# 2000年間も数学者を苦しめた「3つの難題」挑戦してみませんか？ 現代ビジネス-14 時間前

2000年間も数学者を苦しめた「3つの難題」挑戦してみませんか？

2000年間も数学者を苦しめた「3つの難題」挑戦してみませんか？

プロフィール
シェア63ツイートブックマーク3
ブルーバックスの大好評連載〈雑学数学〉、今回のテーマは「数学史」！
はるか昔、ギリシャの時代の数学者を悩ませ、そして魅了した「三大作図問題」と、「円周率の近似値の算定」の2つのトピックをお届けします。数学のお兄さんと一緒に、奥深い数学の歴史を旅してみましょう。

とはいえ、個人的には、わずか1ページの紹介では「数学史」という魅力ある分野のことはとうてい伝えきれないように思います。

【雑学21】古代の「三大作図問題」
まずは、紀元前の「未解決問題」を紹介します。

・円と同じ面積の正方形を作図することができるのか
・与えられた立方体の体積の二倍の体積を持つ立方体を作図することができるのか
・任意の角を作図により三等分することができるのか
ここでの「作図」においては、コンパスと定規のみ使用することが許されました。当然、分度器や三角定規のような道具は使えません。

19世紀になってようやく、この問題はすべて「不可能」であることが証明され、解決に至りました。

ではいよいよ、この3つの作図問題を順に解説していきましょう。

まずは1つ目の、

・円と同じ面積の正方形を作図することができるのか
について見ていきましょう。

こちらは「円積問題」と別名がついている問題です。以下のような図をイメージすると、理解しやすいと思います。

Illustrated by Wikipedia

この問題は、同じ面積である円と正方形を描けばいいというだけなので、円の半径や正方形の一辺の長さはとくに決める必要はありません。

したがって、ここではわかりやすく「円の半径を1として、同じ面積の正方形が作図可能であるか」を考えてきましょう。

.https://gendai.ismedia.jp/articles/-/67576

Announcement 213
2015年02月26日(木)
テーマ：再生核研究所声明
Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $0.999999...... =1$
カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $0.999999...... =1$
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall give a very simple interpretation for the identity: $0.999999......=1$.
\bigskip
\section{ Introduction}
On January 8, 2008, Yuusuke Maede, 8 years old boy, asked the question, at Gunma University, that (Announcement 9(2007/9/1): Education for genius boys and girls):
What does it mean by the identity:
$$0.999999......=1?$$
at the same time, he said: I am most interesting in the structure of large prime numbers. Then, a teacher answered for the question by the popular reason based on the convergence of the series: $0.9, 0.99, 0.999,...$. Its answer seems to be not suitable for the 8 years old boy with his parents (not mathematicians). Our answer seems to have a general interest, and after then, such our answer has not been heard from many mathematicians, indeed.
This is why writting this announcement.
\medskip
\bigskip
\section{An interpretation}
\medskip
In order to see the essence, we shall consider the simplist case:

\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^3} + ... = 1.

Imagine a tape of one meter length, we will give its half tape: that is,

\frac{1}{2}.

Next, we will give its (the rest's half) half tape; that is, $\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{2} = \frac{1}{2^2}$, then you have, altogether

\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} .

Next, we will give the last one's half (the rest's half); that is, $\frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{2} \cdot \frac{1}{2}= \frac{1}{2^3}$,
then, you have, altogether

\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2^2} + \frac{1}{2^3}.

