数学的起源 
精选
数学的起源
人类的智慧是从计数开始的。数字的出现就意味着数学的起源。人类文明的历史有多长，数学的发展历程就有多长。
当人类在心里将那一连串数字一一记下时，计算就开始孕育了。另外，人类对图形的识别也日益精准，其中人类最熟悉也最偏爱的图形就是圆。
从计数开始
在几百万年前，原始人在漫长的生存和生活中，智力不断进化，慢慢产生了“数”的思想。最早与数有关的概念就是“有”“无”“多”“少”之类。
对于原始人来说，除了1 和2 这样的数字，更多的数可能难以理解，于是就用“一群”或“ 一堆”来形容。后来，他们学会了扳着自己的手指头数数。数着数着，他们突然发现手指是可以计数的啊。
那时候，人们过着群居穴处的生活。晚上，他们挤在深而黑的洞窟里或者藏在茂密的林木中；白天，他们成群结队地在荒野里寻找猎物或者采集能够充饥的野果，过着饥一顿、饱一顿的生活。“饥寒交迫”大概是他们最切身的体验。
除了御寒的兽皮、狩猎的木棍、盛水的器皿（那时还没有陶器，使用的多是一些天然的东西），他们几乎没有别的财产，更没有私有财产。这么简单的生活，当然用不到多少数学知识，即使是简单的手指计数也很少用到。
离开山洞，出门在外，整天面对的就是山峰、湖泊、河流、森林、荒漠等。原始人很难在一个地方长久居住下来。森林里的果实总有吃完的时候，飞禽和走兽更是得躲得远远的。如果发生大旱，他们最明智的选择就是“走为上”。他们跟自然界做的都是“一锤子买卖”。在陌生的环境里寻求生存的希望是他们经常温习的功课。
要走路，必须要有方向和路标。最直观的路标就是日月星辰。白天是太阳，晚上是星星和月亮。古代人很早就学会了看天。他们越来越意识到，一些星星总是出现在天空的一定位置，沿着一定的方向缓慢地移动着。
日月星辰不只是人类最早的路标，还是人类最早的时钟。它们能告诉人们，一年的时间、一个月的时间和一天的时间，虽然不是很准确，但比较实用。对于古代人来说，这已经足够了。
一天的时间最直观。当他们迎着东升的旭日走在“上班”的路上时，就是一天的开始；当他们背着猎物、目送夕阳西下走在“回家”的路上时，就是一天的结束。判断一个月的时间要费些事，得依靠月亮。从月亮的阴晴圆缺中判断出一个月的时间可能需要很多年的修炼，而且还得是部落里的那些聪明人才能做到。判断一年的时间更困难一些。那时候，没有人知道地球绕着太阳公转。不过，也有很多自然现象刺激着人类的视觉神经系统。比如，当树木落叶、野草干枯的时候，天气就冷了；当山上的雪消融、草儿发芽的时候，天气就开始转暖。日复一日，久而久之，年的概念就形成了。
一万多年前，随着经验的积累、知识的增长和工具的改进，他们开创了崭新的生活，学会了种植和饲养，变成了农民和牧民。定居生活意味着部落的消失和村庄的形成。财产的丰富对数学提出了更高的要求。他们要计算、分配这些财产，离开了数学怎么能行呢？记录财物和编制日历，促使人们发展书写的数字。
最早的记数符号可能产生于古埃及和美索不达米亚。古埃及人把它们写在一种纸草上，苏美尔人把它们写在泥板上。他们都用单笔画表示个位数，用不同的记号表示十位数和更高位数。后来的古罗马人在一定程度上继承了他们的成果，创造出了罗马数字。汉字数字也是古代中国人智力进化的成果，在甲骨文中，就能找到蛛丝马迹。
圆和平的感觉——腓尼基人的体会
腓尼基地域面积虽然不大，但是其历史和文化却可以追溯到公元前4000 年。腓尼基在地中海东岸、黎巴嫩山西侧，也就是今天的叙利亚沿海一带。大约在公元前1500 年，腓尼基的海外贸易蓬勃发展起来。许多腓尼基人驾驶着自己的小船穿梭在地中海，在沿途用自己的物品交换其他人的物品，海上贸易的发展成就了腓尼基人航海家和商人这两种身份。
远航和贸易的经历增长了腓尼基人的见识。他们不但运回了有价值的货物，也顺便带回了异域的奇珍异闻、科学和文化。
海上航行还会使他们对地球的感受与众不同。长期在大海里漂泊，水手们都有这样的体验，一年四季，不管是哪一天，在北方港口，中午的太阳总是比南方港口的低一些，桅杆投下的影子也长一些。同一天里，中午，影子在不同地方的长度不同，这就是航海者标记港口位置的最早方法。夜晚向北航行时，他们会发现北极星每晚都会升高一点，而当向南航行时，北极星每晚又会向地平线下落一点。
就在腓尼基文化逐渐衰落之际，地中海沿岸的西西里、克里特、塞浦路斯和古希腊开始崛起。大约在公元前400 年，古希腊地理学家画的航海图上已经标示出了地中海的海岸线。腓尼基为古希腊的强盛输送了营养，比如说，古希腊文字来源于腓尼基，航海知识就更不用说了。
