1
/
5

# Risk & Reward of The Internet of (Maritime) Things Maritime Professional-2019/12/18

Risk & Reward of The Internet of (Maritime) Things Maritime Professional-2019/12/18

ysaitoh2019/12/25 15:13

Risk & Reward of The Internet of (Maritime) Things
Maritime Professional-2019/12/18
On 21 September 1997, a storekeeper on board was ordering supplies while the ship was underway in the North Atlantic on an unescorted operation. A 'division by zero error' occurred. The ship's computer system overloaded ...

Dennis Bryant, Contributor
Dennis L. Bryant is with Bryant’s Maritime Consulting...

December 18, 2019
Risk & Reward of The Internet of (Maritime) Things

The Internet of Maritime Things (IoMT) is coming! Start planning now.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is already with us. You can get a doorbell camera that allows you to see on your smartphone who is at or approaching your front door. You can also get a refrigerator that keeps track of items inside and will advise you when you are running low (maybe on beer). It can also automatically place orders with your local grocery store for replenishment. Your automobile will attempt to keep you in your lane and avoid collisions while keeping track of where you are, getting you to your destination, and entertaining you. There is also a black box that keeps track of your speed. This black box also records your location, driving habits, and automotive health (among other things) and automatically sends that information to the car’s manufacturer. Smart speakers in your home or office will play the radio station or music you request. They are always on and can record other audio events, such as conversations. These recordings (or at least portions thereof) are automatically transmitted to the speaker’s manufacturer. And this is only the beginning.

Technological promise
If ports and vessels are all interconnected, transits could be arranged for optimum performance and safety. Cargoes could be loaded and unloaded with maximum efficiency. At sea, passages could be optimized, accounting for weather, sea conditions, marine hazards (such as rocks and shoals), and other traffic. The deck officer (whether physically or virtually present) would largely be there to meet legal requirements and to take the fall when things go wrong.

Computerized machines will monitor their own performance and schedule preventive maintenance. Sophisticated technology is being developed that will shut down if the purchaser attempts their own repairs or alterations. Manufacturers will have to work out how to maintain computerized equipment that has an extended lifespan. Currently, most computerized items, such as smartphones, are only supported for five years. Ships, though, have lifespans of three or more decades. What happens with future computerized ships? Who will keep the software and hardware operational and up-to-date when the ships are 10 or 20 years old? Will the then owner/operator/master install updates and changes as released? Will the ship builder (and its contractors) be able to monitor the vessel worldwide like car manufacturers can now? Can the ship builder shut down the ship (or certain equipment) if certain repairs are attempted without its authorization?

What happens when things go wrong? In the 1970s, the guided missile cruiser USS Yorktown (CG 48) was one of the most sophisticated warships in the US Navy, being known as a ‘smart ship’. On 21 September 1997, a storekeeper on board was ordering supplies while the ship was underway in the North Atlantic on an unescorted operation. A ‘division by zero error’ occurred. The ship’s computer system overloaded and shut down. The main computer was connected to everything electronic on the ship. All of that equipment ceased to operate. There was no propulsion. There was no ventilation. There were no regular lights. There was no radar. There was no fire control for the weapons systems. There were no communications. It took several hours to restore rudimentary radio contact so that the casualty could be reported to the chain of command. Other warships were diverted to render assistance. The cruiser was then towed back to its homeport in Norfolk. The incident was classified for some time.

What measures can a commercial vessel take if its computerized controls fail? In February 2019, a container ship approaching New York reported that its onboard computer network had been ‘totally debilitated’ by malware. A thorough analysis revealed that the malware significantly degraded the functionality of the ship’s computer system. Fortunately, in this instance, the essential vessel control systems had not been connected to the computer system. If they had been, this commercial vessel may have been found itself in a situation similar to that suffered by USS Yorktown. Adding more interconnected electronics in future smart-ships, though, increases the number of potential points of failure.

Cybersecurity
There is another issue to consider – cybersecurity.

When all computerized equipment is tied together (such as in a ‘smart home’ or a ‘smart ship’), access to one item can lead to access to all the connected devices. While some or even most of the connected devices may have high-level cybersecurity, if any of the devices have no or minimal security, it may allow a hacker access to the entire system. In 2017, a casino purchased an internet-connected fish tank, designed to allow remote control of the water temperature and salinity. The fish tank controls were placed in a unique portion of the casino’s computer network, separate from all financial systems. Hackers were able to gain access to the fish tank controls and then breach the entire network, copying a large amount of sensitive data.

The more computerized equipment that are integrated into a system the greater the number of potential targets for hackers.
Manufacturers of computerized equipment are aware of the vulnerability and have the means to reduce the risks. Few, though, invest much time and effort into the process. Risk reduction for each piece of equipment can be time-consuming and expensive, requiring the writing of complex lines of code and utilization of more capable and costly chips. There is little incentive to make those investments. Purchasers generally buy such equipment based on factors other than cybersecurity. Even if cybersecurity protocols are provided by a manufacturer, purchasers often fail to change the default passwords, effectively leaving the door unlocked.