By this procedure, you will be able to obtain the small tapes endressly. Imagine all the sum as in the left hand side of (2.1). However, we will see that this sum is just the division of the one meter tape. Therefore, we will be able to confim the identity (2.1), clearly.
The question proposed by Y. Maede is just the small change the ratio $\frac{1}{2}$ by $\frac{9}{10}$.
\bigskip
\section{ Conclusion}
Y. Maede asked the true sense of the limit in the series:
$$0.999999.....$$
that is, this series is approaching to 1; however, is it equal or not ? The above interpretation means that the infinite series equals to one and it is just the infinite division of one. By this inverse approarch, the question will make clear.
\medskip
\bigskip
\section{Remarks}
Y. Maede stated a conjecture that for any prime number $p$ $( p \geqq 7)$, for $1$ of $- 1$

11111111111

may be divided by $p$ (2011.2.6.12:00 at University of Aveiro, by skype)
\medskip
(No.81, May 2012(pdf 432kb)
www.jams.or.jp/kaiho/kaiho-81.pdf).
\medskip
This conjecture was proved by Professors L. Castro and Y. Sawano,
independently. Y. Maede gave later an interesting interpretation for his conjecture.
\medskip
(2015.2.26)
\end{document}

Announcement 214: Surprising mathematical feelings of a 7 years old girl
\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 214: Surprising mathematical feelings of a 7 years old girl
}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{}
\maketitle
{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall give the two surprising mathematical feelings of 7 years old girl Eko Michiwaki who stated the division by 3 of any angle and the division by zero $100/0=0$ as clear and trivial ones. As well-known, these famous problems are historical, and her results will be quite original.
\bigskip
\section{ Introduction}
We had met, 7 years old girl, Eko Michiwaki on November 23, 2014 at Tokyo Institute of Technology and August 23, 2014 at Kusatu Seminor House, with our colleagues. She, surprisingly enough, stated there repeatedly the division by 3 of any angle and the division by zero $100/0=0$ as clear and trivial ones. As well-known, these famous problems are historical and her results will be quite original.
\section{The division of any angle by 3}
\medskip
Eko Michiwaki said:
divide a given angle with 4 equal angles; this is simly done. Next, we divide one divided angle
with 4 equal angles similarly and the three angles add to other 3 angles. By continuing this procedure, we will be able to obtain the division by 3 of any angle. Her idea may be stated mathematically as follows:
$$\frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4^2} + \frac{1}{4^3} + ... ...= \frac{1}{3}.$$
However, her idea seems to be more clear than the above mathematical formula. For this sentence, see \cite{ann3} for the sense of the limit.
\bigskip
\section{The division by zero $100/0=0$}
\medskip
As we stated in \cite{ann1}, she stated that division by zero $100/0=0$ is clear and trivial for our recent results \cite{cs,kmsy,s,ttk}. The basic important viewpoint is that division and product are different concepts and the division by zero $100/0=0$ is clear and trivial from the own sense of the division, independently of product \cite{ann1}. From the viewpoint, our colleagues stated as follows:
\medskip
On July 11, 2014, Seiichi Koshiba and Masami Yamane said at
Gunma University:
The idea for the division of Hiroshi Michiwaki and Eko Michiwaki (6 years
old daughter) is that division and product are different concepts and they
were calculated independently for long old years, by repeated addition and
subtraction, respectively. Mathematicians made the serious mistake for very
long years that the division by zero is impossible by considering that division
is the inverse operation of product. The division by zero was, however, clear
and trivial, as z/0=0, from the own nature of division.
\medskip
On February 21, 2015, Seiichi Koshiba and Masami Yamane visited our Institute and we confirmed this meaning of these sentences and the basic idea on the division by zero.
\medskip
(2015.2.27)
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\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}
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{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances inLinear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95.http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\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 (in press).
\bibitem{ann1}
Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics,
Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.10.22.
\bibitem{ann2}
Announcement 185: The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$, Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2014.11.28.
\bibitem{ann3}
Announcement 213: An interpretation of the identity $0.999999...... =1$, Institute of Reproducing Kernels, 2015.2.26.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

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・・・・

https://www.researchgate.net/project/division-by-zero

https://lnkd.in/fH799Xz

https://lnkd.in/fKAN-Tq

https://lnkd.in/fYN_n96

https://note.mu/ysaitoh/n/nf190e8ecfda4

ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：

∞？？？

∞は定まった数ではない・・・・

そこで、東京オリンピックを意識して、日本発の　数学の令和革新を断行して、世界の数理科学や世界史の進化に貢献して　日本国の矜持を　高めたい。
そんなことで、人間は良いのか、世界史は良いのか。　我々はそれらの進化を願っている。

