2019年1月16日水曜日

What Einstein thought about God FROM Jim Baggott Central Press/Getty Images December 25, 201

What Einstein thought about God
Jim Baggott

Central Press/Getty Images
December 25, 201
"The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One," wrote Albert Einstein in December 1926. "I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice."
Einstein was responding to a letter from the German physicist Max Born. The heart of the new theory of quantum mechanics, Born had argued, beats randomly and uncertainly, as though suffering from arrhythmia. Whereas physics before the quantum had always been about doing this and getting that, the new quantum mechanics appeared to say that when we do this, we get that only with a certain probability. And in some circumstances we might get the other.
Einstein was having none of it, and his insistence that God does not play dice with the Universe has echoed down the decades, as familiar and yet as elusive in its meaning as E = mc2. What did Einstein mean by it? And how did Einstein conceive of God?
Hermann and Pauline Einstein were nonobservant Ashkenazi Jews. Despite his parents' secularism, the nine-year-old Albert discovered and embraced Judaism with some considerable passion, and for a time he was a dutiful, observant Jew. Following Jewish custom, his parents would invite a poor scholar to share a meal with them each week, and from the impoverished medical student Max Talmud (later Talmey) the young and impressionable Einstein learned about mathematics and science. He consumed all 21 volumes of Aaron Bernstein's joyful Popular Books on Natural Science (1880). Talmud then steered him in the direction of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781), from which he migrated to the philosophy of David Hume. From Hume, it was a relatively short step to the Austrian physicist Ernst Mach, whose stridently empiricist, seeing-is-believing brand of philosophy demanded a complete rejection of metaphysics, including notions of absolute space and time, and the existence of atoms.
But this intellectual journey had mercilessly exposed the conflict between science and scripture. The now 12-year-old Einstein rebelled. He developed a deep aversion to the dogma of organized religion that would last for his lifetime, an aversion that extended to all forms of authoritarianism, including any kind of dogmatic atheism.
This youthful, heavy diet of empiricist philosophy would serve Einstein well some 14 years later. Mach's rejection of absolute space and time helped to shape Einstein's special theory of relativity (including the iconic equation E = mc2), which he formulated in 1905 while working as a "technical expert, third class" at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. Ten years later, Einstein would complete the transformation of our understanding of space and time with the formulation of his general theory of relativity, in which the force of gravity is replaced by curved spacetime. But as he grew older (and wiser), he came to reject Mach's aggressive empiricism, and once declared that "Mach was as good at mechanics as he was wretched at philosophy."
Over time, Einstein evolved a much more realist position. He preferred to accept the content of a scientific theory realistically, as a contingently "true" representation of an objective physical reality. And, although he wanted no part of religion, the belief in God that he had carried with him from his brief flirtation with Judaism became the foundation on which he constructed his philosophy. When asked about the basis for his realist stance, he explained: "I have no better expression than the term 'religious' for this trust in the rational character of reality and in its being accessible, at least to some extent, to human reason."
But Einstein's was a God of philosophy, not religion. When asked many years later whether he believed in God, he replied: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." Baruch Spinoza, a contemporary of Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz, had conceived of God as identical with nature. For this, he was considered a dangerous heretic, and was excommunicated from the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
Einstein's God is infinitely superior but impersonal and intangible, subtle but not malicious. He is also firmly determinist. As far as Einstein was concerned, God's "lawful harmony" is established throughout the cosmos by strict adherence to the physical principles of cause and effect. Thus, there is no room in Einstein's philosophy for free will: "Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control … we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player."
The special and general theories of relativity provided a radical new way of conceiving of space and time and their active interactions with matter and energy. These theories are entirely consistent with the "lawful harmony" established by Einstein's God. But the new theory of quantum mechanics, which Einstein had also helped to found in 1905, was telling a different story. Quantum mechanics is about interactions involving matter and radiation, at the scale of atoms and molecules, set against a passive background of space and time.
Earlier in 1926, the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger had radically transformed the theory by formulating it in terms of rather obscure "wavefunctions." Schrödinger himself preferred to interpret these realistically, as descriptive of "matter waves." But a consensus was growing, strongly promoted by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr and the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, that the new quantum representation shouldn't be taken too literally.
In essence, Bohr and Heisenberg argued that science had finally caught up with the conceptual problems involved in the description of reality that philosophers had been warning of for centuries. Bohr is quoted as saying: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." This vaguely positivist statement was echoed by Heisenberg: "[W]e have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning." Their broadly antirealist "Copenhagen interpretation" — denying that the wavefunction represents the real physical state of a quantum system — quickly became the dominant way of thinking about quantum mechanics. More recent variations of such antirealist interpretations suggest that the wavefunction is simply a way of "coding" our experience, or our subjective beliefs derived from our experience of the physics, allowing us to use what we've learned in the past to predict the future.
MORE FROM AEON

But this was utterly inconsistent with Einstein's philosophy. Einstein could not accept an interpretation in which the principal object of the representation — the wavefunction — is not "real." He could not accept that his God would allow the "lawful harmony" to unravel so completely at the atomic scale, bringing lawless indeterminism and uncertainty, with effects that can't be entirely and unambiguously predicted from their causes.
The stage was thus set for one of the most remarkable debates in the entire history of science, as Bohr and Einstein went head-to-head on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. It was a clash of two philosophies, two conflicting sets of metaphysical preconceptions about the nature of reality and what we might expect from a scientific representation of this. The debate began in 1927, and although the protagonists are no longer with us, the debate is still very much alive.
And unresolved.
I don't think Einstein would have been particularly surprised by this. In February 1954, just over a year before he died, he wrote in a letter to the American physicist David Bohm: "If God created the world, his primary concern was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us."
This article was originally published by Aeon, a digital magazine for ideas and culture. Follow them on Twitter at @aeonmag.


