Exhibition of pre-1700 mathematical texts at Maynooth University
Story by John Donohoe
Notation in Operum Mathematicorum Tonus Quintus. Christopher Clavius, Mainz, 1612
An exhibition of mathematical texts spanning over 200 years has opened in the Russell Library at Maynooth University. 'Reading Euclid’: Examining the key mathematical text through an exhibition at the Russell Library is a collaboration between Maynooth University, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth and the University of Oxford.
The exhibition was opened this evening by Professor Philip Nolan, President of Maynooth University, Rev Prof Michael Mullaney, President of St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and Dr Philip Beeley, Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.
The exhibition offers insights into how this important mathematical text was used by readers for mathematical instruction or to advance mathematical understanding.
The exhibition of pre-1700 texts, which will run until the end of July, is part of 'Reading Euclid: Euclid's Elements of Geometry in Early Modern Britain and Ireland'. Dr Beeley, member of the Reading Euclid project team, will discuss the discoveries made while studying these texts, such as notation, which sheds some light on how these books were used.
Euclid's Elements is widely considered one of the most influential works ever written, and has played a key role in education for over 2,000 years. It has been central to much of the mathematics that has been taught in Ireland for generations, and the exhibition also highlights Maynooth’s role in this mathematical instruction.
Maynooth University continues as a leader in mathematics education to this day, with teacher training for mathematics at primary, secondary and third level. Proficiency in mathematics is crucial in the modern world, not only in STEM subjects, but increasingly across other subject areas such as Economics, Business, Psychology and Medicine. Engaging instruction and flexible and relevant curricula are crucial elements for the success of any student with mathematics. Research conducted at Maynooth University in mathematics education and the history of mathematics has allowed scholars to positively influence teachers in Ireland and use historical examples to affect curricula which meet the demands of a modern society.
The exhibition, which is part of a series of exhibitions across 29 locations in the UK and Ireland, is free and open to the public.
Dr Ciarán Mac an Bhaird (Department of Mathematics and Statistics) and Barbara McCormack (Special Collections Librarian) curated the exhibition.http://www.meathchronicle.ie/entertainment/roundup/articles/2018/06/27/4158127-exhibition-of-pre1700-mathematical-texts-at-maynooth-university/
The exhibition was opened this evening by Professor Philip Nolan, President of Maynooth University, Rev Prof Michael Mullaney, President of St Patrick's College, Maynooth, and Dr Philip Beeley, Research Fellow at the University of Oxford.
The exhibition offers insights into how this important mathematical text was used by readers for mathematical instruction or to advance mathematical understanding.
The exhibition of pre-1700 texts, which will run until the end of July, is part of 'Reading Euclid: Euclid's Elements of Geometry in Early Modern Britain and Ireland'. Dr Beeley, member of the Reading Euclid project team, will discuss the discoveries made while studying these texts, such as notation, which sheds some light on how these books were used.
Euclid's Elements is widely considered one of the most influential works ever written, and has played a key role in education for over 2,000 years. It has been central to much of the mathematics that has been taught in Ireland for generations, and the exhibition also highlights Maynooth’s role in this mathematical instruction.
Maynooth University continues as a leader in mathematics education to this day, with teacher training for mathematics at primary, secondary and third level. Proficiency in mathematics is crucial in the modern world, not only in STEM subjects, but increasingly across other subject areas such as Economics, Business, Psychology and Medicine. Engaging instruction and flexible and relevant curricula are crucial elements for the success of any student with mathematics. Research conducted at Maynooth University in mathematics education and the history of mathematics has allowed scholars to positively influence teachers in Ireland and use historical examples to affect curricula which meet the demands of a modern society.
The exhibition, which is part of a series of exhibitions across 29 locations in the UK and Ireland, is free and open to the public.
Dr Ciarán Mac an Bhaird (Department of Mathematics and Statistics) and Barbara McCormack (Special Collections Librarian) curated the exhibition.http://www.meathchronicle.ie/entertainment/roundup/articles/2018/06/27/4158127-exhibition-of-pre1700-mathematical-texts-at-maynooth-university/
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
再生核研究所声明432(2018.7.15):無限に広がった平面を捉える４つの考え方
無限に広がった平面の概念は ２２００年以上前にユークリッドによって捉えられ、ユークリッド幾何学が体系づけられた。それはユークリッド原論と呼ばれる世界最初の学術書とされ、聖書とともに世界史上の超古典である。無限に広がった空間とは砂漠の広大な広がりから生まれた概念とされるが、特徴は平行線の公理、すなわち、交わらない2直線、平行線の存在する空間で、それは三角形の内角の和が180度、平角をなすとも表現される。ユークリッドの壮大な構想を振り返りたい。しかしながら、この事実は既に疑いをもたれ、平行線の公理を避ける様に原論は構成されているという。ともあれこの空間の考えは4つ述べる無限に広がった平面に対する発想の基本の第１のものである。
ユークリッドの不安は２０００年を経て疑われ、3人の巨人によって 非ユークリッド幾何学が発見された。その物語はあたらしい幾何学として述べられ 感銘深い世界史上の事件と捉えられる。平行線の存在が 否定される幾何学が現れてきた。同時に数学とは何かと問われ、絶対的な真理としての数学から、数学とは公理系から出発して論理的に展開される理論体系であって、真偽や価値とは無関係の関係からなる理論体系であると変化した。初期には抽象的な変な世界の数学ではないだろうかと考えられたが、現在ではユークリッド幾何学ではない、非ユークリッドの幾何学が展開されていると考えられる。ちょうど数学の基礎を与える解析関数論の世界では、複素平面上に球面を載せて立体射影の対応で平面を写せば、直線を円の1種と見なせば、平面上の円も直線も立体射影で球面上の円に写るという美しい対応関係が成り立つ。この対応でユークリッド平面全体は球面上の北極を除いた全体と1対1の対応をすることが簡単に分る。直線のいずれの方向でも無限の彼方に行けば、北極点に対応する点に到達する様を見ることができる。そこで平面の無限の彼方を想念上に存在するものとして無限遠点と名付けて平面に無限遠点を加えて拡張平面と考える。すると拡張平面は全体として球面全体と1対1に対応して美しい世界が現れる。立体射影で円は円に対応し、写像は交わる角を不変に保つ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、丁度円を一方向に行けば円をくるくる回るように、無限遠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。そう発想できる。
この拡張平面の考え方が第2の考え方である。平面のすべての方向の先に無限遠点が存在して球面上で見れば その想像上の点は北極に対応するという。
ところが 2014年2月2日に発見されたゼロ除算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、強力な不連続性をもって、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。
これが第３の無限平面の捉え方である。強力な不連続性のある空間。
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。
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。
第2の型では もし、ｘ軸の正の方向にどんどん進んで行けば、やがて無限遠点に達しは それは負の無限と一致しているから、無限遠点を経由して戻って来るということになる。しかしながら、第3の型では、負の方向とは関係なく、無限の彼方に行けば突然原点に戻るという世界になる。第４の型では、正の無限の彼方に行けば、それは原点に連続的に対応しているから、ゼロと無限は一致しているから、xの正軸は閉曲線に写って連続的に閉じていて、負軸も同等に閉曲線に写って連続的に閉じている。
現在、第３と第４の何れが拡張された全平面のモデルとして適切であるかを問題にしている。 如何であろうか。
以 上
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
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
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
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