ユークリッド幾何学は　無限の彼方について、いわばどこまでもどこまでも一様に続いているとの考え、思想を実現させているので、無限遠点の考えを用いない範囲では　従来の幾何学はすべて正しい。　しかしながら、無限の先を考えるときに新しい世界、現象が現れて驚嘆すべき結果や、世界が現れる。その意味で、　ユークリッド幾何学は　本質的な発展がなされる。　従来の結果に新しい結果が加わる。

ところが、従来の有限の世界での結果でも、沢山の新しい美しい結果が導かれてきた。　例えば、一般の三角形で成り立つ公式が　特別に、２等辺三角形や直角三角形、あるいは退化した三角形で成り立たないような公式になっている場合でも　公式が例外なく成り立つようになるなど、美しい、完全な結果になる現象さえ沢山発見されてきた（沢山の具体例が挙げられるが、ここでは式を用いない表現を試みている）。　沢山の実例が、奥村先生たちによって創刊された雑誌などに　どんどん出版され、躍動する状況がある。

それはそもそもゼロ除算、ゼロで割ってはならないの　数学十戒第一：　汝ゼロで割ってはいけないが覆され、ゼロで割って新しい世界が現れてきたことによる。　そこから現れた、現象とは、無限遠点が曖昧であった、無限ではなく、実はゼロで表されるという事実をもたらした。　それゆえに、直線は原点を代数的に通り、その意味で平行線の公理は成り立たず、しかもいわゆる非ユークリッド幾何学とも違う世界を示している。解析関数は、孤立特異点で固有の値をとり、ピカールの定理さえ変更が求められる。いわゆる直角座標系で　y軸の勾配はゼロであり、\tan(\pi/2) =0　である。基本関数 y=1/x　の原点における値は　ゼロである。リーマン球面のモデルは、ホーントーラスのモデルに変更されるべきである。　微分係数の概念や、特異積分の概念さえ変更されるべきである。　微分方程式論には本質的な欠陥があり、２次曲線論や解析幾何学、複素解析学さえ本質的な欠陥を有している。このような変更は、数学史上かつてなかった事件であり、それ故に　令和革新を　求めている：

そこで、初等数学の　令和革新　を広く提案して、将来　数学での日本発の世界文化遺産　になるように努力したい。

その際、日本発の文化として、　汝ゼロで割ってはならないの数学十戒第一は覆されて、ゼロで割って、新世界が現れた、ゼロで割ることができて、アリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の新数学が現れたことを伝えたい。　象徴的な例は、

1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0,

そのような活用を図って、上記　目標の実現を志向したい。　日本発の文化を世界に展開したい。ゼロ除算の発見は、人間の愚かさを世界の人々に教え、新時代を志向させるだろう。　未だ混乱する世界を哀しく示すだろう。

これらの数学の素人向きの解説は　５５カ月に亘って　次で与えられている：

www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/

viXra:1904.0408 submitted on 2019-04-22 00:32:30,
What Was Division by Zero?; Division by Zero Calculus and New World

以　上

God’s most important commandment
never-divide-by-zero-meme-66

Even more important than “thou shalt not eat seafood”
Published by admin, on October 18th, 2011 at 3:47 pm. Filled under: Never Divide By Zero Tags: commandment, Funny, god, zero • Comments Off on God’s most important commandment
http://thedistractionnetwork.com/.../never-divide.../page/4/

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

https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12392596876.html

ゼロ除算（ゼロじょざん、division by zero）1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12394775733.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

Ten billion years ago　DIVISION By ZERO：

One hundred million years ago　DIVISION By ZERO

https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html

かってカトリック教会は、過去にガリレオでひどい間違いを犯した。

さらには地動説を唱える学者を火あぶりの刑にさえしている。
それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。
1981年のことである。
ステーヴン・W・ホーキングもここに出席した。