If hackers can access a smart ship’s computer system (in either a targeted or random attack), they can effectively take control of the operation of the ship. Hackers have demonstrated the ability to take control of smart cars, operating the stereo, the windshield wipers, the engine, the brakes, and the steering wheel. Imagine what could be done with a compromised ship.

Summary
The Internet of Maritime Things is coming. It holds great promise, but also great risk. Industry’s role must be to optimize the promise while minimizing the risk.

この結果は、天才オイラーの有名な間違いとして、有名でもある。
もちろん、　歴史上の最高級の物理学者 ニュートンの万有引力の法則にも ゼロ除算が明確に現れ、アインシュタインの 生涯の課題であった とされている：

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} Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970).

S. K. Sen and R. P. Agarwal（2016):　数学十戒の第一、汝ゼロで割ってはならない：

{\bf “Thou shalt not divide by zero” remains valid eternally.}

しかるに、ゼロで割る問題は、固有の問題として、あるいは相対性理論とゼロ除算の観点から、また、ゼロ除算が計算機障害を起こした事件を契機に論理の問題として、ゼロ除算の研究は主に数学者以外の物理学者、計算機関係者によって熱情的に研究されてきた。　しかしながら、それらの膨大な研究はもはや空しいものになっている　と考えられる。

L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.

その後、その進んだ計算機システムを用いて、Jose　氏は、我々の得たゼロ除算およびゼロ除算算法を検証し、我々の結果に対する強い保証を与えている。－　ゼロ除算は新しい意味で可能であり、新世界をアリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の世界を拓いていると主張し、広く意見を求めている：

1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0 and z^n/n = log z for n=0。

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

しかしながら、数学について、そもそも数学とは何だろうかと問い、ユニバースと数学の関係に思いを致すのは大事ではないだろうか。この本質論については幸運にも相当に力を入れて書いたものがある：

No.81, May 2012(pdf 432kb)
www.jams.or.jp/kaiho/kaiho-81.pdf
19/03/2012

ここでは、数学とは何かについて考えながら、数学と人間に絡む問題などについて、幅. 広く面白く触れたい。骨格は .... の上に立って判断されるべきです (再生核研究所声明 41: 世界史、大義、評価、神、最後の. 審判)。実際、何十年も経って、

しかしながら、ゼロ除算の発見に関係して、簡潔に数学の本質について　触れたい。　数学とは何だろうか。　いろいろな面は存在するが、数学とは仮説系である、公理系と呼ばれる仮定を基礎に論理的に導かれる関係の全体と考えられる。　最も古い数学の体系であるユークリッド幾何学が分かり易い例である。公理、公準を基礎に幾何学が展開されて、沢山の定理を基礎に膨大に広がっている。　現在でもユークリッド幾何学が発展しているのは驚嘆と言える。しかも美しい定理がどんどん得られている。　最近の奥村 博　氏の成果、研究活動は 世界的にも目覚ましいものと感銘させられる。他の例は実数の体系から建設されている解析学でそれも膨大な世界に発展している。　これらの数学は、記述に曖昧さが 昔は存在したが、本質、実体は少しも変わらず、雄大に発展、数学の世界を日々拡大させている。
さて評価や影響を度外視して、数学の発展は　論理的に公理系から発展していて、そこから建設される数学は　必然的で、人間を離れて関係の世界として存在しているように見える。例えば　ピタゴラスの定理。　人間が知ろうが　知らなくても　その定理は成り立っていたのではないだろうか。　存在していたのではないだろうか。もちろん、ユークリッド幾何学の中で　証明され、進んだシステムは、人工知能を備えた計算機は　証明さえできるだろう。大事なことは計算機が証明できるという事実である。証明とは何か、推論とは何かとしっかり問えば、計算機が証明できるような世界が発展している。　臨場感を示すために次を思い出したい：

ゼロ除算については、発見　（２０１４．２．２）　後　５年を経過し、論文や国際会議、日本数学会でも公表しているにも関わらず、公には未だ認知されているとは言えず、数学界でも、世間でも　ゼロで割ってはいけないは　未だ定説になっていて、インターネット上では　不適当な議論が 毎日のようになされている。
そこで、計算機のゼロ除算可能、成功の歴史的な事実　に関して、簡潔にその意義と所感を纏めて置きたい。　－　出来るだけゼロ除算発展の経過を記録して置くためである。

また、

L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.

