1月25日 物理学者のロバート・ボイルが生まれる（1627年）
1661年に初版が刊行された『懐疑的化学者』は、アリストテレス以来の4元素説を、実験科学の立場から批判し、デカルトの粒子仮説、ガッサンディの原子仮説に基づいて元素を定義しています。 そして1662年に発見した、一定温度にある一定 ...https://gendai.ismedia.jp/articles/-/59370
とても興味深く読みました
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：5年 ゼロ除算の発見と重要性をした：再生核研究所 2014年2月2日
再生核研究所声明 470 (2019.2.2) ゼロ除算1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
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
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：
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/
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/
ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在
ゼロ除算の発見はどうでしょうか：
Black holes are where God divided by zero：
再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演― 国際会議
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12287338180.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html
ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス その他
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12328488611.html
ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第２回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc
NHKスペシャル 神の数式 完全版 第4回 異次元宇宙は存在するか
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs
再生核研究所声明 411(2018.02.02): ゼロ除算発見4周年を迎えて
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12348847166.html
再生核研究所声明 416(2018.2.20): ゼロ除算をやってどういう意味が有りますか。何か意味が有りますか。何になるのですか － 回答
再生核研究所声明 417(2018.2.23): ゼロ除算って何ですか － 中学生、高校生向き 回答
再生核研究所声明 418(2018.2.24): 割り算とは何ですか？ ゼロ除算って何ですか － 小学生、中学生向き 回答
再生核研究所声明 420(2018.3.2): ゼロ除算は正しいですか，合っていますか、信用できますか － 回答
2018.3.18．午前中 最後の講演： 日本数学会 東大駒場、函数方程式論分科会 講演書画カメラ用 原稿
The Japanese Mathematical Society, Annual Meeting at the University of Tokyo. 2018.3.18.
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12361744016.html より
*057 Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.): Differential and Difference Equations with Applications: ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017. (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230) May 2018 587 pp.
再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチとゼロ除算
再生核研究所声明 427(2018.5.8): 神の数式、神の意志 そしてゼロ除算
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。
1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：
再生核研究所声明 １４８（2014.2.12） 100/0=0, 0/0=0 － 割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると ― 神の意志 https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/69056435.html
再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味 ― ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？http://reproducingkernel.blogspot.jp/2014/07/201473010000.html
Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.
私は数学を信じない。 アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
A 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, 2009
Dividing 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 failzorz
Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz
神の数式：
神の数式が解析関数でかけて居れば、 特異点でローラン展開して、正則部の第1項を取れば、 何時でも有限値を得るので、 形式的に無限が出ても 実は問題なく 意味を有します。
物理学者如何でしょうか。
