A book purporting to prove that a comet caused Noah's Flood became a best-seller. Five editions were published by 1737, and it was translated into German.
PHOTOGRAPH BY FINE ART IMAGES, HERITAGE IMAGES,GETTY IMAGES
By Mark Strauss
PUBLISHED
“Late in the autumn of 1680 the good people of Manhattan were overcome with terror at a sight in the heavens such as has seldom greeted human eyes,” history tells us.
That terrible sight was a comet so bright that it could be seen in daytime. But, like Comet 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdušáková—which is currently relatively close to Earth and may put on its best show this New Year's Eve—the Great Comet of 1680 was not a portend of doom but a scientific blessing.
Sir Isaac Newton observed the comet, and his calculations of its trajectoryconfirmed his universal theory of gravitation. The astronomer Edmund Halley also studied the comet. Newton’s equations helped him determine the orbits of 24 other comets and predict when they would reappear in the night sky.
The comet of 1680 would likewise inspire one of Newton’s closest colleagues and friends: the mathematician William Whiston, whose intricate calculations would bring him fame in Europe.
This comet, he declared, had passed close to Earth thousands of years ago—so close, in fact, that the comet had doused our world with water from its tail and exerted enough gravitational force to pull forth oceans from beneath our planet’s crust.
In short, Whiston concluded, the same comet seen by incredulous sky-watchers in the 17th century also unleashed the epic rainfall and great Flood that had cleansed the Earth of sinners in Biblical times.
ARE YOU THERE, GOD? IT’S ME, NEWTON.
Today, Whiston is not as well-known as his illustrious contemporaries. Still, he had an impressive resume. He succeeded Newton as the prestigious Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, and he lobbied for passage of the Longitude Act in 1714, which revolutionized navigation.
Like many of his peers, he was also a theologian—and he was determined to reconcile apparent contradictions between mathematical laws and Biblical scripture.
“What set Whiston and Newton apart from modern scientists is their assumption that the Bible was literally true, and that God’s ‘book of nature’ could be used to understand God’s other book, the Bible,” says James Force, a professor retired from the University of Kentucky’s philosophy department who has written extensively about the two scientists.
“Today, we tend to keep science and religion in strictly segregated boxes. Not so Newton and Whiston.”
When Newton published his seminal work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, he did more than lay the foundation for modern physics—he also helped usher in the concept of a mechanistic universe.
According to this thinking, God didn’t trouble himself with the mundane task of pushing the planets along in their orbits around the sun. Rather, the Almighty had created physical laws, such as gravity, that governed the operations of the universe. And those laws persisted as a direct result of God’s will. We live in a clockwork cosmos, proponents argued, that was designed, built, set in motion, and sustained by the “Divine Architect.”
But some noted thinkers saw a contradiction in this view. If God had established infallible natural laws, why were there accounts in the Bible that violated these very same rules?
The British theologian Thomas Burnet made this case in his best-selling treatise, Sacred Theory of the Earth. He calculated, for instance, that all the water on Earth—even with an additional forty days and nights of rain—could not account for the Great Flood.
As such, Burnet argued, there must be another scientific explanation for the great Deluge and the story, as told in scripture, could not be taken literally.
AN INSTRUMENT OF DIVINE PUNISHMENT
This was bold stuff, since Burnet was saying that parts of the Bible were not necessarily divine revelation. Some rejected Burnet’s writing by arguing that, even though God had created the natural laws of the universe, he periodically suspended them when it suited his purposes. This was, after all, the very definition of a miracle.
But Newton and his circle of thinkers didn’t care much for that explanation. In their view, the physical laws of the universe were divine. Gravity, for instance, depended upon "the constant and efficacious, and, if you will, the supernatural and miraculous Influence of Almighty God," Whiston wrote.
In other words, the delicate dance of gravity that kept the planets in motion was an everyday miracle. The miracles that got all the attention were incidents that occurred very rarely yet could still be explained within the confines of science.
This is where the Great Comet of 1680 enters the story.
In his book New Theory of the Earth, Whiston emphasized that the Bible was never meant to be an allegory or a scientific text. Instead, it was an historical account, “a true representation of the formation of our single Earth out of a confused Chaos, and of the successive and visible changes each day, till it became the habitation of Mankind.”
As such, Whiston argued, it was incumbent upon modern thinkers to find the scientific explanation for the literal descriptions of miraculous events in the Bible.
