月が存在しない場合、地球が球形であることは説明可能か
もしも月が存在しなかったら、地球が球体であることを説明できるでしょうか？という疑問です。
アリストテレスの『天体論』だったと思いますが、
（１）月食の影の形
（２）水平線の向こうへ遠ざかるものの見え方（下から見えなくなる）
（３）南北での天体の見える角度の違い
を地球が球体であることの証拠として挙げていたかと思います。
（１）については質問2798727で地球が球体であることの論拠となりえることは納得しましたが、月が存在しない場合は使えません。
（２）はそもそも水平線の彼方にあるような遠くのものを見えるのかという疑念があるんですが、そこを大目に見ても球である必然性はないように思います。放物面でもいいですし。
（３）についても、やはり南北方向での断面が円あることが言えても東西方向については言えません。
したがって、元々（２）（３）は証拠として不十分であるため、月が存在しなければ、地球が球体であることがわからないと思うのですが、どうでしょうか？
他の証拠でもいいのですが、なんとか地球が球体であることを説明する方法はありますか？
困ってます
カテゴリ： 学問・教育 > 哲学
質問No: 2801066
投稿日時 2007-03-04 02:39:29
通報する
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
tyr134さんの回答
私も、面白そうなのでお邪魔します。
地球が平面か球体かは、古代から論争があり、スペースシャトルに乗って肉眼で見て初めて揺るぎない事実になったんではないかなと思います。
天体が「東から昇って西に沈む」のは、誰もが認める事実でしょう。
とすれば、私たち自身が回っているか天が回っているかのどちらかでしょう。
それを証明しようと、天文学が発達しました。(もちろん、宗教的な意味合いも強くありましたが）
古代ギリシアで地球が球体だと言った初めての重要人物は、ピュタゴラスでしょう。
しかし、彼の場合は宗教的観点から「球」だと言ったようです。
その後、アナクサゴラスが「月は反射光である」と言うことを発見し、それが「月に写る地球の影」から「地球は丸い」と証明する材料となったようです。
アナクサゴラス自身は、平面派だったので皮肉な結果と言えますが。(笑)
その後、ピュタゴラス主義者たちによって様々な天体観測や論理的証明の試みが行われていきました。
当時は二つの星と考えられていた「明けの明星・宵の明星」も、彼らにより一つの星と考えられるようになったようです。
そして、アリスタルコス(Ｂ.Ｃ.310～230年)は「地球を始めとした天体は太陽の周りを公転し、地球は自らの軸の周りを２４時間かけて一回転する」という見解を示していたようです。
彼らは、天体を観測する事でこれらの事実を発見していったようです。(必ずしも月のみではない）
ただ、観測機器の限界により多少の誤差はありましたが、論理的には彼らが築き上げたモノが今でも使われているようです。
地球が球であること(正確には大きさだったと思いますが)について、日本でも伊能忠敬が天体観測によって証明しようとしました。
その方法と言うのが、「＞（３）南北での天体の見える角度の違い」であったと記憶しています。
同じ時間、同じ天体を観測し、地面からの角度の差を計り、その差によって証明しようというモノです。
ただ、この方法だと地球が大きいので「ちょっと隣町で」程度の距離では角度に差が出ません。
その事を指摘されたのが、彼が日本地図を作るきっかけだとか。
つまり、「月の影」がなくても天体観測によっていずれは証明されたと思います。
もっとも、「ユークリッド幾何学」による「空間」の概念が必要ではありますが。(って、これも古代ギリシアの発見ですね)
http://qa.life.auone.jp/qa2801066.html
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 293: Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, for its importance we would like to declare that any parallel lines have the common point $(0,0) $ in the sense of the division by zero. From this fact we have to change our basic idea for the Euclidean plane and we will see a new world for not only mathematics, but also the universe.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By a {\bf natural extension} of the fractions
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we found the simple and beautiful 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 the 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 the extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2):
\bigskip
{\bf Proposition 1. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ satisfying
$$
F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)
$$
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
We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);
that is, for the mapping
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{1}{z},
\end{equation}
the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$ ({\bf should be defined}). 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 (\cite{ahlfors}). Therefore, the division by zero will give great impacts to complex analysis and to our ideas for the space and universe.