ゼロ除算、ゼロで割る問題、分からない、正しいのかなど、 良く理解できない人が 未だに 多いようです。そこで、簡潔な一般的な 解説を思い付きました。 もちろん、学会などでも述べていますが、 予断で 良く聞けないようです。まず、分数、a/b は a 割る b のことで、これは 方程式 b x=a の解のことです。ところが、 b がゼロならば、 どんな xでも 0 x =0 ですから、a がゼロでなければ、解は存在せず、 従って 100/0 など、ゼロ除算は考えられない、できないとなってしまいます。 普通の意味では ゼロ除算は 不可能であるという、世界の常識、定説です。できない、不可能であると言われれば、いろいろ考えたくなるのが、人間らしい創造の精神です。 基本方程式 b x=a が b がゼロならば解けない、解が存在しないので、困るのですが、このようなとき、従来の結果が成り立つような意味で、解が考えられないかと、数学者は良く考えて来ました。 何と、 そのような方程式は 何時でも唯一つに 一般化された意味で解をもつと考える 方法があります。 Moore-Penrose 一般化逆の考え方です。 どんな行列の 逆行列を唯一つに定める 一般的な 素晴らしい、自然な考えです。その考えだと、 b がゼロの時、解はゼロが出るので、 a/0=0 と定義するのは 当然です。 すなわち、この意味で 方程式の解を考えて 分数を考えれば、ゼロ除算は ゼロとして定まる ということです。ただ一つに定まるのですから、 この考えは 自然で、その意味を知りたいと 考えるのは、当然ではないでしょうか？初等数学全般に影響を与える ユークリッド以来の新世界が 現れてきます。
ゼロ除算の誤解は深刻：
最近、3つの事が在りました。
私の簡単な講演、相当な数学者が信じられないような誤解をして、全然理解できなく、目が回っているいるような印象を受けたこと、
相当ゼロ除算の研究をされている方が、基本を誤解されていたこと、1/0 の定義を誤解されていた。
相当な才能の持ち主が、連続性や順序に拘って、４年以上もゼロ除算の研究を避けていたこと。
これらのことは、人間如何に予断と偏見にハマった存在であるかを教えている。
まずは ゼロ除算は不可能であるの 思いが強すぎで、初めからダメ、考えない、無視の気持ちが、強い。 ゼロ除算を従来の 掛け算の逆と考えると、不可能であるが 証明されてしまうので、割り算の意味を拡張しないと、考えられない。それで、 1/0,0/0,z/0 などの意味を発見する必要がある。 それらの意味は、普通の意味ではないことの 初めの考えを飛ばして ダメ、ダメの感情が 突っ走ている。 非ユークリッド幾何学の出現や天動説が地動説に変わった世界史の事件のような 形相と言える。
最近、3つの事が在りました。
私の簡単な講演、相当な数学者が信じられないような誤解をして、全然理解できなく、目が回っているいるような印象を受けたこと、
相当ゼロ除算の研究をされている方が、基本を誤解されていたこと、1/0 の定義を誤解されていた。
相当な才能の持ち主が、連続性や順序に拘って、４年以上もゼロ除算の研究を避けていたこと。
これらのことは、人間如何に予断と偏見にハマった存在であるかを教えている。
まずは ゼロ除算は不可能であるの 思いが強すぎで、初めからダメ、考えない、無視の気持ちが、強い。 ゼロ除算を従来の 掛け算の逆と考えると、不可能であるが 証明されてしまうので、割り算の意味を拡張しないと、考えられない。それで、 1/0,0/0,z/0 などの意味を発見する必要がある。 それらの意味は、普通の意味ではないことの 初めの考えを飛ばして ダメ、ダメの感情が 突っ走ている。 非ユークリッド幾何学の出現や天動説が地動説に変わった世界史の事件のような 形相と言える。
２０１８．９．２２．６：４１
ゼロ除算の４つの誤解：
ゼロ除算の４つの誤解：
１． ゼロでは割れない、ゼロ除算は 不可能である との考え方に拘って、思考停止している。 普通、不可能であるは、考え方や意味を拡張して 可能にできないかと考えるのが 数学の伝統であるが、それができない。
２． 可能にする考え方が 紹介されても ゼロ除算の意味を誤解して、繰り返し間違えている。可能にする理論を 素直に理解しない、 強い従来の考えに縛られている。拘っている。
３． ゼロ除算を関数に適用すると 強力な不連続性を示すが、連続性のアリストテレス以来の 連続性の考えに囚われていて 強力な不連続性を受け入れられない。数学では、不連続性の概念を明確に持っているのに、不連続性の凄い現象に、ゼロ除算の場合には 理解できない。
４． 深刻な誤解は、ゼロ除算は本質的に定義であり、仮定に基づいているので 疑いの気持ちがぬぐえず、ダメ、怪しいと誤解している。数学が公理系に基づいた理論体系のように、ゼロ除算は 新しい仮定に基づいていること。 定義に基づいていることの認識が良く理解できず、誤解している。
George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that "it is well known to students of high school algebra" that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.
Eπi =-1 （1748）（Leonhard Euler）
1/0=0/0=0 （2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0= tan (pi/2)=0
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12420397278.html
1+1=2 （ ）
a2+b2=c2 （Pythagoras）
1/0=0/0=0（2014年2月2日再生核研究所）
№920 Dividing by Nothing by Alberto Martinez
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.
https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/ より
The Road
Fig 5.2. Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) were the culprits, ignoring the first commandment of mathematics not to divide by zero. But they hit gold, because what they mined in the process was the ideal circle.
http://thethirty-ninesteps.com/page_5-the_road.php より
mercredi, juillet 06, 2011
0/0, la célèbre formule d'Evariste Galois !
