2018年5月2日水曜日

Isaac Newton’un Kayıp Simya Tarifi Yeniden Bulundu

Isaac Newton’un Kayıp Simya Tarifi Yeniden Bulundu

Kurşunu altına çevirmek için yıllarını harcayan efsanevi fizikçi Newton simya macerasında, yeniden keşfedilen bu el yazmasını kullanmış olabilir.
Newton söz konusu tarifi Amerika doğumlu simyacı George Starkey’in bir metninden elle kopyalamış daha sonra kendi laboratuvar notlarını da arkasına karalamıştı.
C: Chemical Heritage Foundation
Efsanevi fizikçi Isaac Newton’ın yeniden keşfedilmiş el yazmasında belirtildiği gibi, birtakım gizemli malzemeleri belirli miktarlarda bir araya getirirseniz herhangi bir metali altına dönüştürme özelliğine sahip Felsefe Taşı’nı yapabilirsiniz.
Yıllarca özel bir koleksiyonda tutulmuş, 17. yüzyıla ait bu belge şu an, kâr amacı gütmeyen bağımsız bir kuruluş olan Kimyasal Miras Vakfı’nın elinde. Ekibin el yazmasını şubat ayında satın aldığı, şu an ise yazmadaki dijital imgeleri ve transkripsiyonları, Newton’un simya ile ilgili bu metin üzerinde yaptıklarını daha fazla insanın incelemesine fırsat vermek için online bir veri tabanına yüklemekle uğraştığı belirtiliyor.
Tarifte, Felsefe Taşı’nın ana malzemesi olarak görülen “sophick civa”sının nasıl yapıldığı şifreli olarak anlatılıyor. Taşın, kurşun gibi baz metalleri altın gibi değerli metallere dönüştürebileceğine inanılıyordu.
Newton’un sophick civası elde ettiğine dair kesin bir bilgi yok, ancak Indiana Üniversitesi’nden bilim tarihçisi William Newman’a göre el yazması, araştırmacıların Newton’un genellikle ciddi ölçüde şifrelendirilmiş simya tariflerini nasıl çözdüğünü anlamalarına yardımcı olabilir. Yazma ayrıca, modern fiziğin babası ve calculusun modern anlamdaki bulucusu sayılan Newton’un simyadan ve simyacılarla yaptığı iş birliklerinden büyük ölçüde etkilendiği vurguluyor.
Newton maddenin doğasını daha iyi açıklayabilmek için kadim bilgilerden yararlanmak ve muhtemelen köşeyi dönmek umuduyla hayatı boyunca simya hakkında sayfalarca yazı kaleme almıştı. Ancak, simya gerçek dışı ve güvenilmez işlemlerle dolu mistik bir sözdebilim olarak çoğu zaman dışlandığı için akademisyenler Newton ve simya arasındaki bağlantıyı uzun süre göz ardı etmişti.
Newton’un 1855 tarihli biyografisinde yazar “böylesine büyük bir deha”nın “bir aptalın ve düzenbazın işi olduğu bariz” bu uğraşı nasıl ciddiye aldığını sorguluyor. Sophick civası tarifi şu an yalnızca kısmen yenilenebiliyor zira Newton’un mezun olduğu okul, Cambridge Üniversitesi 1888’de Newton’un simya tariflerinin arşivleme fırsatını reddetmiş. Metinler 1936 yılında bir açık artırmada toplamda 9.000 İngiliz sterlininden fazla bir paraya satılmış. Bu metinlerin birçoğu özel koleksiyonlarda dolayısıyla araştırmalara tabi tutulamıyor.
Newman, “Newton’un simyası çok çok uzun yıllar dokunulmaz sanıldı” diyor. Fakat, Newman ve diğer tarihçiler artık simyacıları, malzemeleri üzerinde incelikle çalışmış, bin bir zorlukla kazandıkları bilgilerini korumak için tariflerini mitolojik sembollerle kodlayarak sayısız not tutmuş dikkatli teknisyenler olarak görüyor.