“For if those things contained in Scripture be true, and really derived from the Author of Nature, we shall find them, in proper cases, confirmed by the System of the World,” he wrote. “The knowledge of causes is deduced from their effects.”
Whiston, relying on the principles of gravity published by Newton, believed that he had found the answer for the Biblical Flood in a comet.
Calculations conducted by Edmund Halley suggested that the comet of 1680 swung by the Earth every 575 years. Working backward, Whiston noted that one such cosmic encounter occurred in 2342 B.C., which, at the time, was believed to be the date of the great Deluge.
According to the Book of Genesis: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."
Whiston argued that a comet passing close to Earth could explain these phenomena. The gravitational pull of the comet, he said, fractured the planet’s crust. And the vaporous tail of the comet saturated the upper atmosphere with excess water, which lead to a cataclysmic rainfall.
The weight of the rainfall combined with tidal forces caused water beneath the surface of Earth to flow forth and wreak havoc.
Although this comet served God’s purpose, Whiston made it clear that this was not a case of the Almighty flinging it at Earth, like Zeus hurling a lightning bolt. Rather, God had created the comet in antiquity, setting it on a path destined by physics to perform its task.
As one commentator described it, “God had foreseen that man would sin and that his crimes, reaching their consummation, would demand a terrible punishment; consequently, He had prepared from the moment of the Creation a comet which would be the instrument of His vengeance.”
EVERYONE’S A CRITIC
Whiston dedicated his book to Newton, who endorsed the theories as plausible and reasonable.
“If Newton had radically disagreed with Whiston’s cometary hypothesis about the cause of the flood, or about the project of utilizing Newton’s cometary theories, to demonstrate the divine origin and truth of the Bible, he never would have permitted Whiston to be hired to take over the Lucasian Chair,” says Force.
The book became a best-seller. Five editions were published by 1737, and it was translated into German.
But new discoveries and theories about the formation of the solar system, the nature of comets, and the age and structure of Earth eventually rendered Whiston’s theories about the great Flood obsolete. (Even Halley’s calculations about the 575-year orbit of the comet were later found to be incorrect.) And, as the Age of Enlightenment progressed, so too did skepticism of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Whiston himself became the subject of ridicule. “Such havoc did the Newtonian theory and the comet of 1680 work in the hands of this eccentric theologian!” wrote one critic. The famous 19th-century astronomer Camille Flammarion said that Whiston’s book demonstrated that “in the last century, there was no absurdity so gross that it was not repeated once it had been said, and, above all, once it had been printed.”
Contemporary historians, however, have been kinder to Whiston. He was one of the “natural philosophers” of his era who held deeply religious beliefs—yet who also believed that the workings of God’s creation were not closed off to inquisitive minds.
"Whiston was nowhere near the great scientific and mathematical innovator that the great Sir Isaac Newton was,” says Force. But, “as an indefatigable popularizer of Newton’s undoubted scientific contributions, as well as of the Newtonian connection between science and religion, Whiston was the Carl Sagan of his day.”http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/comet-new-years-eve-newton-flood-bible-gravity-science/
非常に興味深く読みました：
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 326: The division by zero z/0=0 - its impact to human beings through education and research\\
(2016.10.17)}
\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 state the
situation on the division by zero and propose basic new challenges to education and research on our wrong world history.
\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 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{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 } $
$$
F (b, 0) = 0.
$$
}
Note that the complete proof of this proposition is simply given by 2 or 3 lines.
We should define $F(b,0)= b/0 =0$, in general.
\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. Therefore, the division by zero will give great impact 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 and by the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse,
\medskip
2) by the intuitive meaning of the fractions (division) by H. Michiwaki - repeated subtraction method,
\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 $W =1/\overline{z}$ of $W= z$ with respect to the unit circle with center at the origin on the complex $z$ plane --- the reflection point of zero is zero, not the point at infinity.
\medskip
and
\medskip
D) by considering rotation of a right circular cone having some very interesting
phenomenon from some practical and physical problem.
\medskip
In (\cite{mos}), many division by zero results in Euclidean spaces are given and the basic idea at the point at infinity should be changed. In (\cite{ms}), we gave beautiful geometrical interpretations of determinants from the viewpoint of the division by zero. The results show that the division by zero is our basic and elementary mathematics in our world.
