平城京「朱雀大路」は道幅７４メートル 広場規模も判明

平城京「朱雀大路」は道幅７４メートル　広場規模も判明

反応 


朱雀門南西から見つかった朱雀大路の西側溝とみられる遺構＝３日、奈良市（岩口利一撮影）
　平城宮跡（奈良市）の朱雀（すざく）門南西から、奈良時代の平城京を貫いたメーンストリート「朱雀大路」の西側溝跡などが出土し、奈良文化財研究所が３日、発表した。これまでに対称位置で東側溝が確認されており、朱雀門近くの道幅が約７４メートルであることがほぼ確定。大路を取り込む門前の広場は東西約２６０メートル、南北約１４０メートルとみられることも分かった。

　続（しょく）日本紀には朱雀門前で、儀式が行われたり、若い男女が歌い合う「歌垣（うたがき）」を開いたりして、天皇も見学したなどとする記録があり、同研究所は「門前の利用方法も知る重要な成果」としている。

　調査地は、碁盤の目状に道路を設ける条坊制を採用した平城京の「右京三条一坊一坪」と南側の「二坪」に当たる。西側溝は南北の調査区２カ所で計約４０メートルにわたり出土。朱雀大路の幅は、過去に確認された東側溝と今回の西側溝の間の約７４メートルと推定され、これまでに別の調査地で確認された幅とも一致。朱雀門から京の正面玄関、羅城（らじょう）門までの南北約３・６キロに延びた道路の広大な規模が裏付けられた。

　また、広場については今回北側の調査区で建物跡が見つからなかったことや、大路を挟んだ東側の区画が広場だったことから規模が推定された。

　現地見学会は５日午前１１時～午後３時にあり、午前１１時半と午後１時に説明が予定されている。http://www.sankei.com/west/news/160304/wst1603040007-n1.html


Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $ 0.999999...... =1$
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 213: An interpretation of the identity $ 0.999999...... =1$
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

}
\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}