Hayat ağacı

Yeniden ortaya çıkarılmış bu tarif aslında diğer tariflerden farklı değil: Newton, daha çok Eireanus Philalethes (“gerçeğin uysal aşığı”) takma yazar adıyla bilinen, Amerika doğumlu 17. yüzyıl simyacısı George Starkey’in elyazmalarındaki ilginç bir metni kopyalamış.
Çağdaş araştırmacılar tarafından tercüme edildiğinde, Starkey’in sophick civası tarifinin civayı müteakip kereler distile etmeyi ve ardından altınla birlikte ısıtmayı kapsadığı görülüyor. Nihayetinde bu işlemle hassas, ağaç dalına benzer oluşumları olan bir alaşım elde ediliyor.
Starkey’in notlarından, çarpıcı biçimde ağaca benzer bu yapının ona sophick civasının böylelikle hayat bulduğunu, gücünü ve önemini ortaya koyduğunu düşündürdüğü anlaşılıyor. Ancak bu simyasal “ağacı” üretmiş olması bir kenara, Newton’un Starkey’in tarifindeki şifreleri doğru şekilde çözdüğüne dair herhangi bir kanıt bulunmuyor.
Newman, belgenin asıl öneminin arkasında, Newton’un Felsefe Taşı yapma uğraşlarının büyük bir bölümünü kaplamış olan, kurşun cevherini simyasal olarak süblimleştirmeye dair kendi işlemini karaladığı yerde yattığını söylüyor.
Newman’a göre, Newton’un Starkey tarafından resmi olarak yayımlanışından yıllar önce ele geçirdiği bu tarif, Newton’un diğer simyacılarla kurduğu, optik ve ışığın doğası üzerine yaptığı çalışmaları etkilemiş olması muhtemel iş birliklerine dair daha fazla kanıt sunabilir. Simyasal öğretiler, Newton’un beyaz ışığın farklı renklerin birleşiminden oluştuğuna dair çığır açan buluşuna ilham kaynağı olmuş olabilir.
Newman, “Bileşimlerin kendilerini meydana getiren bileşenlerine ayrılabileceği ve bu bileşenlerin daha sonra tekrar bir araya getirilebileceğini ilk fark eden simyacılardı. Newton bu durumu beyaz ışığa uyarladı, böylelikle beyaz ışık bileşenleri olan farklı renklere ayrılabiliyor, bu renkler birleştirildiğinde ise beyaz ışık ortaya çıkıyordu. Bu simyanın Newton’a kazandırdığı bir şey.” diyor.
Bu noktada, eğer simyacı Newton olmasaydı fizikçi Newton’un en ünlü keşiflerinden bazılarının hiç var olmayacağını söylemek doğru olabilir.

とても興味深く読みました：
ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した：日本、再生核研究所

ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在
 
ゼロ除算の発見はどうでしょうか：
Black holes are where God divided by zero：

再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12287338180.html

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
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12328488611.html

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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4
〔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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s
〔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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

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
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12348847166.html

再生核研究所声明 416(2018.2.20): 　ゼロ除算をやってどういう意味が有りますか。何か意味が有りますか。何になるのですか　－　回答
再生核研究所声明 417(2018.2.23): 　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　中学生、高校生向き　回答
再生核研究所声明 418(2018.2.24): 　割り算とは何ですか？　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　小学生、中学生向き　回答
再生核研究所声明 420(2018.3.2): ゼロ除算は正しいですか，合っていますか、信用できますか　－　回答

2018.3.18．午前中　最後の講演：　日本数学会　東大駒場、函数方程式論分科会　講演書画カメラ用　原稿
The Japanese Mathematical Society, Annual Meeting at the University of Tokyo. 2018.3.18.
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12361744016.html より

再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): 　レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチとゼロ除算

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。
1423793753.460.341866474681。

Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero

#divide by zero

TOP DEFINITION
  
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009


Dividing by zero is the biggest epic fail known to mankind. It is a proven fact that a succesful division by zero will constitute in the implosion of the universe.
You are dividing by zero there, Johnny. Captain Kirk is not impressed.

Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz

3
  
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
by JaWo October 28, 2006

1) The number one ingredient for a catastrophic event in which the universe enfolds and collapses on itself and life as we know it ceases to exist.

2) A mathematical equation such as a/0 whereas a is some number and 0 is the divisor. Look it up on Wikipedia or something. Pretty confusing shit.

3) A reason for an error in programming
Hey, I divided by zero! ...Oh shi-

a/0

Run-time error: '11': Division by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006

When even math shows you that not everything can be figured out with math. When you divide by zero, math kicks you in the shins and says "yeah, there's kind of an answer, but it ain't just some number."

It's when mathematicians become philosophers.
Math:
Let's say you have ZERO apples, and THREE people. How many apples does each person get? ZERO, cause there were no apples to begin with

Not-math because of dividing by zero:
Let's say there are THREE apples, and ZERO people. How many apples does each person get? Friggin... How the Fruitcock should I know! How can you figure out how many apples each person gets if there's no people to get them?!? You'd think it'd be infinity, but not really. It could almost be any number, cause you could be like "each person gets 400 apples" which would be true, because all the people did get 400 apples, because there were no people. So all the people also got 42 apples, and a million and 7 apples. But it's still wrong.
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他


テーマ：
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

 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


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

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…/

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：
投稿者 時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿

登録: コメントの投稿 (Atom)