中国古代数学发展高峰期是在什么时候
吴国平2015-12-25 14:01:38数学 发展 问题 阅读(4450) 评论(0)
声明：本文由入驻搜狐媒体平台的作者撰写，除搜狐官方账号外，观点仅代表作者本人，不代表搜狐立场。举报
（文章选自中国数学发展史）
我国古代数学经数千年的发展，到宋元时达到了高峰期。而元代更是这种高峰期的顶峰状态。如中国自然科学史研究室数学史组在其《宋元数学综述》一文里说：“13世纪下半纪（主要指元代）特别值得我们注意。如果说宋元数学是以筹算为中心内容的中国古代数学发展的高潮，那么13世纪下半纪正就是这个高潮的顶峰。”我国已故著名数学史专家钱宝琮先生也说：“中国数学以元初为最盛，学人蔚起，著作如林，于数学史上放特殊光彩。”可见元代数学在我国数学史上所占的重要地位。
元代数学之所以达到我国古代数学的高峰期，其主要标志是涌现出了一批著名数学家及其著作，提出并解决了一些数学方面的高难问题，取得了杰出成就。
元代著名数学家有李冶、朱世杰、蒙哥等人。李冶著有《测圆海镜》12卷、《益古演段》3卷；朱世杰著有《算学启蒙》3卷、《四元玉鉴》3卷；蒙哥对古希腊伟大数学家欧几里得的《几何原本》有研究。李冶提出了立方程的方法（即天元术），朱世杰提出了多元高次联立方程的解法（即四元术）及垛积术与招差法。这些都是具有世界性影响的成就。
这些成就的取得是有其深刻的社会原因和数学本身发展原因的。
从社会政治经济对数学发展的影响来看，元代虽然一度战火连天，但长江下游一带受战争的影响较小，社会经济得到了不断发展，商业贸易也比较繁荣。商业的繁荣就日益向数学提出要求，怎样才能够更快更准确地进行计算并迅速掌握各种计算方法？元代在南宋“乘除捷法”和各种“歌诀”的基础上，又出现了不少内容更丰富的实用算术书，解决了社会实践向数学提出来的要求，从而也促进了数学的发展。如朱世杰的《算学启蒙》就是一本启蒙性的通俗教科书，其中有不少便捷的歌诀如九九乘法歌与归除歌诀等。这样与社会实践的结合，同时又引来了更多的人渴望接受数学教育。祖颐为朱世杰《四元玉鉴》所作序言中就说：“（朱世杰）周流四方……踵门而学者云集”。莫若的序文也说：“燕山松庭朱先生以数学名家周游湖海二十余年矣，四方之来学者日众。”群众基础的深厚，当然对数学的发展有极大好处。
不仅在南方如此，在北方数学也有深厚的群众基础。当时在太行山南麓东西两侧的山西、河北部分地区就形成了另一个数学发展中心。如祖颐为朱世杰《四元玉鉴》所作序中叙述从“天元术”到“四元术”的发展过程中所提到的平阳、博陆、鹿泉、平水、绛、霍山等地就属此地区。元代著名的天文学家郭守敬、王恂等人未仕元前就都隐于今河北武安紫金山中。这一带在金元时期受战争破坏不是很严重，经济情况较好，是当时北方的一个文化中心。加之此时这个地区造纸业和印刷业也极为发达，其“平水版”印本书可和南宋的印本书相媲美。这些无疑对数学的发展提供了有利条件。如果说当时南方长江下游一带在改革筹算方面，把筹算系统的计算方法改进到十分完美的地步，那么北方河北与山西南部地区则从设立未知数、立方程和消去法方面（即天元术和四元术），也把筹算发展到登峰造极的程度。
从数学本身发展的内在规律来看，元代数学继承了前代成果并解决了前代所未解决而又亟需解决的问题。如关于“天元术”和“四元术”的发展问题。在我国古代著名的数学著作《九章算术》（约公元1世纪）的开方法中，“借一算”已有未知数X的含意，唐代王孝通在立方程过程中也用到了多项式的计算。到了宋代数学家们把“增乘开方法”由开平方、开立方推广到开任意高次方之后，“天元术”的形成就剩最后一跃了。金末元初的李冶完成了这最后一跃。当“天元术”的问题解决后，人们自然而然地又会提出解决高次联立方程的问题。朱世杰“四元术”的提出很好地解决了这一问题。“四元术”用上下左右的不同位置来表示高次的四元式，最多不能超过四元，所以可以说筹算在这方面被发展到顶点了。
另外，数学的发展还与其它学科有密切的关系。如“大衍求一术”（一次同余式解法）和高次的招差法公式与天文历法的推算就密切相关。天文历法的推算需用高次招差法这一数学学科的方法，只有当人们从数学方面解决了一系列的高阶等差级数求和问题（各种垛积问题）之后才能最后完成这一方法，天文历法推算的需要向数学学科提出了问题，数学学科问题的解决又促进了天文历法的发展。所以说，元代的天文历法与数学均达到了我国古代的高峰期，是与二者相辅相成，互相促进分不开的。
总之，元代数学的发展之所以达到我国古代数学发展的高峰期甚至巅峰状态，是由当时特定的社会政治经济环境及数学学科本身的发展规律所决定的。http://learning.sohu.com/20151225/n432569610.shtml
Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By 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 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
\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}
For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;
that is, the fraction
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
is defined as the solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
a\cdot x= b.