ここの主題は、数学は公理系によって確定的に定まっているだろうかという　視点である。

こうなると数学者は神学者になって　神の言葉にしたがって　数学を進める　数学することになるだろう。その意味で数学は絶対で、永遠不滅の存在で、人間を越えていると考えられる。
ピタゴラスの定理も微積分学も人間を離れて存在して数学としては宇宙の生成にかかわらず存在してきたと言える。数学とはまこと神秘的な存在であると言わざるを得ない。数学の中に　神を感ずる。神の意志を感ずる。

それ故に　次の存念は　確定的に進むと信じられる：

1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0 and z^n/n = log z for n=0。

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

この声明の考えは 声明522と同時に閃いていたものである。そこで、そもそも数学とは何か、数学の問題は何かと問うた。現代数学の膨大な世界が　極めて基本的な考え、公理系から発展しているが、何とその膨大な　目も眩むような巨大で深い世界で、矛盾はなく、きちんと論理体系ができているのは　思えば　神秘的とも言える。凄い世界である。それ故に数学の背後に　神を感じた　というのは自然な感性ではないだろうか。
そこで、それらの元々を観たい、確認したいと考えるのは自然な心情であろう。源流はどうなっているかと考えたくなる。
そこで、数学の元として、ユークリッド幾何学とブラーマグプタの算術の四則演算が考えられるのではないだろうか。　実際、小学校、中学校、高等学校の教科書を確認したい。数学の基礎とは何か。

それでは数とは何だろうか。　改めて問う必要がある。　膨大な数学を前に満足させる数の定義は難しいが　中枢的な対象としては　複素数を考えることが基本である。　そのことを複素解析学や代数学は保証していると言える。　四則演算を有する複素数である。

そこで、数の基本演算の四則演算で、不思議な例外が初めから存在していた:

ターレスなど、　アリストテレス　それ以前も　その後も　そもそもギリシャ文化と欧米文化では ゼロを無や空と共に嫌い、ある専門家はアリストテレスが物理的な視点からゼロ除算不可能の思想を持ち、その後永く影響を与えてきたという。

この結果は、天才オイラーの有名な間違いとして、有名でもある。
もちろん、　歴史上の最高級の物理学者 ニュートンの万有引力の法則にも ゼロ除算が明確に現れ、アインシュタインの 生涯の課題であった とされている。 (再生核研究所声明520 (2019.12.04): 数学の超難問　－　ゼロ除算　－　解かれたり).

ところが、ゼロ除算は解明されたと考えている：

1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0 and z^n/n = log z for n=0。

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

それ故にその重要性のゆえに広く意見を求めている。　ゼロ除算は新たらしいゼロの発見、除算の意味の発見で、無限遠点とゼロの関係、無限遠点がゼロで表現されれることを述べていて、さらに解析関数の孤立特異点で　特異点そのもので値が定義されていることの発見であり、　新世界を示している。それは　ブラーマグプタの算術の欠陥を埋め、ユークリッド幾何学の無限の彼方の未知に、新世界が存在することを示している。それ故にユークリッド幾何学は　躍動し、新数学が続々と出現し、解析学は基本的な欠陥を有することが明らかになり、未知の広大な世界が見えてきた。新世界である。

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

1/0=0/0=z/0= tan(\pi/2) =log 0 =0 and (z^n)/n = log z for n=0。

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

しかしながら、始め　ムーア　ペンローズの解を意識せず、　チコノフ正則化法の手段でその方程式の解を考えて、　ゼロ除算の解が実体ある解であることを強く意識しました。直ちに確信して、この発見は歴史的なものであると認識して、直ちに友人2名に新発見をメールし、同僚たちにも伝え、公論することになりました。　これは世界史上の事件と捉えて多くの文書を保管、　ゼロ除算物語を将来書けるようにと心掛けてきました。発見10日後、声明148を出すときには　既に強い確信を擁いていました。その確信は5年を超えて　今日までどんどん強まり、ゼロ除算の知見、具体例も1000件を超えています。

それ故に　いろいろな意見を求めてきましたが、意見表明を無視したり、発言機会を禁じたり、信じられない反響が一部続いていると考えられる。　これらは真理を追究する基本的な在りように抵触するもの　と考えられる。　ー　尤もゼロ除算は考えられる筈がない　との思い込みが深く、初めから問題にせず、新しい考え方を理解せず、沈黙、無視、無関心、あるいは否定的な思いで、無視、あるいは批判されていたと考えられる。真相を知らないで　批判は無責任で、良くないと思われる。

以　上

JBDrakyll
I was bothered that we were calling division by zero undefined. No one told me we have a better answer. After drafting the paper, I was 100% sure I'll open a new chapter in mathematics or at least get a Fields Medal.
https://github.com/rakyll

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？

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。
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/reproducingkerne/diary/201810110003/

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

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。

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：

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）
E = mc 2　（1905）（Albert Einstein）
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）

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

Yoshinori Saito#哲学
#知恵袋_
#2019年
#更新
#ブラックホールは神がゼロで割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算発見
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#4
#math
#ゼロ除算を発見したのは2014年2月2日
#ブラックホールは神が０で割ったところにある
#divide
#smart
#0
#5年を超えたゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#Genius
#hths
#universe
#Epic
#implosion
#ZERO
#DIVISION
#NOT
#by
#IMAGINARY
#numbers
#undefined
#dividebyzero
#oh
#dividing
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算発見
#ログゼロハゼロ
#tangent二分のパイはゼロ
#5年目を超えたゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#欧米は0を忌み避け嫌っている
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算発見記念日
#0割る0は0ブラーマグプタはできていた
#座標
#Descartes
#1割る0は0はブラーマグプタは分からなかった
#Descartes負の数を悪魔
#数学者でも
#1割る0は0　　　0割る0は0再生核研究所

The Institute of Reproducing Kernels：再生核研究所
ysaitoh2019/11/24 15:51

The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).

