2015年12月27日日曜日

数学、哲学の面白い話

数学、哲学の面白い話
反比例のグラフは決してX軸Y軸と交わることはない。けど、見た目ではどんどん軸に近づいている。
じゃあ見た目だけで考えるとそのままずーーっと伸ばしていけばいつかは軸と交わるのでは?
平行にまっすぐ伸びる線が自分を挟んで地面に2本あります。
ただまっすぐな地面だとすれば、その2線は遠くにいくにつれ、間が縮まっているように見える。じゃあそのままずーーっと線を伸ばしていけばいつか2線は交わるのでは?少し前に塾の先生にこんな話をしてもらいました。
反比例のグラフは絶対軸と交わらないと中学で習いましたが、こんな話をされると「いや、伸ばしたら軸と交わるでしょw」と思えてしまいます笑
自分は「おお!なんかよくわからんけど面白い!」ととても興味をそそられました。このように「理論と実例は矛盾してしまいそうでややこしい」「詳しいことはわからないけどメチャクチャ面白そう!」「理論的には理解できているけど、考え方によれば全くその理屈が納得できない!」と思えるような、数学、哲学などにワクワクを感じるような話があれば教えてください。
説明下手くそですいません笑
よろしくおねがいします。http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12153895602

\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}

\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}


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}\\

\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}









AD

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