Much of this site concerns people who are obsessed. Usually their obsession concerns something of grandiose importance. Theories of everything, eternal life cures, the true religion, and just generally a belief about All that is Wrong in the Universe (tm).
Andrew has a different idea. He has decided to latch on something of almost zero significance whatsoever. Which is ironic, since it has to do with zero. His deeply-held belief is that division by zero is not an error, and should return zero.
You're blowing my mind, man !
Think Zero About It
Now, if I was going to make a crackpot theory about division by zero, I'd have it be infinity. Mathematically, that makes the most sense. The smaller the divisor, the bigger the result. Dividing 10 by 2 makes 5, 10 by 1 makes 10, 10 by 0.5 makes 20, 10 by 0.1 makes 100, and so on. But since the graph for division by zero is asymptotic both towards plus and minus infinity, you'd need to get into unsigned infinities, and even that is only applicable in certain situations. So while the answer "infinity" would be vaguely correct, it's much more complicated than that.
But Andrew went all out and declared that it was zero, because dividing by zero means you "stop dividing", just like adding zero, substracting zero, or multiplying by zero. Now, multiplying by zero does not "stop" multiplication, it just makes it zero, but never mind. His whole site consists of the argument that dividing a pie in zero parts leads to a result of zero, since no pie was divided.
Now, this is stunning in its stupidity. If you're going to use pies and other concrete materials as your guide, well, you can't divide anything in zero parts, and so division by zero should still be an error. Dividing zero by zero should be even worse, since there can't be zero of anything. Nevertheless, Andrew repeats "0/0=0" throughout.
Well, I'll let him tell you :
| With division you state how much you want to divide by the divisor. (Object) / (Divisor) = (Product Of Division) What should you state when you wish not to divide? If you have a pie and wish it not divided, what is the mathematical statement you should form to order this command? What is the Divisor when you do not want to divide or something is not dividing? Apparently most people on Planet Earth do not know. And so I would like to explain to you the very simple answer. ZERO Pie / ZERO = ZERO DIVIDED PIE = ZERO PRODUCT = ZERO PORTIONS OF DIVIDED PIE There are no portions and therefore the weight of any divided portion is ZERO WEIGHT The volume of divided pie does not exist. The pie still exists. But that is NOT the question or concern of the division result as THE RESULT FROM DIVISION only answers to one question of WHAT HAS BEEN DIVIDED. Division operation does not answer to what you had or have when you stop dividing. |
There are no portions so the weight of the non-existing portions is zero ? Is that like contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ? If there are no portions then how can they have a weight ?
But never mind. He has no doubt that convincing the world of this is a herculean task. since everyone has been brainwashed by the evil academia :
| How can you tell millions of people that they have been taught a mistake without getting them upset and hurting their ego. How do you correct a fine schooling institution that claims to have reached perfection thought the decades? Everybody seems to know everything these days. There is no way they could have been fooled. They know it all. Something like this could hurt their pride. So hardly anyone even wants to discuss the situation. They were told so and that's how it is. Such approach suggests that we are perfect but we are not. How can we expect to improve our system if we don't examine and fix our errors? This is really a matter of ethics. We have a crooked mathematics system. Should we fix it? Or do we keep it a secret for the so called worthy ones in those secret class rooms dedicated only to those who really need to learn the truth? Perhaps one could continue to teach based on the principle of what they do not know wont hurt them. After all people have been teaching all kinds of false concepts for many the ages. Does it really mater we should try and resolve this issue? I think we should for it will free many teachers from the burden of propagating this false concept. Division by zero error is the greatest injustice in science. It is a very serious problem. |
Of course, he never points to any area of science that needs this wonderful discovery, nor explains why it was never corrected, or, for the matter, why no one has made a bid for worldwide fame by proving his discovery. Scientists just aren't human !
He likes to use dynamic diagrams to illustrate his discovery. Unfortunately, some of them don't work on Firefox (shame !). But his "High-Tech Calculator" does work - high-tech because it returns zero for all dviisions by zero. The problem with his diagrams is that they show how absurd his discovery is. For example, enter a number different than zero in his "Definitions" page and you see the natural progression of results... and then zero.