However, the division by zero (1.2) is now clear, indeed, for the introduction of (1.2), we have several independent approaches as in:
\medskip
1) by the generalization of the fractions by the Tikhonov regularization or by the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse,
\medskip
2) by the intuitive meaning of the fractions (division) by H. Michiwaki,
\medskip
3) by the unique extension of the fractions by S. Takahasi, as in the above,
\medskip
4) by the extension of the fundamental function $W = 1/z$ from ${\bf C} \setminus \{0\}$ into ${\bf C}$ such that $W =1/z$ is a one to one and onto mapping from $ {\bf C} \setminus \{0\} $ onto ${\bf C} \setminus \{0\}$ and the division by zero $1/0=0$ is a one to one and onto mapping extension of the function $W =1/z $ from ${\bf C}$ onto ${\bf C}$,
\medskip
and
\medskip
5) by considering the values of functions with the mean values of functions.
\medskip
Furthermore, in (\cite{msy}) we gave the results in order to show the reality of the division by zero in our world:
\medskip
\medskip
A) a field structure containing the division by zero --- the Yamada field ${\bf Y}$,
\medskip
B) by the gradient of the $y$ axis on the $(x,y)$ plane --- $\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0$,
\medskip
C) by the reflection $1/\overline{z}$ of $z$ with respect to the unit circle with center at the origin on the complex $z$ plane --- the reflection point of zero is zero,
\medskip
and
\medskip
D) by considering rotation of a right circular cone having some very interesting
phenomenon from some practical and physical problem --- EM radius.
\medskip
See also \cite{bht} for the relationship between fields and the division by zero, and the importance of the division by zero for computer science. It seems that the relationship of the division by zero and field structures are abstract in their paper.
Meanwhile, J. P. Barukcic and I. Barukcic (\cite{bb}) discussed recently the relation between the division $0/0$ and special relative theory of Einstein.
Furthermore, Reis and Anderson (\cite{ra,ra2}) extends the system of the real numbers by defining division by zero.
Meanwhile, we should refer to up-to-date information:
{\it Riemann Hypothesis Addendum - Breakthrough
Kurt Arbenz
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272022137 Riemann Hypothesis Addendum - Breakthrough.}
\medskip
Here, we recall Albert Einstein's words on mathematics:
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.
For our results, see the survey style announcements 179,185,237,246, 247,250 and 252 of the Institute of Reproducing Kernels (\cite{ann179,ann185,ann237,ann246,ann247,ann250,ann252}).
At this moment, the following theorem may be looked as the fundamental theorem of the division by zero:
\bigskip
{\bf Theorem (\cite{mst}).} {\it Any analytic function takes a definite value at an isolated singular point }{\bf with a natural meaning.}
\bigskip
The following corollary shows how to determine the value of an analytic function at the singular point; that is, the value is determined from the regular part of the Laurent expansion:
\bigskip
{\bf Corollary.} {\it For an isolated singular point $a$ of an analytic function $f(z)$, we have the Cauchy integral formula
$$
f(a) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} f(z) \frac{dz}{z - a},
$$
where the $\gamma$ is a rectifiable simple Jordan closed curve that surrounds one time the point $a$
on a regular region of the function $f(z)$.
}
\bigskip
The essential meaning of this theorem and corollary is given by that: the values of functions may be understood in the sense of the mean values of analytic functions.
\medskip
In this announcement, we will state the basic property of parallel lines by the division by zero on the Euclidean plane and we will be able to see that the division by zero introduces a new world and fundamental mathematics.
In particular, note that the concept of parallel lines is very important in the Euclidean plane and non-Euclidean geometry. The essential results may be stated as known since the discovery of the division by zero $z/0=0$. However, for importance, we would like to state clearly the details.
\section{The point at infinity}
We will be able to see the whole Euclidean plane by the stereographic projection into the Riemann sphere --- {\it We think that in the Euclidean plane, there does not exist the point at infinity}.
However, we can consider it as a limit like $\infty$. Recall the definition of $z \to \infty$ by $\epsilon$-$\delta$ logic; that is, $\lim_{z \to \infty} z = \infty$ if and only if for any large $M>0$, there exists a number $L>0$ such that for any z satisfying $L <|z|$, $M<|z|$. In this definition, the infinity $\infty$ does not appear.
{\it The infinity is not a number, but it is an ideal space point.}
The behavior of the space around the point at infinity may be considered by that around the origin by the linear transform $W = 1/z$(\cite{ahlfors}). We thus see that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{z \to \infty} z = \infty,
\end{equation}
however,
\begin{equation}
[z]_{z =\infty} =0,
\end{equation}
by the division by zero. The difference of (2.1) and (2.2) is very important as we see clearly by the function $1/z$ and the behavior at the origin. The limiting value to the origin and the value at the origin are different. For surprising results, we will state the property in the real space as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x\to +\infty} x =+\infty , \quad \lim_{x\to -\infty} x = -\infty,
\end{equation}
however,
\begin{equation}
[x]_{ +\infty } =0, \quad [x]_{ -\infty } =0.