Black holes are where God divided by 0
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#0除算
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#再生核研究所2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法 発見
#更新#2019年#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見#628年インドゼロ発見#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見#ゼロ除算#令和革新ゼロ除算#2000年来の発見ゼロ除算再生核研究所ゼロ除算#新世界ゼロ除算
#2019年
#更新
#再生核研究所
#再生核研究所声明
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#2014
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#2000
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#神でさえできないゼロ除算
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法
#ゼロ除算算法2014年3月8日誕生
2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見
2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見 2000年来の発見ゼロ除算は　 ビッグバンとブラックホールと特異点 数学物理学天文学コンピュータサイエンス 2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見

ゼロ除算は
それは、一般に　できないことが証明されていたので、数学者は、ほとんど考えもしなかった。
しかし、物理などの公式に、ゼロ分の　が現れ、物理的な意味が深いので、アリストテレス以来　問題にされ、特に　アインシュタインの人生最大の関心事、悩みだったとされている。　ブラックホールや　宇宙創成に関係している。
ところが、実は、ゼロ除算は　当り前で、結果は　まるであべこべ、ゼロで割れば、何時でもゼロで、新世界と、新数学を拓くことが分かってきた。　人々は驚き、思考停止に陥っているように見える。　目を覚ましたら、凄い世界が見えるだろう。　天動説が地動説に変わったような　大きな意味がある。

２０１９．１０．２５．１１：２０
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0

https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/72284136.html

ゼロ除算はできないとされていたものが、実は割り算の意味を拡張すると

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・・・・

№1070
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
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：

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？

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。
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/reproducingkerne/diary/201810110003/

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

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。

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：

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）
E = mc 2　（1905）（Albert Einstein）
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）
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

file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢１.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢2.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢３.pdf
2019.8.20.9:00

ゼロ除算は、簡単で当たり前の初等数学である。 それにも関わらず、理解されにくいのは、 ターレス、アリストテレスなどの ギリシャ文化が ゼロや空、無などに対して強い拒否の精神を持ち、それが 欧米文化に強く反映してきたからである。

Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
#更新#1÷0#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#mathematics#有史以来

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
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

2019年12月25日(水) 11:22 Keĳi Maekawa ‏ @maekk 14時間14時間前 その他 手元で試したところ Int64 上の division by zero が NA になったりはしないっぽい

ysaitoh2019/12/25 15:11

2019年12月25日(水) 11:22
Keĳi Maekawa

@maekk
14時間14時間前
その他

ゼロ除算ができる計算機が　出てきたら、連絡してください。　間もなくだ　と思います。　日本が　最初に実現、宣言して欲しい：

Matematica can do simply the division by zero calculus by using the attached draft:
viXra:1908.0100 submitted on 2019-08-06 20:03:01,
Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
Isabelle/HOL　は 図のように　ゼロ除算1/0=0/0=z/0=log 0= tan(\pi/2)=0 が出来ましたが、日本の計算機で　できるものが　有るでしょうか。アメリカの計算機は　如何でしょうか。Mathematica　などでは　どうでしょうか。　イギリス、　ドイツは　流石に進んでいる。

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\begin{document}
\title{\bf Announcement 471: The 5th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$ \\
(2019.2.2)}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}
\maketitle
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).

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

We wrote a global book manuscript \cite{s18} with 235 pages
and stated in the preface and last section of the manuscript as follows:
\bigskip

{\bf Preface}
\medskip

The division by zero has the long and mysterious history over the world (see, for example, \index{H. G. Romig} \cite{boyer, romig} and Google site with the division by zero) with its physical viewpoint since the document of zero in India in AD 628. In particular, note that \index{Brahmagupta} Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (598 -668 ?) established four arithmetic operations by introducing $0$ and at the same time he defined as $0/0=0$ in
Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta. We have been, however, considering that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is right and suitable.

The division by zero $1/0=0/0=z/0$ itself will be quite clear and trivial with several natural extensions of fractions against the mysteriously long history, as we can see from the concept of the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse \index{Moore-Penrose} \index{Tikhonov regularization} to the fundamental equation $az=b$, whose solution leads to the definition of $z =b/a$.