腓尼基人是最早使用字母文字的民族，他们用数量不多的表示声音的简单符号，代替了大量的表示语言或意思的象形符号，这样的文字系统既简约又方便。公元前600 年，古希腊人借用腓尼基字母完善了自己的语言文字。现代欧洲各国的拼音文字都有同一个源头，就是腓尼基字母文字。
本文摘编自杨天林教授撰著的“科学的故事丛书”之《数学的故事》（杨天林著，郭园园审订）第一章。
“科学的故事丛书”
杨天林 著 郭园园 审订
责任编辑：朱萍萍 程凤
北京：科学出版社 2018.04
ISBN 978-7-03-053743-0
数学不仅是一种计算的技巧，也是一种工具，还是一种思维方法的应用和思维过程的展现。那些沉醉于数学的人为人类创造了一个纯粹的思维世界，无论是杰出的天才，还是默默无闻的耕耘者，都是一个时代的楷模。
《数学的故事》沿着历史上重大数学发现的脉络，紧密结合有关数学知识，通过立学化的语言描写，向读者讲述了一系列富有知识性和趣味性的数学故事。我们从中不难体会，数学的发展是人类智力进化的一个重要标志。
科学的故事丛书”以历史为背景，以时间为主线，以故事为衬托，以著名科学家的相关工作和人生经历为素材，以对自然和科学知识的理解为落脚点。丛书富有新意的叙述方式，很容易让我们在时空交替中认识物质的存在，在物质演化中感受自然的韵律，在对已逝岁月的追忆中体验科学的魅力。
专家推荐
“科学的故事丛书”跨越了不同文化领域和不同历史时空，在自然、科学与文学之间架起了一座桥梁，为读者展现了一个五彩缤纷的世界，能有效地与读者进行心灵的沟通，对于科学爱好者欣赏文学、文学爱好者感悟科学都有很大的感染力，是奉献给读者的精神大餐。
——中国科普作家协会原理事长、中国科学院院士
刘嘉麒
故事是昨天，科学历程。故事是今天，生活现实。故事是明天，繁花似锦。喂，科学的故事呀！先睹为快吧！
——著名科学史家、中国科学院自然科学史研究所
研究员戴念祖
科学是文化的重要组成部分，也是现代教育的核心内容和主要方法。丛书回顾反思古往今来著名的科学人物及其故事，追溯探究宇宙天体、自然演化和生命进化，给读者以知识的浇灌、文化的润泽、精神的滋养和情感的沟通，是教师和家长开展青少年科学教育的必备读本。
——著名科学教育专家、中央教育科学研究院研究员
赵学漱
这是一套由中国学者精心编著的有水准的科普读物，涵盖了最基本的七大科学门类，采撷了从古代到近现代的精彩科学史片段，讲述了代表性人物及重要发现和发明，还融合了现代科学前沿知识，用巧妙的故事形式、浅显生动的语言娓娓道来，读之开阔视野，读之启迪思维。
——资深科技史学者、清华大学教授戴吾三
在科技引领创新发展的今天，原创科普已经成为传承文化、沟通世界的重要载体。丛书将理性思维和文学艺术完美融合，用极其通俗易读的语言把读者带入科学的世界，是一套难得的原创科普佳作。我们相信并且期待，未来的科学大师即将诞生于年轻一代读者中！
——《大学科普》执行主编、重庆大学高校科协理论研究中心主任靳萍
“科学的故事丛书”
丛书共7册，目前已经出版发行5册：《数学的故事》《物理的故事》《化学的故事》《生物的故事》《自然的故事》，后续将推出《地理的故事》《天文的故事》。本号后期将陆续推出其他分册的介绍，敬请期待！
ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：
∞？？？
∞は定まった数ではない・・・・
人工知能はゼロ除算ができるでしょうか：
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
ゼロ除算関係論文・本
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
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
*057 Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.): Differential and Difference Equations with Applications: ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017. (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230) May 2018 587 pp.