\end{equation}
\section{Interpretation by analytic geometry}
We write lines by
\begin{equation}
L_k: a_k x + b_k y + c_k = 0, k=1,2.
\end{equation}
The common point is given by, if $a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1 \ne 0$; that is, the lines are not parallel
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{b_1 c_2 - b_2 c_1}{a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1}, \frac{a_2 c_1 - a_1 c_2}{a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1}\right).
\end{equation}
By the division by zero, we can understand that if $a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1 = 0$, then the commom point is always given by
\begin{equation}
(0,0),
\end{equation}
even the two lines are the same. This fact shows that the image of the Euclidean space in Section 2 is right.
\section{Remarks}
For a function
\begin{equation}
S(x,y) = a(x^2+y^2) + 2gx + 2fy + c,
\end{equation}
the radius $R$ of the circle $S(x,y) = 0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
R = \sqrt{\frac{g^2 +f^2 -ac}{a^2}}.
\end{equation}
If $a = 0$, then the area $\pi R^2$ of the circle is zero, by the division by zero; that is, the circle is line
(degenerate).
Here, note that by the Theorem, $R^2$ is zero for $a = 0$, but for (4.2) itself
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{-c}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{g^2 + f^2}}
\end{equation}
for $a=0$. However, this result will be nonsense, and so, in this case, we should consider $R$
as zero as $ 0^2 =0$. When we apply the division by zero to functions, we can consider, in general, many ways.
For example,
for the function $z/(z-1)$, when we insert $z=1$ in numerator and denominator, we have
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{z}{z-1}\right]_{z = 1} = \frac{1}{0} =0.
\end{equation}
However, in the sense of the Theorem,
from the identity
\begin{equation}
\frac{z}{z-1} = \frac{1}{z-1} + 1,
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{z}{z-1}\right]_{z = 1} = 1.
\end{equation}
By the Theorem, for analytic functions we can give uniquely determined values at isolated singular points, however, the values by means of the Laurent expansion are not always reasonable. We will need to consider many interpretations for reasonable values.
In addition, the center of the circle (4.3) is given by
\begin{equation}
\left( - \frac{g}{a},- \frac{f}{a}\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the center of a general line
\begin{equation}
2gx + 2fy + c=0
\end{equation}
may be considered as the origin $(0,0)$, by the division by zero.
We can see similarly the 3 dimensional versions.
\medskip
We consider the functions
\begin{equation}
S_j(x,y) = a_j(x^2+y^2) + 2g_jx + 2f_jy + c_j.
\end{equation}
The distance $d$ of the centers of the circles $S_1(x,y) =0$ and $S_2(x,y) =0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
d^2= \frac{g_1^2 + f_1^2}{a_1^2} - 2 \frac{g_1 g_2 + f_1 f_2}{a_1 a_2} + \frac{g_2^2 + f_2^2}{a_2^2}.
\end{equation}
If $a_1 =0$, then by the division by zero
\begin{equation}
d^2= \frac{g_2^2 + f_2^2}{a_2^2}.
\end{equation}
Then, $S_1(x,y) =0$ is a line and its center is the origin $(0,0)$.
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{bb}
J. P. Barukcic and I. Barukcic, Anti Aristotle - The Division Of Zero By Zero,
ViXra.org (Friday, June 5, 2015)
© Ilija Barukčić, Jever, Germany. All rights reserved. Friday, June 5, 2015 20:44:59.
\bibitem{bht}
J. A. Bergstra, Y. Hirshfeld and J. V. Tucker,
Meadows and the equational specification of division (arXiv:0901.0823v1[math.RA] 7 Jan 2009).
\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. {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msy}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M.Yamada,
Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$. IJAPM International J. of Applied Physics and Math. 6(2015), 1--8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html
\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
(manuscript).
\bibitem{ra}
T. S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transdifferential and Transintegral Calculus,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2014 Vol I
WCECS 2014, 22-24 October, 2014, San Francisco, USA
\bibitem{ra2}
T. S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transreal Calculus,
IAENG International J. of Applied Math., 45: IJAM 45 1 06.