http://divisionparzero.blogspot.jp/2011/07/00-la-celebre-formule-devariste-galois.html より
無限に関する様々な数学的概念：無限大 ：記号∞ （アーベルなどはこれを 1 / 0 のように表記していた）で表す。 大雑把に言えば、いかなる数よりも大きいさまを表すものであるが、より明確な意味付けは文脈により様々である。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%84%A1%E9%99%90 より
リーマン球面：無限遠点が、実は 原点と通じていた。
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%B3%E7%90%83%E9%9D%A2 より
http://jestingstock.com/indian-mathematician-brahmagupta-image.html より
ブラーマグプタ（Brahmagupta、598年 – 668年?）はインドの数学者・天文学者。ブラマグプタとも呼ばれる。その著作は、イスラーム世界やヨーロッパにインド数学や天文学を伝える役割を果たした。
628年に、総合的な数理天文書『ブラーマ・スプタ・シッダーンタ』（ब्राह्मस्फुटसिद्धान्त Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta）を著した。この中の数章で数学が扱われており、第12章はガニタ（算術）、第18章はクッタカ（代数）にあてられている。クッタカという語は、もとは「粉々に砕く」という意味だったが、のちに係数の値を小さくしてゆく逐次過程の方法を意味するようになり、代数の中で不定解析を表すようになった。この書では、 0 と負の数にも触れていて、その算法は現代の考え方に近い（ただし 0 ÷ 0 ＝ 0 と定義している点は現代と異なっている）
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B0%E3%83%97%E3%82%BFより
ブラーマ・スプタ・シッダーンタ (Brahmasphutasiddhanta) は、7世紀のインドの数学者・天文学者であるブラーマグプタの628年の著作である。表題は宇宙の始まりという意味。
数としての「0（ゼロ）の概念」がはっきりと書かれた、現存する最古の書物として有名である。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B9%E3%83%97%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B7%E3%83%83%E3%83%80%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF より
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
Impact of ‘Division by Zero’ in Einstein’s Static Universe and Newton’s Equations in Classical Mechanics：http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/2084 より
神秘的に美しい3つの公式：
面白い事にゼロ除算については、いろいろな説が現在存在します
しかし、間もなく決着がつくのではないでしょうか。
ゼロ除算は、なにもかも当たり前ではないでしょうか。
ラース・ヴァレリアン・アールフォルス（Lars Valerian Ahlfors、1907年4月18日-1996年10月11日）はフィンランドの数学者。リーマン面の研究と複素解析の教科書を書いたことで知られる。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%BB%E3%83%B4%E3%82%A1%E3%83%AC%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B9
フィールズ賞第一号
COMPLEX ANALYSIS, 3E (International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics) (英語) ハードカバー – 1979/1/1
Lars Ahlfors (著)
http://www.amazon.co.jp/COMPLEX-ANALYSIS-International-Applied-Mathematics/dp/0070006571/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463478645&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=Lars+Valerian+Ahlfors%E3%80%80%E3%80%80COMPLEX+ANALYSIS
原点の円に関する鏡像は、実は 原点であった。
本では、無限遠点と考えられていました。
Ramanujan says that answer for 0/0 is infinity. But I'm not sure it's ...
https://www.quora.com/Ramanujan-says-that-answer-for-0-0-is-infi...
You can see from the other answers, that from the concept of limits, 0/0 can approach any value, even infinity. ... So, let me take a system where division by zero is actually defined, that is, you can multiply or divide both sides of an equation by ...
https://www.quora.com/Ramanujan-says-that-answer-for-0-0-is-infinity-But-Im-not-sure-its-correct-Can-anyone-help-me
Abel Memorial in Gjerstad
Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero
H. G. Romig
The American Mathematical Monthly
Vol. 31, No. 8 (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
DOI: 10.2307/2298825
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2298825
Page Count: 3
ロピタルの定理 (ロピタルのていり、英: l'Hôpital's rule) とは、微分積分学において不定形 (en) の極限を微分を用いて求めるための定理である。綴りl'Hôpital / l'Hospital、カタカナ表記ロピタル / ホスピタルの揺れについてはギヨーム・ド・ロピタルの項を参照。ベルヌーイの定理 (英語: Bernoulli's rule) と呼ばれることもある。本定理を (しばしば複数回) 適用することにより、不定形の式を非不定形の式に変換し、その極限値を容易に求めることができる可能性がある。https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%94%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%81%AE%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86
Ein aufleuchtender Blitz: Niels Henrik Abel und seine Zeit
https://books.google.co.jp/books?isbn=3642558402 -
Arild Stubhaug - 2013 - Mathematics
Niels Henrik Abel und seine Zeit Arild Stubhaug. Abb. 19 a–c. a. ... Eine Kurve, die Abel studierte und dabei herausfand, wie sich der Umfang inn gleich große Teile aufteilen lässt. ... Beim Integralzeichen statt der liegenden ∞ den Bruch 1/0.
