金閣寺発掘調査で巨大な塔の一部とみられる破片 7月8日 18時17分

金閣寺発掘調査で巨大な塔の一部とみられる破片
7月8日 18時17分
金閣寺発掘調査で巨大な塔の一部とみられる破片
動画を再生する
京都の金閣寺で行われた発掘調査で、室町時代の将軍、足利義満が建てたと伝えられる七重の塔の一部とみられる破片が見つかりました。当時の金閣寺に巨大な塔があったことを示す手がかりだとして注目されています。

京都市北区の金閣寺で、京都市埋蔵文化財研究所が去年、発掘調査をしたところ、室町時代の遺構から縦２５センチ、横３７センチほどの破片が見つかりました。
青銅で作られ金メッキが施されていたということで、塔の先端に付けられた「九輪」と呼ばれる飾りの一部とみられています。
室町時代の将軍、足利義満は金閣寺の一角に「北山大塔」と呼ばれる七重の塔を建てたと文献に記されていて、研究所は、この塔の一部と考えられるとしています。
また、この塔は京都の相国寺にあった高さ１１０メートルともされる七重の塔を再建したものと記されていますが、見つかった飾りは直径およそ２メートル４０センチと推定され、研究所は元の塔と同じような巨大な塔があったことがうかがえるとしています。
京都市埋蔵文化財研究所の山本雅和係長は、「当時の様子を知るための貴重な資料になる」と話しています。
この破片は９日から京都市上京区の京都市考古資料館で展示されます。
専門家「実態に迫る重要な手がかりに」
今回、発掘された破片を見た、仏教建築に詳しい京都大学大学院の冨島義幸准教授によりますと、現存する木造建築では国内で最も高い、高さ５５メートルの京都の東寺の五重塔は、九輪の直径が１メートル６０センチで、また、奈良の興福寺にある高さ５０メートルの五重塔は、九輪の直径が１メートル８０センチだということです。
冨島准教授は「『北山大塔』の九輪だとすれば、東寺や興福寺の五重塔と同じ規模か、それ以上の高さがあったと推定される。北山大塔については文献が少なく研究が難しかったが、今回の発見はその実態に迫る重要な手がかりになる」と話しています。http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20160708/k10010588031000.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}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\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}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\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}