\medskip
See J. A. Bergstra, Y. Hirshfeld and J. V. Tucker \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 divisions $0/0$, $1/0$ and special relative theory of Einstein. However, their logic seems to be curious and their results contradict with ours.
Furthermore, T. S. Reis and J.A.D.W. Anderson (\cite{ra,ra2}) extend the system of the real numbers by introducing an ideal number for the division by zero $0/0$.
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.
Apparently, the division by zero is a great missing in our mathematics and the result (1.2) is definitely determined as our basic mathematics, as we see from Proposition 1. Note its very general assumptions and many fundamental evidences in our world in (\cite{kmsy,msy,mos}). The results will give great impact on Euclidean spaces, analytic geometry, calculus, differential equations, complex analysis and physical problems.
The mysterious history of the division by zero over one thousand years is a great shame of mathematicians and human race on the world history, like the Ptolemaic system (geocentric theory). The division by zero will become a typical symbol of foolish human race with long and unceasing struggles. Future people will realize this fact as a definite common sense.
We should check and fill our mathematics, globally and beautifully, from the viewpoint of the division by zero. Our mathematics will be more perfect and beautiful, and will give great impact to our basic ideas on the universe.
For our ideas on the division by zero, see the survey style announcements.
\section{Basic Materials of Mathematics}
(1): First, we should declare that the divison by zero is possible in the natural and uniquley determined sense and its importance.
(2): In the elementary school, we should introduce the concept of division by the idea of repeated subtraction method by H. Michiwaki whoes method is applied in computer algorithmu and in old days for calculation of division. This method will give a simple and clear method for calculation of division and students will be happy to apply this simple method at the first stage. At this time, they will be able to understand that the division by zero is clear and trivial as $a/0=0$ for any $a$. Note that Michiwaki knows how to apply his method to the complex number field.
(3): For the introduction of the elemetary function $y= 1/x$, we should give the definition of the function at the origin $x=0$ as $y = 0$ by the division by zero idea and we should apply this definition for the occasions of its appearences, step by step, following the curriculum and the results of the division by zero.
(4): For the idea of the Euclidean space (plane), we should introduce, at the first stage, the concept of steleographic projection and the concept of the point at infinity -
one point compactification. Then, we will be able to see the whole Euclidean plane, however, by the division by zero, the point at infinity is represented by zero. We can teach the very important fact with many geometric and analytic geometry methods. These topics will give great pleasant feelings to many students.
Interesting topics are: parallel lines, what is a line? - a line contains the origin as an isolated
point for the case that the native line does not through the origin. All the lines pass the origin, our space is not the Eulcildean space and is not Aristoteles for the strong discontinuity at the point at infinity (at the origin). - Here note that an orthogonal coordinates should be fixed first for our all arguments.
(5): The inversion of the origin with respect to a circle with center the origin is the origin itself, not the point at infinity - the very classical result is wrong. We can also prove this elementary result by many elementary ways.
(6): We should change the concept of gradients; on the usual orthogonal coordinates $(x,y)$,
the gradient of the $y$ axis is zero; this is given and proved by the fundamental result
$\tan (\pi/2) =0$. The result is trivial in the definition of the Yamada field. This result is derived also from the {\bf division by zero calculus}:
\medskip
For any formal Laurent expansion around $z=a$,
\begin{equation}
f(z) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} C_n (z - a)^n,
\end{equation}
we obtain the identity, by the division by zero
\begin{equation}
f(a) = C_0.
\end{equation}
\medskip
This fundamental result leads to the important new definition:
From the viewpoint of the division by zero, when there exists the limit, at $ x$
\begin{equation}
f^\prime(x) = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h} =\infty
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
f^\prime(x) = -\infty,
\end{equation}
both cases, we can write them as follows:
\begin{equation}
f^\prime(x) = 0.
\end{equation}
\medskip
For the elementary ordinary differential equation
\begin{equation}
y^\prime = \frac{dy}{dx} =\frac{1}{x}, \quad x > 0,
\end{equation}
how will be the case at the point $x = 0$? From its general solution, with a general constant $C$
\begin{equation}
y = \log x + C,
\end{equation}
we see that, by the division by zero,
\begin{equation}
y^\prime (0)= \left[ \frac{1}{x}\right]_{x=0} = 0,
\end{equation}
that will mean that the division by zero (1.2) is very natural.