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=wTP1BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Niels+Henrik+Abel%E3%80%80%E3%80%80ARILD+Stubhaug%E3%80%80%E3%80%80%EF%BC%91/0%EF%BC%9D%E2%88%9E&source=bl&ots=wUaYL6x6lK&sig=OX1Yk_HxbCMm_FACotHYlgrbfsg&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8-pftm-PPAhXIzVQKHX7ZCMEQ6AEISTAG#v=onepage&q=Niels%20Henrik%20Abel%E3%80%80%E3%80%80ARILD%20Stubhaug%E3%80%80%E3%80%80%EF%BC%91%2F0%EF%BC%9D%E2%88%9E&f=false
Indeterminate: the hidden power of 0 divided by 0
2016/12/02 に公開
You've all been indoctrinated into accepting that you cannot divide by zero. Find out about the beautiful mathematics that results when you do it anyway in calculus. Featuring some of the most notorious "forbidden" expressions like 0/0 and 1^∞ as well as Apple's Siri and Sir Isaac Newton.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc0M1o8tuPo より
ゼロ除算の論文：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/P1-Division.pdf より
Eulerのゼロ除算に関する想い：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Downloads/Y_1770_Euler_Elements%20of%20algebra%20traslated%201840%20l%20p%2059%20(1).pdf より
An Approach to Overcome Division by Zero in the Interval Gauss Algorithm
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015565313636
Carolus Fridericus Gauss：https://www.slideshare.net/fgz08/gauss-elimination-4686597
Archimedes：Arbelos
https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Stamps/stamps.html より
Archimedes Principle in Completely Submerged Balloons: Revisited
Ajay Sharma：
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/research_papers_mechanics___electrodynamics_science_journal_3499.pdf
［PDF]Indeterminate Form in the Equations of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Relativity%20Theory/Download/3222
このページを訳す
0. 0 . The reason is that in the case of Archimedes principle, equations became feasible in. 1935 after enunciation of the principle in 1685, when ... Although division by zero is not permitted, yet it smoothly follows from equations based upon.
Thinking ahead of Archimedes, Newton and Einstein - The General ...
gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications.../5503
このページを訳す
old Archimedes Principle, Newton' s law, Einstein 's mass energy equation. E=mc2 . .... filled in balloon becomes INDETERMINATE (0/0). It is not justified. If the generalized form Archimedes principle is used then we get exact volume V .....
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5503
Find circles that are tangent to three given circles (Apollonius’ Problem) in C#
http://csharphelper.com/blog/2016/09/find-circles-that-are-tangent-to-three-given-circles-apollonius-problem-in-c/ より
ゼロ除算に関する詩：
The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out.
http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html より
2019年1月24日(木)
List of division by zero:
Sangaku
Journal of Mathematics (SJM) c ⃝SJMISSN 2534-9562 Volume 2
(2018), pp. 57-73 Received 20 November 2018. Published on-line 29 November 2018
web: http://www.sangaku-journal.eu/ c ⃝The Author(s) This article is published with open
access1.
Wasan
Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus
∗Hiroshi Okumura and ∗∗Saburou Saitoh
\bibitem{ass}
H.
Akca, S. Pinelas and S. Saitoh, Incompleteness of the theory of differential
equations and open problems, International Journal of Applied Mathematics and
Statistics, Int. J. Appl. Math. Stat. Vol. {\bf 57}; Issue No. 4; Year 2018,
ISSN 0973-1377 (Print), ISSN 0973-7545 (Online).
\bibitem{bb}
J.