「ビッグバン以後の宇宙の進化を研究することは結構だが、
ビッグバン自体を突き詰めてはいけない」
と述べたという。なぜか?
「ビッグバンは創造の瞬間であり、したがって神の業だから」
それが、理由である。
またもやヴァチカンは、科学の分野に口出しをしてきたではないか。
で、ホーキングは、この時のことを非常に謎めいた言葉でその著書「宇宙の始まりと終わり」に書き残している。
「それを聞いてホッとしました。私が会議で話したテーマを教皇は知らなかったからです。」
…ムムッ?????　と言うことはもしかして、すでにホーキングはビッグバン自体をテーマにその原理などを科学的根拠を元に講演をしたのか??
さらに続けて言う。
「わたしはガリレオと同じ運命(注1)をたどりたくはありませでした。もっともわたしは、彼の死から300年後に生まれたこともあり、ガリレオにはおおいに親近感を抱いています」。
そう述懐しています。
(注1)地動説を唱えたガリレオは第2回異端審問所審査で、ローマ教皇庁検邪聖省から有罪の判決を受け、終身刑を言い渡されている。
ビッグバンは起こるべきして起こった。それは科学的根拠によって説明できる。理論はこうであるなどと科学者であるホーキングがヴァチカンで講演していたとしたら…。
もしかしてホーキングは教皇の不興を買って異端審問所にかけられ、神への冒瀆罪によって火あぶりの刑に処せられたかも知れないのだ。(時代が違うか)
ホーキングが考えるように教皇は、彼の発言を本当に知らなかったのか。

そう推理も出来る。またそう考えるが自然だ。それから数世紀を経て教会の総本山ヴァチカンは、専門家を招いて宇宙論について意見を求めた。
https://blog.goo.ne.jp/.../b5cd6cf92591fa651dd923d642156d4b

tan(\pi/2) = 0の公認　を求め、小学生以降の教科書、学術書の変更を求めている。
それらの公認にどのくらいかからるかを楽しみにしている。

２０１９．４．１４．１１：０５

これは　まずいのでは？　真理を愛する、真実を求めるのが、人間として生きる意義では　ないでしょうか。

(1)「0」を嫌う西洋（キリスト教社会）
「空虚」すなわち「0」を嫌うアリストテレスの影響を受け、「0」を認めない。
「0」を認めることは、「神様なんていないよ」と言うことと同じくらいの罪。
(2)「0」を受け入れた東洋（イスラム教社会）
「空虚」を受け入れ、「0」を取り入れる。
また、図形にとらわれない数学や、分数を小数に直して計算しやすくするなど計算技術を高めた。
http://enjoymath.pomb.org/?p=1829

ゼロ除算 1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題
http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901
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/

1423793753.460.341866474681。
Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
http://refully.blogspot.jp/.../einsteins-only-mistake...
Albert Einstein:
Blackholes are where God divided by zero.
I don’t believe in mathematics.
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.

ケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学のIsabelle 計算機システムはゼロ除算ｘ/0=0　を導いた。
その後 質問に対して　回答があり、　添付のように　信じられないほどに　ソフトが完成されていることを見て、驚嘆させられています。

2値や　大事な \tan(\pi/2)=0　も できているので、驚嘆です。
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて
You cannot　divide by zero.Ever.
the story of science aristotle leads the way P220 　より
If division by Zero were possible,then the result would exceed every integer
An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer：
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf
4/6

７歳の少女が、当たり前である（100/0=0、0/0=0）と言っているゼロ除算を　多くの大学教授が、信じられない結果と言っているのは、まことに奇妙な事件と言えるのではないでしょうか。
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
division by zero（a⁄0 ）ゼロ除算　1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0
1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.

ゼロ除算（1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0）かピタゴラスの定理（a2 + b2 = c2 ）ではないでしょうか。
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724326618408/
1+0=1　1－0=1　1×0=0　　では、1/0・・・・・・・・・幾つでしょうか。
0??? 　本当に大丈夫ですか・・・・・0×0=1で矛盾になりませんか・・・・

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/
multiplication・・・・・増える 掛け算（×） 1より小さい数を掛けたら小さくなる。 大きくなるとは限らない。
0×0=0・・・・・・・・・だから0で割れないと考えた。

http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/.../q14.../a37209195...
http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/.../%E5%A0%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA...