In his page "Zero", he seeks to enlighten us on the mystical nature of the zero. Apparently zero is not a number at all, but rather that it represents "doing nothing" and "having nothing" (this point repeated over and over), and that zero is a sign :
| Zero is a number that has no volume. This is the only number shared by all number scales. While all numbers on different scales will have a different signature, zero will always be zero. Zero has no signature. There is no negative or positive zero. Zero is more of a universal sign that indicates you are at the end of your scale and there are no more values to be represented. Therefore every scale begins with zero or ends with zero if counting down. Zero is is the center point on all scales as they all meet at the only number that represents the beginning of the that scale. |
This leads to some practical problems. If zero is not a number like the others, then wouldn't that require a complete overhaul of all programs that exist ? All integer variables must be reformed. This leads me to my conversation with Andrew.
Now you may wonder how I know his name is Andrew. After all, his name is nowhere on the site. Well, I know because I engaged him by email for a while. After I asked him a simple question about application, he wrote me a very long and boring introductory email which I will not reproduce here. Here are the other emails he sent me in the course of our conversation :
| Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:18:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Point Of No Division Subject: Division by zero To: Francois Tremblay Francois Tremblay wrote: So... how is division by zero checking any more costly than your system, which would basically demand to create entirely new types of variables and to redo every program there is ? This is the consequence of your demand that zero not be considered a number, remember ? I never said zero is not a number. I said zero is a number that indicates there is no value, no volume, absence of other numbers. It is a number to be used for such indications. This does not hinder much of anything already we have. And so obviously you do not have much foresight into understanding it is only an improvement, not a change over. An amendment to the constitution with a few new rules. Everything pretty well else stands. The only change is that there are certain applications you and others can calculate when before you could not. But I bet you really do not care and like a commoner you don't feel the personal need for my applications. And so you can. Like I said before. It does not make a difference whether you are smart or not. You could live like an animal for all nature cares without math or linguistics or law or order. If you care for what is right tho then you got to work for it. And that is something many people just do not like. Working this out. It's too much for little people to do. To make a comprehensive revision to the situation is just so much work. Why would we want our employed mathematicians and professors to do something like that for? They must have much more important things to do. Like manipulating stock markets and counting stars, ma-by looking for black holes. Anyhow you take it easy and don't worry about me. I cant go wrong when I'm not dividing. I will be doing zero action. And that means I will have nothing done. And so my result will always be zero. Any result other then that would indicate action. It's not very hard to comprehend. You just have to study it. Anyways if you like to give me an example I'll show you how it works. But you have to think of something up cause I'm going to do zero work to your example until you do. See how I use zero. When there is no other number to represent volume of work. While all numbers represent volume this number does not. Like an indicator. I don't know what your perception of this number is but many people really think it has volume and that is a problem. Latter's Andrew Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 15:08:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Point Of No Division Subject: Re: Division by zero To: Francois Tremblay You're not comprehanding the objective. And that is to view it as a number without volume. Like an indicator because that is how it is used and lots of people do not understand that and think it has volume. That is why I write it like that. How you define it is irelevant to me. You can call it anything you like in any language ... HOW YOU USE IT is what the problem is. No one knows or has been taught how to use it in division. It's not a mater of definitions but more a mater of aplication. Anyhow you're not much of a math major so I'm gona let you go because you're waisting my time. Convincing you is pointless. |
No Andrew, I'm not comprehending the objective. That much is true.
Now, you might think : if any number divided by zero is zero, then that would imply that zero times zero equals any number. But zero times zero is zero. So how can this be ? Andrew is, as usual, one step ahead of you, as demonstrated by his page "Reversion" :
| So how do you handle this. Simply, you do not make an exception on reverse compatibility by flawing division by zero but making an exception to reversion stating its not backward compatible at point zero during multiplication or division. You can not figure out what you were going to divide or multiply if you nullify your formula at point zero. This is simple logic. You must calculate something real with a result to be able to calculate backwards. |
Ah... so when division by zero doesn't make sense, that's a problem, but when reversion doesn't make sense, that's not a problem - just an error. Gee. Thanks for clearing that up.
There are many delightfully naive notions on this site, such as how fractions are magical and mysterious, how zero represents not dividing and not doing anything (then why do the division by zero ?), how life and death occur at zero, or how we should have two different symbols for division. All in all, a pleasant diversion from a lot of the doom, gloom, and self-importance of a lot of other crackpots on this site. But a big zero for mathematical achievement.
http://www.insolitology.com/other/division.htm
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
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
Division By Zero（ゼロ除算）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
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
Division By Zero（ゼロ除算）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
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
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