\end{equation}
The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:
As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
\end{equation}
for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,
\end{equation}
however, in our fraction
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.
\end{equation}
\medskip
Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).
In Japanese language for "division", there exists such a concept independently of product.
H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:
$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.
Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:
$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.
$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.
$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.
Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;
$$
100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.
$$
Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?
\medskip
For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:
The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
100-2-2-2-,...,-2.
$$
How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.
The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
3 - 2 = 1
$$
and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,
then we consider similarly as follows:
$$
10-2-2-2-2-2=0.
$$
Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:
$$
\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.
$$
By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.
Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since
$$
100 - 0 = 100,
$$
that is, by the subtraction $100 - 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,
$$
\frac{100}{0} = 0.
$$
We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.
Similarly, we can see that
$$
\frac{0}{0} =0.
$$
As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$
$$
\frac{b}{0} =0.
$$
See \cite{kmsy} for the details.
\medskip
\section{In complex analysis}
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 $w=0$. 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.
However, we shall recall the elementary function
\begin{equation}
W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}
\end{equation}
$$
= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .
$$
The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:
\begin{equation}
W(0) = 1.
\end{equation}
{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?
In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.
As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).
\bigskip
\section{Conclusion}
The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.
The result does not contradict with the present mathematics - however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.
The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.
Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:
For the elementary graph of the fundamental function
$$
y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},
$$
$$
f(0) = 0.
$$
The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).
\medskip
If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.
\bigskip
section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12): $100/0=0, 0/0=0$ -- by a natural extension of fractions -- A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics - shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division -- The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9): Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\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{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
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. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
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。
吴国平2015-12-25 14:01:38数学 发展 问题 阅读(4450) 评论(0)
声明：本文由入驻搜狐媒体平台的作者撰写，除搜狐官方账号外，观点仅代表作者本人，不代表搜狐立场。举报
（文章选自中国数学发展史）
我国古代数学经数千年的发展，到宋元时达到了高峰期。而元代更是这种高峰期的顶峰状态。如中国自然科学史研究室数学史组在其《宋元数学综述》一文里说：“13世纪下半纪（主要指元代）特别值得我们注意。如果说宋元数学是以筹算为中心内容的中国古代数学发展的高潮，那么13世纪下半纪正就是这个高潮的顶峰。”我国已故著名数学史专家钱宝琮先生也说：“中国数学以元初为最盛，学人蔚起，著作如林，于数学史上放特殊光彩。”可见元代数学在我国数学史上所占的重要地位。
元代数学之所以达到我国古代数学的高峰期，其主要标志是涌现出了一批著名数学家及其著作，提出并解决了一些数学方面的高难问题，取得了杰出成就。
元代著名数学家有李冶、朱世杰、蒙哥等人。李冶著有《测圆海镜》12卷、《益古演段》3卷；朱世杰著有《算学启蒙》3卷、《四元玉鉴》3卷；蒙哥对古希腊伟大数学家欧几里得的《几何原本》有研究。李冶提出了立方程的方法（即天元术），朱世杰提出了多元高次联立方程的解法（即四元术）及垛积术与招差法。这些都是具有世界性影响的成就。
这些成就的取得是有其深刻的社会原因和数学本身发展原因的。
从社会政治经济对数学发展的影响来看，元代虽然一度战火连天，但长江下游一带受战争的影响较小，社会经济得到了不断发展，商业贸易也比较繁荣。商业的繁荣就日益向数学提出要求，怎样才能够更快更准确地进行计算并迅速掌握各种计算方法？元代在南宋“乘除捷法”和各种“歌诀”的基础上，又出现了不少内容更丰富的实用算术书，解决了社会实践向数学提出来的要求，从而也促进了数学的发展。如朱世杰的《算学启蒙》就是一本启蒙性的通俗教科书，其中有不少便捷的歌诀如九九乘法歌与归除歌诀等。这样与社会实践的结合，同时又引来了更多的人渴望接受数学教育。祖颐为朱世杰《四元玉鉴》所作序言中就说：“（朱世杰）周流四方……踵门而学者云集”。莫若的序文也说：“燕山松庭朱先生以数学名家周游湖海二十余年矣，四方之来学者日众。”群众基础的深厚，当然对数学的发展有极大好处。
不仅在南方如此，在北方数学也有深厚的群众基础。当时在太行山南麓东西两侧的山西、河北部分地区就形成了另一个数学发展中心。如祖颐为朱世杰《四元玉鉴》所作序中叙述从“天元术”到“四元术”的发展过程中所提到的平阳、博陆、鹿泉、平水、绛、霍山等地就属此地区。元代著名的天文学家郭守敬、王恂等人未仕元前就都隐于今河北武安紫金山中。这一带在金元时期受战争破坏不是很严重，经济情况较好，是当时北方的一个文化中心。加之此时这个地区造纸业和印刷业也极为发达，其“平水版”印本书可和南宋的印本书相媲美。这些无疑对数学的发展提供了有利条件。如果说当时南方长江下游一带在改革筹算方面，把筹算系统的计算方法改进到十分完美的地步，那么北方河北与山西南部地区则从设立未知数、立方程和消去法方面（即天元术和四元术），也把筹算发展到登峰造极的程度。
