10 things Eastern thinkers discovered centuries before the West
In the West, we tend to suppose that all of the best scientific discoveries happened in Europe or North America. This is inaccurate, for while Europe was in the dark ages the Islamic Caliphates were enjoying a golden age of scientific progress, cultural achievements, and economic growth.
This golden age lasted almost 700 years and influenced every field of scientific discovery. It was promoted by lots of funding for the arts and sciences and refinements in the scientific method combined with better communications between distant scientists.
The golden age ended after the destruction of Bagdad by the Mongols and a general turning of interest away from science between the 13th and 14thcenturies. Right as the Islamic Golden Age ended, the Renaissance began in Europe. With the help of Greek and Roman texts the Islamic world preserved, Europe would ultimately reach the heights of Arabian science and later surpass it.
It didn’t happen overnight though, here are ten things the Islamic world discovered first and how long it took the West to figure it out afterward. Many dates and details are taken from this infographic at informationisbeautiful.net. https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/10-things-eastern-thinkers-discovered-centuries-before-the-west
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
God’s most important commandment
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66
Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment
http://thedistractionnetwork.com/.../never-divide.../page/4/
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
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
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
Ten billion years ago DIVISION By ZERO：
https://www.facebook.com/notes/yoshinori-saito/ten-billion-years-ago-division-by-zero/1930645683923690/
One hundred million years ago DIVISION By ZERO
https://www.facebook.com/.../one-hundred-million-years-ago
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66
Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment
http://thedistractionnetwork.com/.../never-divide.../page/4/
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
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
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
Ten billion years ago DIVISION By ZERO：
https://www.facebook.com/notes/yoshinori-saito/ten-billion-years-ago-division-by-zero/1930645683923690/
One hundred million years ago DIVISION By ZERO
https://www.facebook.com/.../one-hundred-million-years-ago
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…/
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
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
再生核研究所声明 430(2018.7.13): 古典的なリーマン球面に代わるHorn Torusの出現について
ロシアの若き研究者 V. Puha 氏が古典的なリーマン球面に代わる空間のモデルとしてHorn Torusを提案して来たのは ６月１６日だから新世界が現れてまだ1カ月も経っていないことになる。ちょうど論文原稿の基ができたところである。ここ1カ月間声明も珍しく休んでいた事実からしても 異常に集中して興奮していた状況が良く分かる。論文も英文声明も発表するつもりであるから、ここでは一般向きに心情面での解説を行って置きたい。これは情念に突き動かされていると言える。書かなければならず、書きたい情念である。
そもそも我々の空間、平面の認識はユークリッドに始まり、現代人は一様に平面の認識を抱いていると考えられる。限りなく広がる平面と言えば、多くの人の考えは同じではないだろうか。机の上に一枚の例えばＡ４版の紙が置かれていれば、それを4方向に限りなく伸ばして行った平面を想像するだろう。限りなく伸ばす、それが問題である。そして、その平面上でユークリッド幾何学を考えてきた。それは2200年以上前にユークリッドが考えた空間である。その時の有名な事実は、三角形の内角の和は180度、平角である。これは平行線の一意存在性を保証するユークリッドの公理とも呼ばれている。この公理は根本的に問われ、幾何学とは何か、数学とは何かの問題を提起し、２０００年を経て、平行線の公理を満たさない非ユークリッド幾何学が出現した。非ユークリッド幾何学の出現の物語は極めて感銘させるものである。便利な時代 幾らでも関係情報は手に入るから、折に触れて学んで置きたい。如何に新しい概念を得ることが困難であるかを良く示している。本当の、真の創造である。新しい概念を得る困難さである。