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. {\bf 4} (2014), no. 2, 87--95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{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 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.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
もしも月が存在しなかったら、地球が球体であることを説明できるでしょうか？という疑問です。
アリストテレスの『天体論』だったと思いますが、
（１）月食の影の形
（２）水平線の向こうへ遠ざかるものの見え方（下から見えなくなる）
（３）南北での天体の見える角度の違い
を地球が球体であることの証拠として挙げていたかと思います。
（１）については質問2798727で地球が球体であることの論拠となりえることは納得しましたが、月が存在しない場合は使えません。
（２）はそもそも水平線の彼方にあるような遠くのものを見えるのかという疑念があるんですが、そこを大目に見ても球である必然性はないように思います。放物面でもいいですし。
（３）についても、やはり南北方向での断面が円あることが言えても東西方向については言えません。
したがって、元々（２）（３）は証拠として不十分であるため、月が存在しなければ、地球が球体であることがわからないと思うのですが、どうでしょうか？
他の証拠でもいいのですが、なんとか地球が球体であることを説明する方法はありますか？
困ってます
カテゴリ： 学問・教育 > 哲学
質問No: 2801066
投稿日時 2007-03-04 02:39:29
通報する
質問者が選んだベストアンサー
tyr134さんの回答
私も、面白そうなのでお邪魔します。
地球が平面か球体かは、古代から論争があり、スペースシャトルに乗って肉眼で見て初めて揺るぎない事実になったんではないかなと思います。
天体が「東から昇って西に沈む」のは、誰もが認める事実でしょう。
とすれば、私たち自身が回っているか天が回っているかのどちらかでしょう。
それを証明しようと、天文学が発達しました。(もちろん、宗教的な意味合いも強くありましたが）
古代ギリシアで地球が球体だと言った初めての重要人物は、ピュタゴラスでしょう。
しかし、彼の場合は宗教的観点から「球」だと言ったようです。
その後、アナクサゴラスが「月は反射光である」と言うことを発見し、それが「月に写る地球の影」から「地球は丸い」と証明する材料となったようです。
アナクサゴラス自身は、平面派だったので皮肉な結果と言えますが。(笑)
その後、ピュタゴラス主義者たちによって様々な天体観測や論理的証明の試みが行われていきました。
当時は二つの星と考えられていた「明けの明星・宵の明星」も、彼らにより一つの星と考えられるようになったようです。
そして、アリスタルコス(Ｂ.Ｃ.310～230年)は「地球を始めとした天体は太陽の周りを公転し、地球は自らの軸の周りを２４時間かけて一回転する」という見解を示していたようです。
彼らは、天体を観測する事でこれらの事実を発見していったようです。(必ずしも月のみではない）
ただ、観測機器の限界により多少の誤差はありましたが、論理的には彼らが築き上げたモノが今でも使われているようです。
地球が球であること(正確には大きさだったと思いますが)について、日本でも伊能忠敬が天体観測によって証明しようとしました。
その方法と言うのが、「＞（３）南北での天体の見える角度の違い」であったと記憶しています。
同じ時間、同じ天体を観測し、地面からの角度の差を計り、その差によって証明しようというモノです。
ただ、この方法だと地球が大きいので「ちょっと隣町で」程度の距離では角度に差が出ません。
その事を指摘されたのが、彼が日本地図を作るきっかけだとか。
つまり、「月の影」がなくても天体観測によっていずれは証明されたと思います。
もっとも、「ユークリッド幾何学」による「空間」の概念が必要ではありますが。(って、これも古代ギリシアの発見ですね)
http://qa.life.auone.jp/qa2801066.html
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 293: Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, for its importance we would like to declare that any parallel lines have the common point $(0,0) $ in the sense of the division by zero. From this fact we have to change our basic idea for the Euclidean plane and we will see a new world for not only mathematics, but also the universe.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By a {\bf natural extension} of the fractions
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we found the simple and beautiful 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 the 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 the extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2):
\bigskip
{\bf Proposition 1. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ satisfying
$$
F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)
$$
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
We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);
that is, for the mapping
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{1}{z},
\end{equation}
the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$ ({\bf should be defined}). 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 (\cite{ahlfors}). Therefore, the division by zero will give great impacts to complex analysis and to our ideas for the space and universe.