In addition, note that the function $y = \log x$ has infinite order derivatives and all the values are zero at the origin, in the sense of the division by zero.
However, for the derivative of the function $y = \log x$, we have to fix the sense at the origin, clearly, because the function is not differentiable, but it has a singularity at the origin. For $x >0$, there is no problem for (2.6) and (2.7). At $x = 0$, we see that we can not consider the limit in the sense (2.3). However, for $x >0$ we have (2.6) and
\begin{equation}
\lim_{x \to +0} \left(\log x \right)^\prime = +\infty.
\end{equation}
In the usual sense, the limit is $+\infty$, but in the present case, in the sense of the division by zero, we have:
\begin{equation}
\left[ \left(\log x \right)^\prime \right]_{x=0}= 0
\end{equation}
and we will be able to understand its sense graphycally.
By the new interpretation for the derivative, we can arrange many formulas for derivatives, by the division by zero. We can modify many formulas and statements in calculus and we can apply our concept to the differential equation theory and the universe in connetion with derivatives.
(7): We shall introduce the typical division by zero calculus.
For the integral
\begin{equation}
\int x(x^{2}+1)^{a}dx=\frac{(x^{2}+1)^{a+1}}{2(a+1)}\quad(a\ne-1),
\end{equation}
we obtain, by the division by zero,
\begin{equation}
\int x(x^{2}+1)^{-1}dx=\frac{\log(x^{2}+1)}{2}.
\end{equation}
We will consider the fundamental ordinary differential equations
\begin{equation}
x^{\prime \prime}(t) =g -kx^{\prime}(t)
\end{equation}
with the initial conditions
\begin{equation}
x(0) = -h, x^{\prime}(0) =0.
\end{equation}
Then we have the solution
\begin{equation}
x(t) = \frac{g}{k}t + \frac{g(e^{-kt}- 1)}{k^2} - h.
\end{equation}
Then, for $k=0$, we obtain, immediately, by the division by zero
\begin{equation}
x(t) = \frac{1}{2}g t^2 -h.
\end{equation}
In those examples, we were able to give valuable functions for denominator zero cases. The division by zero calculus may be applied to many cases as a new fundamental calculus over l'Hôpital's rule.
(8): 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,
from the identity --
the Laurent expansion around $z=1$,
\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}
For analytic functions we can give uniquely determined values at isolated singular points by the values by means of the Laurent expansions as the division by zero calculus, however, the values by means of the Laurent expansions are not always reasonable. We will need to consider many interpretations for reasonable values. In many formulas in mathematics and physics, however, we can see that the division by zero calculus is reasonably valid. See \cite{kmsy,msy}.
\section{Albert Einstein's biggest blunder}
The division by zero is directly related to the Einstein's theory and various
physical problems
containing the division by zero. Now we should check the theory and the problems by the concept of the RIGHT and DEFINITE division by zero. Now is the best time since 100 years from Albert Einstein. It seems that the background knowledge is timely fruitful.
Note that the Big Bang also may be related to the division by zero like the blackholes.
\section{Computer systems}
The above Professors listed are wishing the contributions in order to avoid the division by zero trouble in computers. Now, we should arrange new computer systems in order not to meet the division by zero trouble in computer systems.
By the division by zero calculus, we will be able to overcome troubles in Maple for specialization problems.
\section{General ideas on the universe}
The division by zero may be related to religion, philosophy and the ideas on the universe, and it will creat a new world. Look the new world introduced.
\bigskip
We are standing on a new generation and in front of the new world, as in the discovery of the Americas. Should we push the research and education on the division by zero?
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{bb}
J. P. Barukcic and I. Barukcic, Anti Aristotle—The Division of Zero by Zero. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, {\bf 4}(2016), 749-761.
doi: 10.4236/jamp.2016.44085.
\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{ms}
T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra
\& Matrix Theory, 6, 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt
\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. {\bf 6}(2015), 1--8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html
\bibitem{mos}
H. Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,
Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.
International Journal of Mathematics and Computation
(in press).
\bibitem{ra}
T. S. Reis and J.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 J.A.D.W. Anderson,
Transreal Calculus,
IAENG International J. of Applied Math., {\bf 45}(2015): 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{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.
\bibitem{ann293}
Announcement 293 (2016.3.27): Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.
\bibitem{ann300}
Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