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


\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.
\bigskip
\section{Introduction}
%\label{sect1}
By a natural extension of the fractions
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{0}=0,
\end{equation}
incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.　
The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,
Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:
\bigskip
{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that
$$
F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)
$$
for all
$$
a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }
$$
and
$$
F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.
$$
Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $
$$
F (b, 0) = 0.
$$
}
\medskip
\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}
For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;
that is, the fraction
\begin{equation}
\frac{b}{a}
\end{equation}
is defined as the solution of the equation
\begin{equation}
a\cdot x= b.
\end{equation}
The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:
As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}
\end{equation}
for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,
\begin{equation}
\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,
\end{equation}
however, in our fraction
\begin{equation}
F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.
\end{equation}
\medskip


Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).
In Japanese language for "division", there exists such a concept independently of product.
H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:
$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.
Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:
$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.
$100/10=10　\quad$　will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.
$100/0=0　\quad$　will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.
Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;
$$
100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.
$$
Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?
\medskip
For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:
The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
100-2-2-2-,...,-2.
$$
How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.
The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:
$$
3 - 2 = 1
$$
and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,
then we consider similarly as follows:
$$
10-2-2-2-2-2=0.
$$
Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:
$$
\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.
$$
By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.
Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since
$$
100 - 0 = 100,
$$
that is, by the subtraction $100 - 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,
$$
\frac{100}{0} = 0.
$$
We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.
Similarly, we can see that
$$
\frac{0}{0} =0.
$$
As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$
$$
\frac{b}{0} =0.
$$
See \cite{kmsy} for the details.
\medskip

\section{In complex analysis}
We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);
that is, for the mapping
\begin{equation}
w = \frac{1}{z},
\end{equation}
the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.
However, we shall recall the elementary function
\begin{equation}
W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}
\end{equation}
$$
= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .
$$
The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:
\begin{equation}
W(0) = 1.
\end{equation}
{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?
In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.
As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).
\bigskip
\section{Conclusion}
The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.
The result does not contradict with the present mathematics - however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.
The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.
Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:
For the elementary graph of the fundamental function
$$
y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},
$$
$$
f(0) = 0.
$$
The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).
\medskip
If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.
\bigskip

\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\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. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
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

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


〔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


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

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

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf  Announcement 362:   Discovery of the division by zero as \\
$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\
(2017.5.5)}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\
 }
\date{\today}
\maketitle
{\bf Statement: }  The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 - BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century - ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta  (598 - 668 ?).
In particular,  Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/


\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}

\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{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. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

\bibitem{ms}
T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,
Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra
\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt　

\bibitem{mos}
H.  Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,
Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.
 International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue  1, 2017), 1-16.　

\bibitem{osm}
H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of   $0$ and  $\infty$,
Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017),  70-77.

\bibitem{romig}
H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices,  Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory.  {\bf 4}  (2014), no. 2,  87--95. 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{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.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}



再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017　報告

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.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

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
https://img-proxy.blog-video.jp/images?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldscientificnews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Ffiletype-icons%2Ficons%2F16%2Ffile_extension_pdf.pngWSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197


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。

 https://plaza.jp.rakuten-static.com/img/user/diary/new.gif
カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類
​そこで、計算機は何時、1/0=0　ができるようになるでしょうか。　楽しみにしています。　もうできる進化した　計算機をお持ちの方は　おられないですね。
これは凄い、面白い事件では？　計算機が人間を超えている　例では？

面白いことを発見しました。　計算機は 正しい答え 0/0=0
を出したのに、　この方は　間違いだと　言っている、思っているようです。
0/0=0　は　１３００年も前に　算術の発見者によって与えられたにも関わらず、世界史は間違いだと　とんでもないことを言ってきた。　世界史の恥。　実は　a/0=0　が　何時も成り立っていた。　しかし、ここで　分数の意味を　きちんと定義する必要がある。　計算機は、その意味さえ知っているようですね。　計算機、人間より賢くなっている　様が　出て居て　実に　面白い。
https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類
​
面白いことを発見しました。　計算機は 正しい答え 0/0=0
を出したのに、　この方は　間違いだと　言っている、思っているようです。
0/0=0　は　１３００年も前に　算術の発見者によって与えられたにも関わらず、世界史は間違いだと　とんでもないことを言ってきた。　実は　a/0=0　が　何時も成り立っていた。しかし、ここで　分数の意味を　きちんと定義する必要がある。　計算機は、その意味さえ知っているようですね。　計算機、人間より賢くなっている様が　出て居て　実に面白い。

 
https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３

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。
２０１８．９．２２．６：４１
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）






投稿者 時刻:

0 件のコメント:

コメントを投稿

登録: コメントの投稿 (Atom)