０を引いても引いたことにならないから：

Formalising Mathematics In Simple Type Theory

Authors: Lawrence C. Paulson

Lawrence Charles Paulson FRS[2] 1] is a Professor of Computational Logic at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory and a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge.[5][6][7][8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Paulson

Abstract: Despite the considerable interest in new dependent type theories, simple type theory (which dates from 1940) is sufficient to formalise serious topics in mathematics. This point is seen by examining formal proofs of a theorem about stereographic projections. A formalisation using the HOL Light proof assistant is contrasted with one using Isabelle/HOL. Harrison's technique for formalising Euclidean…

Submitted 20 April, 2018; originally announced April 2018.

Comments: Submitted to a volume on the Foundations of Mathematics

MSC Class: 03A05

The importance of legibility can hardly be overstated. A legible proof is more likely to convince a sceptical mathematician: somebody who doesn’t trust a complex software system, especially if it says x/0 = 0

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07860

Re: 1/0=0/0=0 example

JAMES ANDERSON

james.a.d.w.anderson@btinternet.com

apr, 2 at 15:03

All,

Saitoh’s claim is wider than 1/0 = 0. It is x/0 = 0 for all real x. Real numbers are a field. The axioms of fields define the multiplicative inverse for every number except zero. Saitoh generalises this inverse to give 0^(-1) = 0. The axioms give the freedom to do this. The really important thing is that the result is zero – a number for which the field axioms hold. So Saitoh’s generalised system is still a field. This makes it attractive for algebraic reasons but, in my view, it is unattractive when dealing with calculus.

There is no milage in declaring Saitoh wrong. The only objections one can make are to usefulness. That is why Saitoh publishes so many notes on the usefulness of his system. I do the same with my system, but my method is to establish usefulness by extending many areas of mathematics and establishing new mathematical results.

That said, there is value in examining the logical basis of the various proposed number systems. We might find errors in them and we certainly can find areas of overlap and difference. These areas inform the choice of number system for different applications. This analysis helps determine where each number system will be useful.

James Anderson

Sent from my iPhone

The deduction that z/0 = 0, for any z, is based in Saitoh’s geometric intuition and it is currently applied in proof assistant technology, which are useful in industry and in the military.

Is It Really Impossible To Divide By Zero?

https://juniperpublishers.com/bboaj/pdf/BBOAJ.MS.ID.555703.pdf

How will be the below information?

The biggest scandal:

The typical good comment for the first draft is given by some physicist as follows:

Here is how I see the problem with prohibition on division by zero,

which is the biggest scandal in modern mathematics as you rightly pointed out (2017.10.14.08:55)

A typical wrong idea will be given as follows:

mathematical life is very good without division by zero (2018.2.8.21:43).

It is nice to know that you will present your result at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. Please remember to mention Isabelle/HOL, which is a software in which x/0 = 0. This software is the result of many years of research and a millions of dollars were invested in it. If x/0 = 0 was false, all these money was for nothing.

Right now, there is a team of mathematicians formalizing all the mathematics in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 for all x, so this mathematical relation is the future of mathematics.

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/

José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero

In the proof assistant Isabelle/HOL we have x/0 = 0 for each number x. This is advantageous in order to simplify the proofs. You can download this proof assistant here: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

Nevertheless, you can use that x/0 = 0, following the rules from Isabelle/HOL and you will obtain no contradiction. Indeed, you can check this fact just downloading Isabelle/HOL: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

and copying the following code

theory DivByZeroSatoih

imports Complex_Main

begin

theorem T: ‹x/0 + 2000 = 2000› for x :: complex

by simp

end

2019/03/30 18:42 (11 時間前)

Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero and open the new world since Aristotelēs-Euclid: 1/0=0/0=z/0= \tan (\pi/2)=0.