However, the result (definition) will show that
for the elementary mapping
$$W = \frac{1}{z},$$
the image of $z=0$ is $W=0$ ({\bf should be defined from the form}). 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 \index{Riemann sphere} (\cite{ahlfors}). As the representation of the \index{point at infinity} point at infinity of the \index{Riemann sphere} Riemann sphere by the
zero $z = 0$, we will see some delicate relations between $0$ and $\infty$ which show a strong \index{discontinuity}
discontinuity at the point of infinity on the Riemann sphere. We did not consider any value of the elementary function $W =1/ z$ at the origin $z = 0$, because we did not consider the division by zero
$1/ 0$ in a good way. Many and many people consider its value by limiting like $+\infty$ and $- \infty$ or the
point at infinity as $\infty$. However, their basic idea comes from {\bf continuity} with the common sense or
based on the basic idea of Aristotelēs %Aristotle\index{Aristotle}.
--
For the related Greek philosophy, see \cite{a,b,c}. However, as the division by zero we will consider the value of
the function $W =1 /z$ as zero at $z = 0$. We will see that this new definition is valid widely in
mathematics and mathematical sciences, see (\cite{mos,osm}) for example. Therefore, the division by zero will give great impacts to calculus, Euclidean geometry, analytic geometry, differential equations, complex analysis at the undergraduate level and to our basic idea for the space and universe.

We have to arrange globally our modern mathematics at our undergraduate level. Our common sense on the division by zero will be wrong, with our basic idea on the space and universe since Aristotelēs and Euclid. We would like to show clearly these facts in this book. The content is at the undergraduate level.

Close the mysterious and long history of division by zero that may be considered as a symbol of the stupidity of the human race and open the new world since Aristotel{$\bar{\rm e}$}s-Eulcid.
\bigskip
\bigskip

{\bf Conclusion}
\medskip

Apparently, the common sense on the division by zero with a long and mysterious history is wrong and our basic idea on the space around the point at infinity is also wrong since Euclid. On the gradient or on derivatives we have a great missing since $\tan (\pi/2) = 0$. Our mathematics is also wrong in elementary mathematics on the division by zero.

This book is elementary on our division by zero as the first publication of books for the topics. The contents have wide connections to various fields beyond mathematics. The author expects the readers to write some philosophy, papers and essays on the division by zero from this simple source book.

The division by zero theory may be developed and expanded greatly as in the author's conjecture whose break theory was recently given surprisingly and deeply by Professor \index{Qi'an Guan}Qi'an Guan \cite{guan} since 30 years proposed in \cite{s88} (the original is in \cite {s79}).

We have to arrange globally our modern mathematics with our division by zero in our undergraduate level.

We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world.

We have to change globally our textbooks and scientific books on the division by zero.
\bigskip

Our division by zero research group wonders why our elementary results may still not be accepted by some wide world.
\medskip

%We hope that:

%close the mysterious and long history of division by zero that may be considered as a symbol of the stupidity of the human race and open the new world since Aristotle-Eulcid.
% \medskip

From the funny history of the division by zero, we will be able to realize that
\medskip

human beings are full of prejudice and prejudice, and are narrow-minded, essentially.

\medskip

It seems that the long history of the division by zero is our shame and our mathematics in the elementary level has basic missings. Meanwhile, we have still great confusions and wrong ideas on the division by zero. Therefore, we would like to ask for the good corrections for the wrong ideas and some official approval for our division by zero as our basic duties.

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

\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

\bibitem{boyer}
C. B. Boyer, An early reference to division by zero, The Journal of the American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 50} (1943), (8), 487- 491. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from the JSTOR database.

\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S. Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.

\bibitem{dops}
W. W. D\"aumler, H. Okumura, V. V. Puha and S. Saitoh,
Horn Torus Models for the Riemann Sphere and Division by Zero. (manuscript).

\bibitem{guan}
Q. Guan, A proof of Saitoh's conjecture for conjugate Hardy H2 kernels, arXiv:1712.04207.

\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. http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt
\\ http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007.

\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. 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{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{os}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961 (2017.11.14).

\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{os18april}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Harmonic Mean and Division by Zero,
Dedicated to Professor Josip Pe\v{c}ari\'{c} on the occasion of his 70th birthday,　Forum Geometricorum,　{\bf 18} (2018), 155—159.

\bibitem{os18}
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{os18e}
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.

\bibitem{os1811}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus,
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM), {\bf 2 }(2018), 57--73.

\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{romig}
H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 3}1, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), 387-389.

\bibitem{s79}
S. Saitoh, The Bergman norm and the Szeg\"{o} norm, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., {\bf 249} (1979), no. 2, 261-279.

\bibitem{s88}
S. Saitoh, Theory of reproducing kernels and its applications. Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, {\bf 189}. Longman Scientific \&Technical, Harlow; copublished in the United States with John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York, (1988). x+157 pp. ISBN: 0-582-03564-3.

\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. 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.

\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 (235 pages): http//okmr.yamatoblog.net/

\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.