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
再生核研究所声明 427(2018.5.8): 神の数式、神の意志 そしてゼロ除算
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
ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：
再生核研究所声明 １４８（2014.2.12） 100/0=0, 0/0=0 － 割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると ― 神の意志 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/69056435.html
再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？http://reproducingkernel.blogspot.jp/2014/07/201473010000.html
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 DEFINITIONA 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, 2009Dividing 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 failzorz3Divide by zero is undefined.by JaWo October 28, 20061) 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 programmingHey, I divided by zero! ...Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: '11': Division by zeroby DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006When 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.#math #divide by zero #divide #dividing #zero #numbers #not-math #imaginary numbers #imaginary. phylosophyby Zacharrie February 15, 2010
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
ゼロ除算とは例えば、１００割るゼロを考えることです。普通に考えると、それは考えられない（不可能）となるのですが、それが分かることが まず第１歩です。この意味が分かるまでは、 次には進めませんので、興味があれば、 次で解説されている最初の方を参照してください：
ゼロ除算の研究状況は、数学基礎学力研究会 サイトで解説が続けられています： http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
できない（不可能である）と言われれば、何とかできるようにしたくなるのは相当に人間的な素性です。いろいろな冒険者や挑戦者を想い出します。ゼロ除算も子供の頃からできるようにしたいと考えた愛すべき人が結構多く世界にいたり、その問題に人生の大部分を費やして来ている物理学者や計算機科学者たちもいます。現在、ゼロ除算に強い興味を抱いて交流しているのは我々以外でも海外で 大体２０名くらいです。ある歴史家の分析によれば、ゼロ除算の物理的な意味を論じ、ゼロ除算は不可能であると最初に述べたのはアリストテレス（BC 384-322） だということです。
また、アインシュタインの人生最大の懸案の問題だったと言われています。実際、物理学には、形式的にゼロ分のが 出て来る公式が沢山有って、分母がゼロの場合が 問題になるからです。いま華やかな宇宙論などでブラックホールや宇宙誕生などと関係があるとされ、ゼロ除算の歴史は 神秘的です。
ところが、ゼロを数学的に厳密に扱い、算術の法則を発見したインドのBrahmagupta (598 -668 ?) は 何と１３００年も前に、0/0 はゼロであると定義していたというのです。それ以来１３００年を超えてそれは間違いであるとされて来ました。1/0 等は無限大だろうと人は考えて来ました。関数 y=1/x を考えて、 原点の近くで考えれば、限りなく正の無限や負の無限に発散するので人は当然そのように考えるでしょう。天才たちもみんなそうだと考えて、現代に至っています。
ところが偶然４年前に 驚嘆すべき事実を発見しました。 関数 y=1/x の原点の値をゼロとすべきだという結果です。聞いただけで顔色を変える数学者は多く、数年経っても理解できない人は多いのですが、素人がそれは美しい、分かったと喜ぶ人も多いです。算術の創始者Brahmaguptaの考え、結果も 実は 適当であった。正しかったとなります。― 正しいことを間違っているとして来た世界史は 恥ずかしいのではないでしょうか。
この結果、無限の彼方（無限遠点）、無限が 実はゼロ（ゼロで表される）だったとなり、ユークリッド、アリストテレス以来の我々の空間の考えを変える必要が出て来ました。案内の上記サイトで詳しく解説されていますが、私たちの世界観や初等数学全般に大きな影響を与えます。どんどん全く新しい結果、現象が発見されますので、何といっても驚嘆します。 内容レベルが高校生にも十分分かることも驚きです。例えば、y軸の勾配がゼロで、tan (\pi/2) =0 だという驚きの結果です。数学というと人は難しくて分からないだろうと思うのが普通ではないでしょうか。そこで、面白く堪らなく楽しい研究になります。 現在、簡単な図を沢山入れてみんなで見て楽しんで頂けるような本を出版したいと計画を進めています。
内容は上記サイトで、相当素人向きに丁寧に述べているので、興味のある方は解説の最初の方を参考にして下さい。
以 上
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