If you want to stay successful, learn to think like Leonardo da Vinci
Some of history’s greatest contributions have come from polymaths.
Aristotle practically invented half a dozen fields of study across philosophy. Galileo was as much a physicist as he was an engineer when he helped kick-start the scientific revolution. Da Vinci might have been even more famous as an inventor than an artist if his notebooks were ever published.
Even in the last 100 years, we have had people like John Von Neumann and Herbert Simon who have made breakthrough advances across fields as diverse as computer science, economics, and psychology.
That is, of course, not to detract from the specialists who have pushed our progress forward. In fact, until now, these specialists have far outnumbered the polymaths in both their historical ranks and their contributions.
After all, it takes a lot of time to master the depths of a specific field so that you can eventually add something that pushes it ahead. From this point of view, it makes sense that polymaths have been as scarce as they have been.
Still, it’s clear that whenever we have had giants like Aristotle, Galileo, and da Vinci, the contributions they made even in specialized fields may not have been made in the same way if they hadn’t attacked a problem with a diverse inventory of mental knowledge and understanding.
Polymaths see the world differently. They make connections that are otherwise ignored, and they have the advantage of a unique perspective.
In a world increasingly dominated by machines, I have a feeling that this approach is going to become increasingly valuable.
The redundancy of reality
One of the reasons Aristotle created so many sub-fields of philosophy and early forms of science is because these fields were so young back then.
They were branches of the same underlying tree trunk, and Aristotle had a deep enough understanding of what was contained in that trunk to then divide it into different parts and make his early contributions.
Even so, however, the questions he asked and the answers he provided are still up for debate, and he is still a highly influential figure in philosophy. He didn’t just collect all of the low-hanging fruit, but he went the full length in developing the path that lay ahead.
The lesson here extends beyond philosophy. Reality is categorized in our mind by words. That’s how specialization is born. We move from a general observation through our senses and then we divide this observation into specializations like philosophy, psychology, economics, and art.
The tree trunk is reality, and the branches are the different disciplines, which then become their own trunks of knowledge with branches.
What polymaths realize by studying the different branches is that many of them have the same foundation, and if this foundation is deeply understood then all they need to do is apply that ingrained knowledge to a different context rather than do the work of surface-level specialization.
For example, as a writer, if I want my work read, I need to know marketing.
I’ve been fortunate and done relatively well for myself in the time I’ve been active, and yet I don’t read marketing books, and nor do I spend all that much time trying to formally learn about it. Why is that?
Well, because I’ve always had a deep fascination with psychology, and to me, marketing is just psychology dressed up in a particular context. Psychology is the trunk, and it’s a trunk I’ve thought about a lot, and as a result, I can already see the patterns that most people think of as marketing tactics.
Reality is redundant, and when you learn widely, that becomes clearer and clearer. The more you explore, the more you can exploit these redundancies.
A higher rate of learning
You learn how to learn by continuously challenging yourself to grasp concepts of a broad variety.
The big difference between the approaches of a polymath and a specialist is that the specialist picks a spot and then goes deep, whereas the polymath is on a lane that continuously gets wider.
These are obviously not mutually exclusive, and the ideal combination to me is one that relies on a strong understanding of the fundamentals of many disciplines with a specific domain or two in which you specialize.
That said, if we take just a specialist and a polymath separately, beyond just the benefit of the creative connections that are available from having studied broadly, the polymath also has a learning advantage.
Learning itself is a skill, and when you exercise that skill across domains, you get specialized as a learner in a way that someone who goes deep doesn’t.
You learn how to learn by continuously challenging yourself to grasp concepts of a broad variety. This ironically then allows you to specialize in something else faster if you so choose. This is an incredibly valuable advantage.
It explains how some of history’s polymaths were able to contribute in such a specialized way even though they were primarily focused on going broad.
Now, in a world where narrow Artificial Intelligence systems are going to displace most routine, specialized work, it isn’t too much of stretch to assume that this skill of learning to learn across disciplines may just be the difference between those who reinvent themselves and those who don’t.
In fact, chances are that our current distinctions between disciplines will start to fade away and new ones will arise. Many of them will likely reside between areas that aren’t currently covered by specialization.
Traditionally, the idea of having a single career over the course of a life wasn’t unreasonable. The future, however, looks different. People will likely have multiple careers that differ significantly. Even if they don’t, we will see more and more project-based work, which will require similar skills.
In such a world, the learning ability of a polymath may just be the difference.
The takeaway
“Develop your senses—especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”
At any point in history, most of our knowledge is contained outside of individual minds. It’s contained in the cultures that spring up around us.
A big part of today’s culture is the internet. It’s not only democratized knowledge, but it’s made it so accessible that those who are curious enough can’t help but embrace the approach of a polymath. As such, we’re going to see more and more people playing at the intersection of different disciplines.
While specialization will still have its place, the boundaries between the many aspects of reality are going to continue to be blurred, and those who can comfortably embrace such blurring will thrive.
Although this may appear to many as unfamiliar, the truth is that it’s actually a far more accurate representation of what is going on. We’ve just been conditioned to think otherwise.
As Leonardo da Vinci would remind himself,
“Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses—especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”
What makes the world interesting is the interaction between objects and not the objects in and of themselves. If we’re always restricting these interactions by creating boundaries, we’re also taking away from our comprehension.
Nothing exists independently of its surroundings and that fact doesn’t change just because we decide to be blind to it with narrowed disciplines.
In an evolving world, those who can see that will have the edge.
Want to think and live smarter? Zat Rana publishes a free weekly newsletter for 10,000+ readers at Design Luck.
This post was originally published on Medium.https://qz.com/1229090/if-you-want-to-stay-successful-learn-to-think-like-leonardo-da-vinci/
とても興味深く読みました：ゼロ除算の発見4周年を超えました：
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number ``zero'' as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.
Zero in this case is the null set - it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in ``nothing'' and don't even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the ``empty set'' is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn't zero, it is ``not a number'' or ``undefined'' and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily ``prove'' that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not - it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named ``Socrates'', in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we've agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer ``no'', then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don't shave themselves and so he doesn't shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he's the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn't, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn't matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn't (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn't describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/.../axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html
Zero in this case is the null set - it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in ``nothing'' and don't even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.
It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the ``empty set'' is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn't zero, it is ``not a number'' or ``undefined'' and is not in the Universe of real numbers.
Just as one can easily ``prove'' that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.
It is not - it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named ``Socrates'', in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we've agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).
Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer ``no'', then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don't shave themselves and so he doesn't shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.
Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he's the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn't, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn't matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn't (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn't describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/.../axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html
I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books.
http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html
http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html
ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO
Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
https://adarvetranslations.com/…/our-humanity-and-division…/
5000年？？？？？
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf
とても興味深く読みました：
10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.
For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.
Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…
Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.
RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?
PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.
RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.
PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.
RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?
PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.
RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.
PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.
RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?
PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.
https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/
再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議
https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017 報告
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
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.
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。
ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第２回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか
NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 第4回 異次元宇宙は存在するか
再生核研究所声明 411(2018.02.02): ゼロ除算発見4周年を迎えて
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