エルサレムで2000年超前のイヤリング発掘か、古代ギリシャの影響示す

［エルサレム　８日　ロイター］ - エルサレムで、２０００年以上前のものとみられる金のイヤリングが発掘された。イスラエルの考古学者らは、古代ギリシャの影響があったことを示す貴重な証拠だとの見方を示した。

イヤリングは長さ４センチで、雄羊のデザインが施されている。「神殿の丘」から約２００メートル南で行われた発掘作業で見つかった。

イスラエルの考古当局はイヤリングの製造技術について、古代ギリシャ時代初期のアクセサリーのものと一致しているとの見方を示した。

発掘に関わったテルアビブ大学の考古学教授は、「エルサレムで古代ギリシャ時代の金のイヤリングが発見されたのは初めてだ」と述べた。

https://jp.reuters.com/article/ancient-gold-earring-jerusalem-idJPKBN1KU0Z9

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

https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370797278.html

再生核研究所声明 444(2018.8.14): 小・中・高校生に影響を与える初歩数学の出現　－　ゼロ除算

一般向きにゼロ除算の解説を４年間を越えて続けている：

数学基礎学力研究会　サイト：

http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

○ 堪らなく楽しい数学-ゼロで割ることを考える。

しかるに　２０１８．８．１１．１０：３５　突然に声明の全体の構想が湧いてきた。　そこで、できるだけその忠実な表現を試みたい。　その主旨は　声明の題名の通りであるが、その説明を述べたい。

数学としての実体は声明４４１の内容であるが、この声明の発想が異なる。小・中・高校生の数学のカリキュラム内容は相当に定着していて、変わりようがないと考えられているのではないだろうか。複素数の扱い、行列の扱い、ユークリッド幾何学の扱いなどは多少変化がみられるが確立している数学の大勢の内から、どのような素材を選択してどのくらい学習させるべきかなどの問題で　絶えず小さく変動するのは当然のことである。小・中の生徒の算数・数学などの素材などは　変わりようがないものと考えられているのではないだろうか。　―　逆に見ると数学の研究の成果などは基礎教育に反映されないが、それは学部数学ですら、そのような状態とみられる。しかし、大学院レベルに至れば、教育内容は新しい研究成果の動向で変化していると見られる。しかるに、ぼんやり見ても物理や化学、生物学などの分野では　研究の進展で基礎教育の内容が　大きく変化している様は　驚くほどではないだろうか。それらの現象の特徴は、抽象的な基礎部門と現実の現象に結びつく応用展開の科学の相違を表していると考えられる。

しかるに、初等数学全般に大きな影響を与えるゼロ除算の分野ができてきたことに注意を喚起したい。　声明４４１の関与する部分を引用しよう：

再生核研究所声明 441(2018.8.9): 小・中・高校の数学教育の視点からのゼロ除算について

法華経３０００巻の意義・教訓から、小・中・高校の数学教育の視点からのゼロ除算について感覚的に情念として触れてみたい。　初等数学教育においてゼロ除算の教育は改められるべきである。そもそも割り算、分数の意義、意味を正確にきちんと教育する必要がある。理解は正確に　実際当時６歳であった道脇愛羽さんが理解したように理解すれば、割り算の意味もゼロ除算の意味も明解になり、その影響と良き視点、世界の広がりは極めて大きい。除算の考えによる割り算の捉え方、すなわち、割り算とはたとえば１０割る２とは１０の中に２が幾つか入っているかと考えることが原点で、それは１０から２を　何回引けるかということを意味する。我々はその詳しい方式を道脇方式として述べて、論文や解説で精しく述べている。既に割り算の計算方法、指導方法なども道脇裕氏によって具体的に提案されている。これは割り算の計算法の初期の指導法として本質的で極めて優れた方法に思えるので、広く活用されることを期待している。

そこで、大事なことは　永い神秘的な歴史を有するゼロ除算、ゼロで割る問題があっけなく解決してしまい、ゼロ除算はゼロであるという結果を導くことである。すなわち、1/0=0/0=a/0=0　である。ゼロで割るとは、割らないことと同じであるということになる。したがって、割りあてられた量もなく、ゼロである。ここで、ゼロで割ることの正確な意味を捉え、またゼロの意味をいろいろな視点からとらえる基礎を得ることになるだろう。ゼロのいろいろな意味を考える基礎も得られる。

次の段階で、関数が現れ、反比例の具体的な関数y=1/xが現れてくる段階になれば、その関数の原点での値は、ゼロ除算の結果から、それをゼロと考えることの自然性を学び、その意義の大きさはカリキュラムの進展とともに驚きの感情をもって学ぶことができるだろう。立体射影の概念と無限遠点における強力な不連続性は我々の数学と空間の初歩的で基本的な実体であるから、早期に学習しておきたい。内容は難しくなく、ユークリッド幾何学や三角関数の性質についても全般的な修正が求められる。その辺のカリキュラムの変更は時間を掛けて整然とした形に改められなければならないが内容自体はそうは難しくなく、しかも視野は大きく拓かれる。大学以降ではゼロ除算は数学の公理系の変更、追加のように扱われ初等数学全般の修正が求められる。象徴的な結果は\tan(\pi/2)=0、すなわちｙ軸の勾配はゼロであると述べられる。それは、幾何学、解析学全般に大きな影響を与える。微分方程式論や解析関数論などは本質的な修正が行われ、数学は完全化され、美しくなるだろう。