P. Baruk\v{c}i\'{c} and I. Baruk\v{c}i\'{c}, Anti Aristotle - The Division Of
Zero By Zero,
ViXra.org
(Friday, June 5, 2015)
Ilija
BarukiE Jever, Germany. All rights reserved. Friday, June 5, 2015 20:44:59.
\bibitem{bar}
I.
Baruk\v{c}i\'{c},
Dialectical
Logic - Negation Of Classical Logic, \\
\bibitem{bht}
J.
A. Bergstra, Y. Hirshfeld and J. V. Tucker,
Meadows
and the equational specification of division (arXiv:0901.0823v1[math.RA] 7 Jan
2009).
\bibitem{berg}
J.A.
Bergstra, Conditional Values in Signed Meadow Based Axiomatic Probability
Calculus,
arXiv:1609.02812v2[math.LO]
17 Sep 2016.
\bibitem{ca}
J.
Carlstr$\ddot{{\rm o}}$m, Wheels -- On Division by Zero, Mathematical
Structures in Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, {\bf 14} (1)
(2004), 143-184, doi:10.1017/S0960129503004110.
\bibitem{cs}
L.
P. Castro and S. Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations,
Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{j}
J.
Czajko, On Cantorian spacetime over number systems with division by zero,
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, {\bf 21}(2004), 261-271.
doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2003.12.046
\bibitem{jake}
J.
Czajko, Equalized mass can explain the dark energy
or
missing mass problem as higher density
of
matter in stars amplifies their attraction,
WSN
{\bf 80} (2017), 207-238 EISSN 2392-2192
\bibitem{c18}
J.
Czajko, Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication
by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces,
World
Scientific News {\bf 92}(2) (2018), 171-197.
\bibitem{jer}
E.
Je$\check{\rm r}\acute{\rm a}$bek, Division by zero, Archive for Mathematical
Logic {\bf 55} (2016), no. 7, pp. 997--1013. arXiv:1604.07309 [math.LO].
\bibitem{kmsy}
M.
Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New
meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on
$0/0=0$,
Int.
J. Appl. Math. {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{ms16}
T.
Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Matrices
and division by zero $z/0=0$,
Advances
in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory, {\bf 6}(2016), 51-58
Published
Online June 2016 in SciRes. \url{http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt},
\bibitem{ms18}
T.
Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Division
by zero calculus and singular integrals. (manuscript)
\bibitem{mms18}
T.
Matsuura, H. Michiwaki and S. Saitoh,
$\log
0= \log \infty =0$ and applications. Differential and Difference Equations with
Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics. {\bf 230}
(2018), 293--305.
\bibitem{msy}
H.
Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M.Yamada,
Reality
of the division by zero $z/0=0$. IJAPM International J. of Applied Physics and
Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1--8. \url{http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html}.
\bibitem{mos}
H.
Michiwaki, H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Division
by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces,
International
Journal of Mathematics and Computation, {\bf 2}8(2017); Issue 1, 1-16.
\bibitem{o}
Int.
J. Geom., \textbf{8}(1)(2018) 17-20.
\bibitem{obb}
H.
Okumura, Is it really impossible to divide by zero?,
Biostatistics
and Biometrics, \textbf{7}(1)(2018) 1-2.
\bibitem{osjm18}
H. Okumura, Solution to 2017-1 Problem 4 with division by zero,
Sangaku
J. Math., \textbf{2}(2018) 27-30.
\bibitem{osjm17}
Y. Kanai, H. Okumura, A three tangent congruent circle problem,
Sangaku
J. Math., \textbf{1}(2018) 16-20.
\bibitem{os}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero
calculus.
\url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961 (2017.11.14)}.
\bibitem{os182}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Harmonic
mean and division by zero,
Forum
Geom., \textbf{18}(2018) 155-159.
\bibitem{os18}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Remarks
for the twin circles of Archimedes in a skewed arbelos by Okumura and Watanabe,
Forum Geom., {\bf 18}(2018), 97-100.
\bibitem{os18e}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Applications
of the division by zero calculus to Wasan geometry,
Glob.
J. Adv. Res. Class. Mod. Geom., \textbf{7}(2)(2018) 44-49.
\bibitem{osm}
H.
Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of $0$ and $\infty$,
Journal
of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), {\bf 1}(2017), 70-77.
\bibitem{ps18}
S.