\bibitem{b}
http://publish.uwo.ca/~jbell/The 20Continuous.pdf

\bibitem{ann179}
Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bibitem{ann185}
Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann237}
Announcement 237 (2015.6.18): A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by geometrical optics.

\bibitem{ann246}
Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

\bibitem{ann247}
Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann250}
Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? - the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann252}
Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and
curvature - an interpretation by Mr.
Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by
zero $r/0 = 0$.

\bibitem{ann281}
Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann282}
Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

\bibitem{ann293}
Announcement 293 (2016.3.27): Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

\bibitem{ann300}
Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann326}
Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 - its impact to human beings through education and research.

\bibitem{ann352}
Announcement 352(2017.2.2): On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann354}
Announcement 354(2017.2.8):　What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? -- relations of $0$ and infinity.

\bibitem{362}
Announcement 362(2017.5.5): Discovery of the division by zero as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$

\bibitem{380}
Announcement 380 (2017.8.21): What is the zero?

\bibitem{388}
Announcement 388(2017.10.29): Information and ideas on zero and division by zero (a project).

\bibitem{409}
Announcement 409 (2018.1.29.): 　Various Publication Projects on the Division by Zero.

\bibitem{410}
Announcement 410 (2018.1 30.): What is mathematics? -- beyond logic; for great challengers on the division by zero.

\bibitem{412}
Announcement 412(2018.2.2.): The 4th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{433}
Announcement 433(2018.7.16.): Puha's Horn Torus Model for the Riemann Sphere From the Viewpoint of Division by Zero.

\bibitem{448}
Announcement 448(2018.8.20): Division by Zero;
Funny History and New World.

\bibitem{454}
Announcement 454(2018.9.29): The International Conference on Applied Physics and Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan, October 22-23.

\bibitem{460}
Announcement 460(2018.11.06): Change the Poor Idea to the Definite Results For the Division by Zero - For the Leading Mathematicians.

\bibitem{461}
Announcement 461(2018.11.10): An essence of division by zero and a new axiom.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

Announcement 478: Who did derive first the division by zero 1/0 and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? \\ (

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 478: Who did derive first the division by zero 1/0 and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? \\
(2019.3.4)}
\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\
Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\
Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}
\maketitle
The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ {\bf in a natural sense} on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotele (BC384 - BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century - ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta (598 - 668 ?).

For the details, see the references.

A simple and essential introduction of the division by zero is given by the {\bf division by zero calculus}:

For any Laurent expansion around $z=a$,
\label{dvc5.1}
f(z) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} C_n (z - a)^n + C_0 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} C_n (z - a)^n,

we define
\label{dvc5.2}
f(a) = C_0,

as a value of the function $f$ at the singular point $z=a$.

For the importance of this definition, the division by zero calculus may be considered as a new axiom. This was discovered on May 8, 2014.

In particular, for the function $W= f(z) =1/z$, we have $f(0)=0$. We will write this result as
$$\frac{1}{0}=0,$$
from the form.
Here, the definition of $\frac{1}{0}$ is given by this sense by means of the division by zero calculus. Of course, $\frac{1}{0}$ is not a usual sense that $\frac{1}{0} =X$ if and only if $1=0 \times X$; this means a contradiction. See \cite{saitohzi} for the details.

On February 16, 2019 Professor H. Okumura introduced the surprising news in Research Gate:
\medskip

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: {\bf https://isabelle.in.tum.de/}.
\medskip

J.M.R. Caballero kindly showed surprisingly several examples by the system that
$$\tan \frac{\pi}{2} =0,$$
$$\log 0 =0,$$
$$\exp \frac{1}{x} (x=0) =1,$$
and others. Precisely:
\medskip

Dear Saitoh,

In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depend upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$\tan(\pi/2) = 0$$
$$\log 0 =$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$e ^0 = 1$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$0^0= 1$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).

In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/

Kind Regards,

José M.

(2017.2.17.11:09).

\medskip

At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
\medskip

It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.

Jose M.

On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:

Dear José M.

I have the short question.

For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???

With best regards,
Sincerely yours,

Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00
\medskip

As we stated in \cite{os1811}, the important point in the division by zero problem is on its definition (meaning of division.), because in the usual sense, we can not consider the division by zero.

L. C. Paulson stated that I would guess that Isabelle has used this {\bf convention} $1/0=0$ since the 1980s and introduced his book \cite{npw} referred to this fact.
However, in his group the importance of this fact seems to be entirely ignored at this moment as we see from the book.

The result $1/0=0$ has a long tradition of Isabelle, however, the result has not been accepted by the world.