ところがその非ユークリッド幾何学であるが、ユークリッド幾何学に馴染んできた人々がユークリッド幾何学でない幾何学と言われれば、そんなものは想念上のもので意味がないのではないだろうかと 多くの人は 初期には発想したと考えられる。ところがしばらくすると、非ユークリッド幾何学は当たり前で、現代数学の基礎に至る所に現われ、ユークリッド幾何学などは 当たり前で、数学の実体としては 非ユークリッド幾何学が主流になっていることは 現在では相当に常識である。 ― ゼロ除算もそうなるだろう。
数学を支える解析関数の理論の基礎は、楕円型非ユークリッド幾何学で、ｘｙ平面上に置かれた球面への立体射影で、平面は球面上に1対１に写され、平面上の異なる平行線は無限遠点と呼ばれる球面上の北極点に対応する 想像上の点で交わると考えられる。平行線は無限の彼方で交わっていると発想する。立体射影の解説を参照して頂きたい。北極点と無限遠点の対応である。すると平行線は無限遠点で交わるとなって、ユークリッドの公理は成り立たない。 無限遠点を加えた拡張平面と球面は全体が1対１に全体として対応するから、極めて美しい対応関係である。立体射影は直線を円の1種と見なせば円は円に対応し、写像は交わる角を不変にするなど美しい性質を持つ。直線は半径無限大の円と考える発想も自然に受け止められるだろう。 円や直線を表現する方程式もそう述べているように見える。始めて無限遠点と立体射影の性質を学んだとき、人は感銘し、喜びに感動したのではないだろうか。無限に広がる空間が、ボール一個で表現されたからである。直線を一方向に行けば、丁度円を1方向に行けば円をくるくる回るように、無限点を通って反対方向から戻って来る ー 永劫回帰の思想を実現させている。それゆえにこの考え方は100年以上も揺るぐことはなく、すべての教科書、学術書がそのように述べている超古典的な考えであると言える。 ― 実は、それらは、相当に違っていた。
ところが 2014年2月2日発見したゼロ除算1/0=0の結果は、基本的な関数W=1/z の原点における値をゼロとすべきことを示している。これは驚嘆すべきことで、無限大や無限遠点を考えていた世界観に対して、強力な不連続性を持って、無限遠点が突然にゼロに飛んでいると解釈せざるを得ない。原点に近づけばどんどん像は無限の彼方に飛んでいく様が 確かに見えるが、その先が突然ゼロであるというのであるから、人は顔をしかめ、それは何だと発想したのは当然である。アリストテレスの連続性の世界観に反するので、その真偽を問わず、そのような考え、数学は受け入れられないと多くの数学者が断言し、それらは思い付きではなく、２年、３年と拒否の姿勢は続いたものである。そこで、初等数学の具体例で検証することとして、現在８００件を超える、ゼロ除算有効の例を探した。それで、ゼロ除算は 我々の世界と数学の実体であると公言して論文や数学会、国際会議などでも発表して来ている。
その様な折り、全く意外なところから、意外な人から、２０１８．６．４．７：２２ ロシアのV. Puha氏から Horn Torus のモデルが提起されてきた：数学会でも 無限遠点はゼロで表されること、円の中心の鏡像は無限遠点ではなく、中心自身であること。ローラン展開は特異点で有限確定値をとり、典型的な例は\tan(\pi/2) =0で大きな影響を解析学と幾何学に与えると述べて 論文などにも発表して来ました。それでリーマン球のモデルを想像すると強力な不連続性を認めることになります。４年間そうだと考えてきましたが 最近ロシアの若い研究者 Vyacheslav がゼロ除算のモデルとして 美しい
Horn Torus & Physics
https://www.horntorus.com/
geometry of everything, intellectual game to reveal engrams of dimensional thinking and proposal for a different approach to physical questions.
を提案してきました。(0,0,1/2)に中心を持つ半径1/2の球面への立体射影からさらにその中心から、その中心と元の球面に内接するトーラスへの写像を考えると無限遠点を含む平面は ちょうどHorn Torusに１対１上へに写るというのです。これが拡張平面のモデルだというのですから、驚嘆すべきことではないでしょうか。ゼロと無限遠点は(0,0,1/2)に一致しています。ゼロ除算は初等数学全般の修正を求めていると言っていますので、多くの皆様の教育と研究に関わるものと思い、メーリングリストを用いてニュース性をもって、お知らせしています。何でも助言やご意見を頂ければ幸いです。どうぞ 宜しくお願いします（２０１８．６．８．１４：４０）(関数論分科会に対して)。
その後、この対応におけるHorn Torusには 美しい性質がいろいろ存在することが分かって来た。例えば、２０１８．７．７．８：３０ 構想が 電光のように閃いた：円内と円外は 関数論、解析的には 完全に同等である。この完全性を表現するには リーマン球面は不完全で、ホーン・トーラスの方が良いと考えられる。リーマン球面は 立体射影の考えで、 ユークリッド幾何学を表現するものとして美しいが 実は代数学や幾何学と上手く合っておらず、無限の彼方で不完全であったと言える。進化した解析学や代数学は ユークリッド幾何学を越えて、ホーン・トーラスを ゼロ除算による完全化とともに 数学の実体として表していると言える。
数学的にさらに詳しく述べるのは適当でないと考える。 ところが既に上記サイトで紹介したようにHorn Torus に ゼロ除算とは無関係に、特別の情念を２０年以上も抱いてきていて (Now another point: You repeatedly asked, how I got the idea with the horn torus. So I will answer: In my German texts from 1996/98 that is described rather extensively as a background story, but in the English excerpts from 2006 and later I only address the results.)、上記サイトでいろいろ述べられているように 世界の記述にはHorn Torusが 良いと述べている。元お医者さんで 現在は退職 楽しい人生を送っているという７０歳になるWolfgang Däumler という人で 既にメールで交信しているが、極めて魅力的な人物で、ヨット遊びや小型飛行機で友人に会いに行く途中だとか面白い話題を寄せている。 何故そのようなモデルを発想されたのが 繰り返し問うているが、納得できる説明は未だ寄せられていない。 注目しているのは 全くゼロ除算の認識の無い方が ゼロ除算を実現させるモデルを長年抱いてきたという 事実である。 － そこで、ゼロ除算の真実を知って、どのような世界観を抱くかを注目している。
以 上
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