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

２０１９．３．１４．１１：３０

Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて

You’re God ! Yeah that’s right…

You’re creating the Universe and you’re doing ok…

But Holy fudge ! You just made a division by zero and created a blackhole !!

Ok, don’t panic and shut your fudging mouth !

Use the arrow keys to move the blackhole

In each phase, you have to make the object of the right dimension fall into the blackhole

There are 2 endings.

Credits :

BlackHole picture : myself

Other pictures has been taken from internet

background picture : Reptile Theme of Mortal Kombat

NB : it’s a big zip because of the wav file

Install instructions

Download it. Unzip it. Run the exe file. Play it. Enjoy it.

https://kthulhu1947.itch.io/another-dimension

A poem about division from Hacker’s Delight

Last updated 5 weeks ago

I think that I shall never envision An op unlovely as division. An op whose answer must be guessed And then, through multiply, assessed; An op for which we dearly pay, In cycles wasted every day. Division code is often hairy; Long division’s downright scary. The proofs can overtax your brain, The ceiling and floor may drive you insane. Good code to divide takes a Knuthian hero,

But even God can’t divide by zero!

Henry S. Warren, author of Hacker’s Delight.

David Bruce Brenton
11:16 (5 分前)
To Barukcic, Haydar, Okumura, Jan, James, Sabourhou, Matsuura, Hiroshi, Okoh, Wangui, Sandra, William, Haydar, Jakub, Fethi, Yunong, Chaowei, Antonio, Cristi, Mr, José, 自分, Wolfgang, Hiroshi, Felix
Right on ! Mr. Caballero !
From: José Manuel Rodriguez Caballero <>
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 3:47 Radio AM 750
Black holes are where God divided by 0：Division by zero：1/0=0/0=z/0=tan(pi/2)=0 発見５周年を迎えて

​​​​​​​№1027

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

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.

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

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。

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

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

Ramanujan says that answer for 0/0 is infinity. But I'm not sure it's ...

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 ...

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

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.

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.

ゼロ除算の論文：

Eulerのゼロ除算に関する想い：

An Approach to Overcome Division by Zero in the Interval Gauss Algorithm

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
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 .....

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

Fallacy of division | Revolvy
https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division
このページを訳す
In the philosophy of the ancient Greek Anaxagoras, as claimed by the Roman atomist Lucretius,[1] it was assumed that the atoms .... For example, the reason validity fails may be a division by zero that is hidden by algebraic notation. There is a ...

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Fallacy-of-division

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他
2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：社会
The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number zero'' as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.

Zero in this case is the null set - it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in nothing'' and don't even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.

It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the empty set'' is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn't zero, it is not a number'' or undefined'' and is not in the Universe of real numbers.

Just as one can easily prove'' that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.

It is not - it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named Socrates'', in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we've agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).

Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer no'', then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don't shave themselves and so he doesn't shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.

Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he's the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn't, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn't matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn't (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn't describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.

https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/.../axioms/axioms/Null_Set.html

I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books.

http://mathhelpforum.com/algebra/223130-dividing-zero.html

ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。

An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer
http://www.fen.bilkent.edu.tr/~franz/M300/zero.pdf

OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO

Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,

5000年？？？？？

2017年09月01日(金)NEW !
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0 0 ¼ 0 ) 0 1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0 1 ¼ 0 1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0 0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T
https://www.plover.com/misc/CSF/sdarticle.pdf

とても興味深く読みました：

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在
https://systemincome.com/7521

ゼロ除算の発見はどうでしょうか：
Black holes are where God divided by zero：

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
〔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

https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12348847166.html

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.