Indeed, S. K. Sen and R. P. Agarwal \cite{sa16} referred to the paper \cite{kmsy} in connection with division by zero, however, their understandings on the paper seem to be not suitable (not right) and their ideas on the division by zero seem to be traditional, indeed, they stated as a conclusion of the introduction of the book that:
\medskip

{\bf “Thou shalt not divide by zero” remains valid eternally.}

\medskip
However, in \cite{saitohpo} we stated simply based on the division by zero calculus that
\medskip

{\bf We Can Divide the Numbers and Analytic Functions by Zero with a Natural Sense.}
\medskip

In these situations, the results of J.M.R. Caballero will be very interested. For some precise information, we would like to ask for the question that
\medskip

{\bf Who did derive first the division by zero $1/0$ and the division by zero calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the outputs of a computer? }
\medskip

If it is possible, we would like to know the related details.

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

\bibitem{boyer}
C. B. Boyer, An early reference to division by zero, The Journal of the American Mathematical Monthly, {\bf 50} (1943), (8), 487- 491. Retrieved March 6, 2018, from the JSTOR database.

\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. http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt
\\ http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007.

\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. 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{npw}
T. Nipkow, L. C. Paulson and M. Wenzel, Isabelle/HOL
A Proof Assistant for Higher-Order Logic,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer E E002 E E.

\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{os}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh, The Descartes circles theorem and division by zero calculus. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04961 (2017.11.14).

\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{os18april}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Harmonic Mean and Division by Zero,
Dedicated to Professor Josip Pe\v{c}ari\'{c} on the occasion of his 70th birthday,　Forum Geometricorum,　{\bf 18} (2018), 155—159.

\bibitem{os18}
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{os18e}
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.

\bibitem{os1811}
H. Okumura and S. Saitoh,
Wasan Geometry and Division by Zero Calculus,
Sangaku Journal of Mathematics (SJM), {\bf 2 }(2018), 57--73.

\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{romig}
H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,
American Mathematical Monthly, {\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. 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.

\bibitem{s17}
S. Saitoh, Mysterious Properties of the Point at Infinity, arXiv:1712.09467 [math.GM](2017.12.17).

\bibitem{saitohpo}
S. Saitoh, We Can Divide the Numbers and Analytic Functions by Zero with a Natural Sense, viXra:1902.0058 submitted on 2019-02-03 22:47:53.

\bibitem{saitohzi}
S. Saitoh, Zero and Infinity; Their Interrelation by Means of Division by Zero,
viXra:1902.0240 submitted on 2019-02-13 22:57:25.

\bibitem{sa16}
S.K.S. Sen and R. P. Agarwal, ZERO A Landmark Discovery, the Dreadful Volid, and the Unitimate Mind, ELSEVIER (2016).

\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.

\bibitem{ann179}
Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bibitem{ann185}
Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann237}
Announcement 237 (2015.6.18): A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by geometrical optics.

\bibitem{ann246}
Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

\bibitem{ann247}
Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann250}
Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? - the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann252}
Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and
curvature - an interpretation by Mr.
Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by
zero $r/0 = 0$.

\bibitem{ann281}
Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann282}
Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

\bibitem{ann293}
Announcement 293 (2016.3.27): Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

\bibitem{ann300}
Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann326}
Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 - its impact to human beings through education and research.

\bibitem{ann352}
Announcement 352(2017.2.2): On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann354}
Announcement 354(2017.2.8):　What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? -- relations of $0$ and infinity.

\bibitem{362}
Announcement 362(2017.5.5): Discovery of the division by zero as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$

\bibitem{380}
Announcement 380 (2017.8.21): What is the zero?

\bibitem{388}
Announcement 388(2017.10.29): Information and ideas on zero and division by zero (a project).

\bibitem{409}
Announcement 409 (2018.1.29.): 　Various Publication Projects on the Division by Zero.

\bibitem{410}
Announcement 410 (2018.1 30.): What is mathematics? -- beyond logic; for great challengers on the division by zero.

\bibitem{412}
Announcement 412(2018.2.2.): The 4th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{433}
Announcement 433(2018.7.16.): Puha's Horn Torus Model for the Riemann Sphere From the Viewpoint of Division by Zero.

\bibitem{448}
Announcement 448(2018.8.20): Division by Zero;
Funny History and New World.

\bibitem{454}
Announcement 454(2018.9.29): The International Conference on Applied Physics and Mathematics, Tokyo, Japan, October 22-23.

\bibitem{460}
Announcement 460(2018.11.06): Change the Poor Idea to the Definite Results For the Division by Zero - For the Leading Mathematicians.

\bibitem{461}
Announcement 461(2018.11.10): An essence of division by zero and a new axiom.