そこで、数学教育に携わる方は１歩進んで次の世代の数学を学ばれ、それを楽しく生徒たちに折りに触れて紹介され、生き生きとした数学の世界を　紹介して頂きたいと願っている。　数学はできていて　完成されたものではなく、未完の発展中の存在で未知の世界と盛んに関係している存在であるとしたい。そのような教育は真理を求める基本的な精神の涵養と育成にも大きく貢献するだろう。またゼロ除算発見の最大の意義は、人間が如何に独断と偏見に満ち、思い込んだら抜けられない存在であるか、我々の視野が如何に狭く、単細胞的な存在であるかを歴史的に学べるという点にあると言える。それには世の秀才や天才、偉大な人びとさえ例外でないことを示している。人間を知ることである。

以　上

再生核研究所声明 443(2018.8.13): アリストテレス以来、二千年を越える封印、タブーの解消　－　ゼロ除算

一般向きにゼロ除算の解説を４年間を越えて続けている：

数学基礎学力研究会　サイト：

http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
○ 堪らなく楽しい数学-ゼロで割ることを考える。

しかるに　２０１８．８．１１．１１：２０　突然に全体の構想が湧いてきた。　そこで、できるだけその忠実な表現を試みたい。　その主旨は　声明の題名の通りであるが、その説明を述べたい。

ゼロで割る問題、ゼロ除算は歴史家の分析によれば、最初に考えたのはアリストテレスで、物理的な意味から真空の比、ゼロ除算は不可能であると述べ　その後の西欧文化に大きな影響を与えたと言う。狭義ではゼロの発見と算術の発見者Brahmagupta (598 -668 ?)がゼロ除算0/0　を考え、その後１３００年を越えて、ゼロ除算は議論されてきたが、　現在でも未明の状態と考えられる。ゼロ除算は２０１４．２．２発見されて論文などにも公表されているが、そのあまりにも永い歴史のゆえに　中々認知されない状況が続いている。それが殆ど当たり前のことなのに、拒否、受け入れられない状況が続いている。最近も誤解を解消すべく解説をしている：

再生核研究所声明 434 (2018.7.28) : ゼロ除算の誤解と注意点

再生核研究所声明 437 (2018.7.30) : ゼロ除算とは何か　－　全く新しい数学、新世界である

再生核研究所声明 438(2018.8.6): ゼロ除算1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0　の誤解について

そこで、タブーの理由を考察して置きたい。ゼロ除算の結果を複数のヨーロッパの数学者に直接話したときに、アリストテレスの名前をあげて、異様に感情むき出しで拒否されたのは　強力な体験である。表情をサッと変えられた方も結構居た。そのような話しは聞きたくないという強い意志表示であるから、単に数学の話しをしているようには　感じられないものである。それも２０年来の友人たちの間での出来事である。背後には永く深いギリシャ文化の影響、無やゼロ、空を嫌う文化背景、無神論を発想しているような　深い拒否反応である。　日本でもゼロで割ってはいけないは永い伝統であるから　受け入れられないは　あるが、ゼロについての不愉快な気持ちは　零点や消えること、無くなることなど　不愉快な気持ちが強いようである。

数学的には　簡単にゼロ除算は不可能であることが証明されてしまう事実と共に1/0 は　無限大のようなものであるとの確信が深いためであろう。それがゼロであると言われて天地が　ひっくり変える様な驚きを感じるだろう。実際、基本的な関数y=1/x を考えて、ｘが小さく成っていく時、ｙの値がどんどん大きく発散している様子を思い浮かべるだろう。アリストテレスの世界観　連続性に反するので、そのような突飛なことは認められないと考えられてきた。そこで、ゼロ除算は　有る意味では神秘的な対象　になってしまう。実際ゼロ除算は、神秘的な問題と考えられてきた。

現在でも、インターネットの世界でもそのような扱いになっている。

永いタブーの理由は、無、ゼロ、空などの忌み嫌う感情、世の連続性に拘るギリシャ文化の強い影響、数学的に明解な　不可能であることの証明　があるためではないだろうか。実際には、最も簡単な方程式 ax =b　の解として、分数b/a, 割り算を考えれば、有名なMoore-Penrose一般逆で　解は何時でも一意に存在して　1/0=0　であることは相当に基本的な考えて　ゼロ除算は当たり前の周知の筈と考えられるが、上記の永い伝統、思い込みで　それらは受け入れられず、沢山の意味付けや例を示されても、中々理解されない状況が続いていると考えられる。しかしながら、ゼロ除算は発見後３週間くらいで、ゼロ除算は割り算の意味から当たり前であるとの道脇親娘（当時６歳）の言明は誠に興味深い。

以　上

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他

2017年11月15日(水)
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

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：

10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.

For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this mad contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.

Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…

Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.

RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?

PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.

RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.

PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.

RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?

PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.

RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.

PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.

RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?

PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.

https://openspace.sfmoma.org/2010/02/10000-year-clock/