Pinelas and S. Saitoh,
Division
by zero calculus and differential equations. Differential and Difference
Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \&
Statistics. {\bf 230} (2018), 399--418.
\bibitem{ra}
T.
S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transdifferential
and Transintegral Calculus,
Proceedings
of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2014 Vol I
WCECS
2014, 22-24 October, 2014, San Francisco, USA.
\bibitem{ra2}
T.
S. Reis and James A.D.W. Anderson,
Transreal
Calculus,
IAENG
International J. of Applied Math., {\bf 45}(2015): IJAM 45 1 06.
\bibitem{romig}
H.
G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American
Mathematical Monthly, Vol. {\bf 3}1, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), 387-389.
\bibitem{s14}
S.
Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,
Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. {\bf 4} (2014), no. 2, 87--95.
\url{http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/}.
\bibitem{s16}
S.
Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,
Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.):
Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications - Plenary Lectures: Isaac
2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, {\bf
177}(2016), 151-182. (Springer) .
\bibitem{s17}
S.
Saitoh, Mysterious Properties of the Point at Infinity, arXiv:1712.09467
[math.GM](2017.12.17).
\bibitem{s18}
S.
Saitoh, Division by zero calculus (211 pages: draft), \\ \url{http://file.okmr.yamatoblog.net/bso180211.pdf}.
\bibitem{so18}
S.
Saitoh and H. Okumura, Division by Zero Calculus in Figures -- Our New Space --
(manuscript).
\bibitem{san}
B.
Santangelo, An Introduction To S-Structures And Defining Division By Zero,
arXiv:1611.06838 [math.GM].
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E.
Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional
binary operations on the real and complex fields, Tokyo Journal of Mathematics,
{\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.
|
Dear
Akca, H; Pinelas, S; Saitoh, S
|
|
Warmest
greetings!
|
|
We have
read about your published precious paper in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
APPLIED MATHEMATICS & STATISTICS titled The Division by
Zero z/0=0 and Differential Equations (materials), and the topic of the
paper has impressed us a lot.
|
|
The paper
has drawn attention and interest from researchers and scholars specializing
in Differential equation; division by zero; 1/0=0/0=0; field; Y-field;
reflection with respect to circle; point at infinity; infinity; gradient;
circle; curvature; EM radius; Laurent expansion; singularity; derivative
|
\bibitem{os}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero
calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961(2017.11.14).
ｘ\bibitem{oku18}
H.
Okumura, Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero? Biostat Biometrics Open Acc
J. 2018; 7(1): 555703.
DOI:
10.19080/BBOJ.2018.07.555703.
ｘ\bibitem{o}
H.
Okumura, Wasan geometry with the division by 0. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06947. International Journal of
Geometry, {\bf 7}(2018), No. 1, 17-20.
\bibitem{os18a}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Remarks
for The Twin Circles of Archimedes in a Skewed Arbelos by H. Okumura and M.
Watanabe, Forum Geometricorum, {\bf 18}(2018), 97-100.
\bibitem{os18b}
H.
Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Applications
of the division by zero calculus to Wasan geometry.
GLOBAL
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH ON CLASSICAL AND MODERN GEOMETRIES” (GJARCMG)
{\bf 7}(2018), 2, 44--49.
L.
P. Castro and S. Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations,
Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
M.
Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New
meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on
$0/0=0$, Int. J. Appl. Math. {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198, DOI:
10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
T.
Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Matrices
and division by zero z/0=0,
Advances
in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory, 2016, 6, 51-58
ｘT. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Division
by zero calculus and singular integrals. (Submitted for publication).
T.
Matsuura, H. Michiwaki and S. Saitoh,
$\log
0= \log \infty =0$ and applications. (Differential and Difference Equations
with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \& Statistics.)
H.
Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M.Yamada,
Reality
of the division by zero $z/0=0$. IJAPM International J. of Applied Physics and
Math. 6(2015), 1--8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html
H.
Michiwaki, H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Division
by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces,
International
Journal of Mathematics and Computation, 28(2017); Issue 1, 2017), 1-16.
H.
Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of $0$ and $\infty$,
Journal
of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017), 70-77.
S.
Pinelas and S. Saitoh,
Division
by zero calculus and differential equations. (Differential and Difference
Equations with Applications. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics \&
Statistics).
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