从数学本身发展的内在规律来看，元代数学继承了前代成果并解决了前代所未解决而又亟需解决的问题。如关于“天元术”和“四元术”的发展问题。在我国古代著名的数学著作《九章算术》（约公元1世纪）的开方法中，“借一算”已有未知数X的含意，唐代王孝通在立方程过程中也用到了多项式的计算。到了宋代数学家们把“增乘开方法”由开平方、开立方推广到开任意高次方之后，“天元术”的形成就剩最后一跃了。金末元初的李冶完成了这最后一跃。当“天元术”的问题解决后，人们自然而然地又会提出解决高次联立方程的问题。朱世杰“四元术”的提出很好地解决了这一问题。“四元术”用上下左右的不同位置来表示高次的四元式，最多不能超过四元，所以可以说筹算在这方面被发展到顶点了。
另外，数学的发展还与其它学科有密切的关系。如“大衍求一术”（一次同余式解法）和高次的招差法公式与天文历法的推算就密切相关。天文历法的推算需用高次招差法这一数学学科的方法，只有当人们从数学方面解决了一系列的高阶等差级数求和问题（各种垛积问题）之后才能最后完成这一方法，天文历法推算的需要向数学学科提出了问题，数学学科问题的解决又促进了天文历法的发展。所以说，元代的天文历法与数学均达到了我国古代的高峰期，是与二者相辅相成，互相促进分不开的。
总之，元代数学的发展之所以达到我国古代数学发展的高峰期甚至巅峰状态，是由当时特定的社会政治经济环境及数学学科本身的发展规律所决定的。http://learning.sohu.com/20151225/n432569610.shtml
Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By 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 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
\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}
For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;
that is, the fraction
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
is defined as the solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
a\cdot x= b.
\end{equation}
The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:
As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
\end{equation}
for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,
\end{equation}
however, in our fraction
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.
\end{equation}
\medskip
Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).
In Japanese language for "division", there exists such a concept independently of product.
H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:
$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.
Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:
$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.
$100/10=10 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.
$100/0=0 \quad$ will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.
Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;
$$
100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.
$$
Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?
\medskip
For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:
The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
100-2-2-2-,...,-2.
$$
How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.
The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
3 - 2 = 1
$$
and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,
then we consider similarly as follows:
$$
10-2-2-2-2-2=0.
$$
Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:
$$
\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.
$$
By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.
Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since
$$
100 - 0 = 100,
$$
that is, by the subtraction $100 - 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,
$$
\frac{100}{0} = 0.
$$
We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.
Similarly, we can see that
$$
\frac{0}{0} =0.
$$
As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$
$$
\frac{b}{0} =0.
$$
See \cite{kmsy} for the details.
\medskip
\section{In complex analysis}
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 $w=0$. 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.
However, we shall recall the elementary function
\begin{equation}
W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}
\end{equation}
$$
= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .
$$
The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:
\begin{equation}
W(0) = 1.
\end{equation}
{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?
In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.
As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).
\bigskip
\section{Conclusion}
The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.
The result does not contradict with the present mathematics - however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.
The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.
Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:
For the elementary graph of the fundamental function
$$
y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},
$$
$$
f(0) = 0.
$$
The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).
\medskip
If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.
\bigskip
section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12): $100/0=0, 0/0=0$ -- by a natural extension of fractions -- A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics - shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division -- The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9): Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\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{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
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. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
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。
AD
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