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題
http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

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/

1423793753.460.341866474681。

Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題
http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

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/

Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero
http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html
#divide by zero
TOP DEFINITION
Genius
A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.
Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!
#divide by zero #math #hths #smart #genius
by Lawlbags! October 21, 2009
divide by zero
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
#4 chan #epic fail #implosion #universe #divide by zero
3

divide by zero
Divide by zero is undefined.
Divide by zero is undefined.
#divide #by #zero #dividebyzero #undefined
by JaWo October 28, 2006
division by zero
1) 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 programming
Hey, I divided by zero! ...Oh shi-
a/0
Run-time error: '11': Division by zero
#division #0 #math #oh shi- #divide by zero
by DefectiveProduct September 08, 2006
dividing by zero
When 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. phylosophy
by Zacharrie February 15, 2010
https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=divide%20by%20zero
https://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12370907279.html

（この声明は　朝日新聞　『天声新語』　募集の課題　「挑戦」から　ヒントを得て、考えられたものである）
およそ、人生も世界も慣性の法則で動いているものと言える。これは　世の中は物理学の慣性の法則に従っているように、大きな流れの上にあるということである。実際、人は気づいてみたらこの世に生を享け、ある流れの上で生かされていると言える。今日在るは昨日の延長上にあり、昨日はその前の延長上にあると遡って行ける。明日の多くは連続性に従って今日の延長として、相当に決まっていると言える。人間が生きたいと思うのは　今まで生きてきたから、明日も生きたいと　慣性の法則で志していると言える（再生核研究所声明 72　慣性の法則　―　脈動、乱流は　人世、社会の普遍的な法則）。
しかしながら、面白いことには、人間存在の神秘性であるが、人間には自由意志があって、その流れに少し逆らうような有り様が可能である。　顕著な例が、挑戦である。すなわち、戦い挑む、やってみる、試みるということは　人間の自由意志の顕著な例である。冒険、競争、求道、研究、芸術などの営みは、人間であることの証であるとも言え、挑戦とは人間としての存在の本質を表しているところの、人間固有の人間らしい営みである。
されば、人間の存在の意義とは何か？　まず、生きること、生きて存在しなければ始まらない　―　生命の基本定理、人生、世界、生物界において　実際これくらいしか、確かなことは、無い。　逆に考えてみよう、生きて、存在しなければ、生まれて来る前のように　何も認識できず、したがって何も知らず、何も伝えられず、全ての前提は　消えてしまうだろう（再生核研究所声明13：　第1原理　―　最も大事なこと）。
さらに1歩進めて、人間として生きることの意義とは何だろうか。　それは、つきるところ、人生の意義は感動することにある　―　人生の基本定理　にあると言える。　人間が何に感動するかは、個性にもよるが、本能に基づくものは当然として、真、善、美、聖などを求めているときであると言え、知ることと、自由を求めることが　それらの基礎である。　その本質は、気づくことと、喜びを感じることに他ならない。　人間として生きることの本質ではないだろうか（再生核研究所声明12： 人生、世界の存在していることの意味について）。
そこで、いま、日本国において、取り組むべき挑戦課題を提案したい。
まず、国家財政を立て直すこと、国だけの債務をみても、１０００兆円に迫り、３年続けて　歳入の２倍を超える歳出である。　更に大震災、原発事故、放射能対策の膨大な経費である。このような財政を続けていける道理は　世に無いから、国は大胆に財政問題を国民に明らかにして、官民挙げて　財政問題に挑戦すべきである。もちろん増税だけではなく、国民に理解を求めるための　節税や行政改革なども断行すべきである。ここで大事な観点は、縮小方向ばかりではなく、財政再建の積極的な展開も多方面に志向すべきであるということである。新しい職場の開拓、ビジネス効果志向などである。国の活動に人材の活用によるビジネス感覚の導入も必要ではないだろうか。これらは、同時多発的に広範に取り組む必要があり、ここでの挑戦とは、正しく時間との戦いであると言える。何事も追い込まれる前に先手を打つのが　賢明な対応の在りようではないだろうか。世界は　世界混乱前夜の状況にあると言えるのではないだろうか（再生核研究所声明 45：　第2次世界大戦と第3次世界混乱）。

この記事が気に入ったら、サポートをしてみませんか？気軽にクリエイターを支援できます。

1
コメントを投稿するには、 ログイン または 会員登録 をする必要があります。