However, the division by zero (1.2) is now clear, indeed, for the introduction of (1.2), we have several independent approaches as in:
\medskip
1) by the generalization of the fractions by the Tikhonov regularization or by the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse,
\medskip
2) by the intuitive meaning of the fractions (division) by H. Michiwaki,
\medskip
3) by the unique extension of the fractions by S. Takahasi, as in the above,
\medskip
4) by the extension of the fundamental function $W = 1/z$ from ${\bf C} \setminus \{0\}$ into ${\bf C}$ such that $W =1/z$ is a one to one and onto mapping from $ {\bf C} \setminus \{0\} $ onto ${\bf C} \setminus \{0\}$ and the division by zero $1/0=0$ is a one to one and onto mapping extension of the function $W =1/z $ from ${\bf C}$ onto ${\bf C}$,
\medskip
and
\medskip
5) by considering the values of functions with the mean values of functions.
\medskip
Furthermore, in (\cite{msy}) we gave the results in order to show the reality of the division by zero in our world:
\medskip
\medskip
A) a field structure containing the division by zero --- the Yamada field ${\bf Y}$,
\medskip
B) by the gradient of the $y$ axis on the $(x,y)$ plane --- $\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0$,
\medskip
C) by the reflection $1/\overline{z}$ of $z$ with respect to the unit circle with center at the origin on the complex $z$ plane --- the reflection point of zero is zero,
\medskip
and
\medskip
D) by considering rotation of a right circular cone having some very interesting
phenomenon from some practical and physical problem --- EM radius.
\medskip
See also \cite{bht} for the relationship between fields and the division by zero, and the importance of the division by zero for computer science. It seems that the relationship of the division by zero and field structures are abstract in their paper.
Meanwhile, J. P. Barukcic and I. Barukcic (\cite{bb}) discussed recently the relation between the division $0/0$ and special relative theory of Einstein.
Furthermore, Reis and Anderson (\cite{ra,ra2}) extends the system of the real numbers by defining division by zero.
Meanwhile, we should refer to up-to-date information:
{\it Riemann Hypothesis Addendum - Breakthrough
Kurt Arbenz
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272022137 Riemann Hypothesis Addendum - Breakthrough.}
\medskip
Here, we recall Albert Einstein's words on mathematics:
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.
For our results, see the survey style announcements 179,185,237,246, 247,250 and 252 of the Institute of Reproducing Kernels (\cite{ann179,ann185,ann237,ann246,ann247,ann250,ann252}).
At this moment, the following theorem may be looked as the fundamental theorem of the division by zero:
\bigskip
{\bf Theorem (\cite{mst}).} {\it Any analytic function takes a definite value at an isolated singular point }{\bf with a natural meaning.}
\bigskip
The following corollary shows how to determine the value of an analytic function at the singular point; that is, the value is determined from the regular part of the Laurent expansion:
\bigskip
{\bf Corollary.} {\it For an isolated singular point $a$ of an analytic function $f(z)$, we have the Cauchy integral formula
$$
f(a) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} f(z) \frac{dz}{z - a},
$$
where the $\gamma$ is a rectifiable simple Jordan closed curve that surrounds one time the point $a$
on a regular region of the function $f(z)$.
}
\bigskip
The essential meaning of this theorem and corollary is given by that: the values of functions may be understood in the sense of the mean values of analytic functions.
\medskip
In this announcement, we will state the basic property of parallel lines by the division by zero on the Euclidean plane and we will be able to see that the division by zero introduces a new world and fundamental mathematics.
In particular, note that the concept of parallel lines is very important in the Euclidean plane and non-Euclidean geometry. The essential results may be stated as known since the discovery of the division by zero $z/0=0$. However, for importance, we would like to state clearly the details.
\section{The point at infinity}
We will be able to see the whole Euclidean plane by the stereographic projection into the Riemann sphere --- {\it We think that in the Euclidean plane, there does not exist the point at infinity}.
However, we can consider it as a limit like $\infty$. Recall the definition of $z \to \infty$ by $\epsilon$-$\delta$ logic; that is, $\lim_{z \to \infty} z = \infty$ if and only if for any large $M>0$, there exists a number $L>0$ such that for any z satisfying $L <|z|$, $M<|z|$. In this definition, the infinity $\infty$ does not appear.
{\it The infinity is not a number, but it is an ideal space point.}
The behavior of the space around the point at infinity may be considered by that around the origin by the linear transform $W = 1/z$(\cite{ahlfors}). We thus see that
\begin{equation}
\lim_{z \to \infty} z = \infty,
\end{equation}
however,
\begin{equation}
[z]_{z =\infty} =0,
\end{equation}
by the division by zero. The difference of (2.1) and (2.2) is very important as we see clearly by the function $1/z$ and the behavior at the origin. The limiting value to the origin and the value at the origin are different. For surprising results, we will state the property in the real space as follows:
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x\to +\infty} x =+\infty , \quad \lim_{x\to -\infty} x = -\infty,
\end{equation}
however,
\begin{equation}
[x]_{ +\infty } =0, \quad [x]_{ -\infty } =0.
