが文献に記録されて以来、問題とされてきた。ゼロ除算とは、ゼロで割ることを考えることである。これは数学の基本である、四則演算、加法、減法、乗法、除法において、除法以外は何時でも自由にできるのに、除法の場合だけ、ゼロで割ることができないという理由で、さらに物理法則を表す多くの公式にゼロ除算が自然に現れていることもあって、世界各地で、今でも絶えず、問題にされていると考えられる。― 小学生でも どうしてゼロで割れないのかと毎年、いろいろな教室で問われ続いているのではないだろうか.

これについては、近代数学が確立された以後でも、何百年を越えて 永い間の定説として、ゼロ除算は 不可能であり、ゼロで割ってはいけないことは、初等教育から、中等、高校、大学そして学術界、すなわち、世界の全ての文献と理解はそうなっている。変えることのできない不変的な法則のように理解されていると考えられる。

しかるに2014年2月2日 ゼロ除算は、可能であり、ゼロで割ればゼロであることが、偶然発見された。その後の経過、背景や意味付け等を纏めてきた:

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
再生核研究所声明154(2014.4.22) 新しい世界、ゼロで割る、奇妙な世界、考え方
再生核研究所声明157(2014.5.8) 知りたい 神の意志、ゼロで割る、どうして 無限遠点と原点が一致しているのか?
再生核研究所声明161(2014.5.30)ゼロ除算から学ぶ、数学の精神 と 真理の追究
再生核研究所声明163(2014.6.17)ゼロで割る(零除算)- 堪らなく楽しい数学、探そう零除算 ― 愛好サークルの提案
再生核研究所声明166(2014.6.20)ゼロで割る(ゼロ除算)から学ぶ 世界観
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?
再生核研究所声明176(2014.8.9) ゼロ除算について、数学教育の変更を提案する
Announcement 179 (2014.8.25): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics
Announcement 185 : The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$
再生核研究所声明188(2014.12.15)ゼロで割る(ゼロ除算)から観えてきた世界
再生核研究所声明190(2014.12.24)
再生核研究所からの贈り物 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0, 0/0=0
夜明け、新世界、再生核研究所 年頭声明
― 再生核研究所声明193(2015.1.1)― 
再生核研究所声明194(2015.1.2)大きなイプシロン(無限小)、創造性の不思議
再生核研究所声明195(2015.1.3)ゼロ除算に於ける高橋の一意性定理について
再生核研究所声明196(2015.1.4)ゼロ除算に於ける山根の解釈100= 0x0について

ところが、気づいてみると、ゼロ除算は当たり前なのに、数学者たちが勝手に、割り算は掛け算の逆と思い込み、ゼロ除算は不可能であると 絶対的な真理であるかのように 烙印を押して、世界の人々も盲信してきた。それで、物理学者が そのために基本的な公式における曖昧さに困ってきた事情は ニュートンの万有引力の法則にさえ見られる。
さらに、誠に奇妙なことには、除算はその言葉が表すように、掛算とは無関係に考えられ、日本ばかりではなく西欧でも中世から除算は引き算の繰り返しで計算されてきた、古い、永い伝統がある。その考え方から、ゼロ除算は自明であると道脇裕氏と道脇愛羽さん6歳が(四則演算を学習して間もないときに)理解を示した ― ゼロ除算は除算の固有の意味から自明であり、ゼロで割ればゼロであるは数学的な真実であると言える(声明194)。数学、物理、文化への影響も甚大であると考えられる。
数学者は 数学の自由な精神で 好きなことで、考えられることは何でも考え、不可能を可能にし、分からないことを究め、真智を求めるのが 数学者の精神である。非ユークリッド幾何学の出現で 絶対は変わり得ることを学び、いろいろな考え方があることを学んできたはずである。そのような観点から ゼロ除算の解明の遅れは 奇妙な歴史的な事件である と言えるのではないだろうか。
これは、数学を超えた、真実であり、ゼロ除算は不可能であるとの 世の理解は間違っている と言える。そこで、真実を世界に広めて、人類の歴史を進化させるべきであると考える。特に声明176と声明185を参照。ゼロ除算は 堪らなく楽しい 新世界 を拓いていると考える。
以 上

1+0=1 1ー0=0 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・・・・

1/0=∞ (これは、今の複素解析学) 1/0=0 (これは、新しい数学で、Division by Zero)

ゼロ除算は、不可能であると誰が最初に言ったのでしょうか・・・・

7歳の少女が、当たり前である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。

割り算を掛け算の逆だと定義した人は、誰でしょう???

世界中で、ゼロ除算は 不可能 か 
可能とすれば ∞  だと考えられていたが・・・
しかし、ゼロ除算 はいつでも可能で、解は いつでも0であるという意外な結果が得られた。

小学校以上で、最も知られている数学の結果は何でしょうか・・・
ゼロ除算(1/0=0)は、ピタゴラスの定理(a2 + b2 = c2 )を超えた基本的な結果であると考えられる。
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724326618408/

原点を中心とする単位円に関する原点の鏡像は、どこにあるのでしょうか・・・・
∞ では無限遠点はどこにあるのでしょうか・・・・・


無限遠点は存在するが、無限大という数は存在しない・・・・

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/qa/question_detail/q1411588849/a37209195?sort=1&fr=chie_my_notice_canso

地球平面説→地球球体説
天動説→地動説
1/0=∞ 若しくは未定義 →1/0=0
地球人はどうして、ゼロ除算1300年以上もできなかったのか?  2015.7.24.9:10 意外に地球人は知能が低いのでは? 仲間争いや、公害で自滅するかも。 生態系では、人類が がん細胞であった とならないとも 限らないのでは?


地球平面説→地球球体説
地球が丸いと考えた最初の人-ピタゴラス
地球を球形であることを事実によって証明しようとした人-マゼラン
地球を球形と仮定して初めて地球の大きさを測定した人-エラトステネス
天動説→地動説 アリスタルコス=ずっとアリストテレスやプトレマイオスの説が支配的だったが、約2,000年後にコペルニクスが再び太陽中心説(地動説)を唱え、発展することとなった。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B3%E3%82%B9 …
何年かかったでしょうか????

1/0=∞若しくは未定義 →1/0=0
何年かかるでしょうか????


地球平面説→地球球体説
天動説→地動説
何年かかったでしょうか???


1/0=∞若しくは未定義 →1/0=0
何年かかるでしょうか???








ガロア ゼロ除算


0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