\end{equation}
\section{Interpretation by analytic geometry}
We write lines by
\begin{equation}
L_k: a_k x + b_k y + c_k = 0, k=1,2.
\end{equation}
The common point is given by, if $a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1 \ne 0$; that is, the lines are not parallel
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{b_1 c_2 - b_2 c_1}{a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1}, \frac{a_2 c_1 - a_1 c_2}{a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1}\right).
\end{equation}
By the division by zero, we can understand that if $a_1 b_2 - a_2 b_1 = 0$, then the commom point is always given by
\begin{equation}
(0,0),
\end{equation}
even the two lines are the same. This fact shows that the image of the Euclidean space in Section 2 is right.
\section{Remarks}
For a function
\begin{equation}
S(x,y) = a(x^2+y^2) + 2gx + 2fy + c,
\end{equation}
the radius $R$ of the circle $S(x,y) = 0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
R = \sqrt{\frac{g^2 +f^2 -ac}{a^2}}.
\end{equation}
If $a = 0$, then the area $\pi R^2$ of the circle is zero, by the division by zero; that is, the circle is line
(degenerate).
Here, note that by the Theorem, $R^2$ is zero for $a = 0$, but for (4.2) itself
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{-c}{2} \frac{1}{\sqrt{g^2 + f^2}}
\end{equation}
for $a=0$. However, this result will be nonsense, and so, in this case, we should consider $R$
as zero as $ 0^2 =0$. When we apply the division by zero to functions, we can consider, in general, many ways.
For example,
for the function $z/(z-1)$, when we insert $z=1$ in numerator and denominator, we have
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{z}{z-1}\right]_{z = 1} = \frac{1}{0} =0.
\end{equation}
However, in the sense of the Theorem,
from the identity
\begin{equation}
\frac{z}{z-1} = \frac{1}{z-1} + 1,
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\left[\frac{z}{z-1}\right]_{z = 1} = 1.
\end{equation}
By the Theorem, for analytic functions we can give uniquely determined values at isolated singular points, however, the values by means of the Laurent expansion are not always reasonable. We will need to consider many interpretations for reasonable values.
In addition, the center of the circle (4.3) is given by
\begin{equation}
\left( - \frac{g}{a},- \frac{f}{a}\right).
\end{equation}
Therefore, the center of a general line
\begin{equation}
2gx + 2fy + c=0
\end{equation}
may be considered as the origin $(0,0)$, by the division by zero.
We can see similarly the 3 dimensional versions.
\medskip
We consider the functions
\begin{equation}
S_j(x,y) = a_j(x^2+y^2) + 2g_jx + 2f_jy + c_j.
\end{equation}
The distance $d$ of the centers of the circles $S_1(x,y) =0$ and $S_2(x,y) =0$ is given by
\begin{equation}
d^2= \frac{g_1^2 + f_1^2}{a_1^2} - 2 \frac{g_1 g_2 + f_1 f_2}{a_1 a_2} + \frac{g_2^2 + f_2^2}{a_2^2}.
\end{equation}
If $a_1 =0$, then by the division by zero
\begin{equation}
d^2= \frac{g_2^2 + f_2^2}{a_2^2}.
\end{equation}
Then, $S_1(x,y) =0$ is a line and its center is the origin $(0,0)$.
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{bb}
J. P. Barukcic and I. Barukcic, Anti Aristotle - The Division Of Zero By Zero,
ViXra.org (Friday, June 5, 2015)
© Ilija Barukčić, Jever, Germany. All rights reserved. Friday, June 5, 2015 20:44:59.
\bibitem{bht}
J. A. Bergstra, Y. Hirshfeld and J. V. Tucker,
Meadows and the equational specification of division (arXiv:0901.0823v1[math.RA] 7 Jan 2009).
\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. {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msy}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M.Yamada,
Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$. IJAPM International J. of Applied Physics and Math. 6(2015), 1--8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html
\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
(manuscript).
\bibitem{ra}
T. S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transdifferential and Transintegral Calculus,
Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2014 Vol I
WCECS 2014, 22-24 October, 2014, San Francisco, USA
\bibitem{ra2}
T. S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transreal Calculus,
IAENG International J. of Applied Math., 45: IJAM 45 1 06.
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. {\bf 4} (2014), no. 2, 87--95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{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 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.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
AD
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