\bibitem{471}
Announcement 471(2019.2.2): The 5th birthday of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

2019.3.4.
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0= tan (pi/2)=0

２０１９．２．１６．　夜、奥村博氏から計算機が　ゼロ除算ができるとの下記情報が寄せられ、下記の方と連絡が取れた：

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/
その後 我々が導いていた　いろいろな公式について、できるかとの質問に対して　回答があり、　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、驚嘆させられた。　Isabelle構築の責任者とは　相当以前から交流がありましたが、1/0=0　は　convention で大したことではない と 言っていました。　（　－　これはゼロ除算算法の著書素案に氏のメールを引用、責任者にも素案を送っている。）　しかし、実は 相当なことを　大きな研究グループで　ゼロ除算を発展させた　ゼロ除算算法の実装に成功して、 公表している。　２０１８年８月頃までには完成していたと　考えられる。　（2値　関数が２つの値をとることや　大事な \log 0 =\tan(\pi/2)= \exp (1/x) (x=0) =0　も できているので、驚嘆です。　２０１９．２．１７．２０：０５）。
ゼロ除算については、発見　（２０１４．２．２）　後　５年を経過し、論文や国際会議、日本数学会でも公表しているにも関わらず、公には未だ認知されているとは言えず、数学界でも、世間でも　ゼロで割ってはいけないは　未だ定説になっていて、インターネット上では　不適当な議論が 毎日のようになされている。　例えば、
S. K. Sen and R. P. Agarwal, ZERO A Landmark Discovery, the Dreadful Void, and the Ultimate Mind, ELSEVIER, AP(2016)
が　出版され、我々の初期の論文（２０１４出版）がIntroductionで２ページに亘って議論されているが、数学の議論、論理を無視して、
“Thou shalt not divide by zero” remains valid eternally.
と結論づけ、Brahmagupta (598 -668 ?)　の結果0/0=0さえ否定している。そこで、直接ドイツ オーベルバッハ研究所で 不等式の国際会議で会ったことのあるAgarwal　教授に我々の結果を送ったところ、誤りを認めるようなメールを受け取った。
そこで、計算機のゼロ除算可能、成功の歴史的な事実　に関して、簡潔にその意義と所感を纏めて置きたい。　－　出来るだけゼロ除算発展の経過を記録して置くためである。

そこで、問題は

１）計算機システムの構築に、特に数式処理、論理などで新奇な現象として大きな影響が出てくるのでは　ないだろうか,
２）世界の数学界が　ゼロ除算で後れをとり、数学界の汚点になりかねないこと、
３）ゼロ除算は初等数学全般ばかりではなく、世界観の変更を要求する新しい世界を開拓していること、
４）新しい手段（道具）が生まれたので、その広範な応用、理論の発展が注目される。

しかしながら、本質的な問題は、数学の基礎の欠陥を明らかにして、基礎数学の欠陥を完全化ならしめ、未知の新世界の開拓に乗り出すことである。世界史は新たな世界、時代に入り、世界史は　新しい時代を迎えるだろう。
ゼロ除算については、下記で解説を続けている。　偶然、５５カ月目で一応の終了を迎える：

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

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。
２０１９．２．１６．　夜、奥村博氏から計算機が　ゼロ除算ができるとの下記情報が寄せられ、下記の方と連絡が取れた：

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/
その後 我々が導いていた　いろいろな公式について、できるかとの質問に対して　回答があり、　信じられないほどに　ソフトが完成されていること（出力結果）を見て、驚嘆させられた。　Isabelle構築の責任者とは　相当以前から交流があったが、1/0=0　は　convention で大したことではない と 言っていた。　（　－　これはゼロ除算算法の著書素案に氏のメールを引用、責任者にも素案を送って確認している。）　しかし、実は 相当なことを　大きな研究グループで　ゼロ除算を発展させていた。　ここであるが物件で示せる事実は　次のようである：
Dear Saitoh,
In Isabelle/HOL, we can define and redefine every function in different ways. So, logarithm of zero depend upon our definition. The best definition is the one which simplify the proofs the most. According to the experts, z/0 = 0 is the best definition for division by zero.
$$\tan(\pi/2) = 0,$$
$$\log 0 =$$
is undefined (but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$e^0 = 1,$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$)
$$0^0= 1$$
(but we can redefine it as $0$).
In the attached file you will find some versions of logarithms and exponentials satisfying different properties. This file can be opened with the software Isabelle/HOL from this webpage: https://isabelle.in.tum.de/.
Kind Regards,
José M.
(2017.2.17.11:09).

At 2019.3.4.18:04 for my short question, we received:
It is as it was programmed by the HOL team.
Jose M.
On Mar 4, 2019, Saburou Saitoh wrote:
Dear José M.
I have the short question.
For your outputs for the division by zero calculus, for the input, is it some direct or do you need some program???
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
Saburou Saitoh
2019.3.4.18:00

2019.3.6.15:23: To accept that x/0 = 0 produces no contradiction, using the rules of Isabelle/HOL. You could download the software and try to prove that 1 = 0 (this will be impossible).　http://isabelle.in.tum.de/
There are millions of dollars invested in Isabelle/HOL, where x/0 = 0 (this is not a joke): 　https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/Grants/Alexandria/
Prof. Saitoh derived that x/0 = 0 from pure geometric intuition and he was right.

2019.3.8.22:23: 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.

ゼロ除算については、発見　（２０１４．２．２）　後　５年を経過し、論文や国際会議、日本数学会でも公表しているにも関わらず、公には未だ認知されているとは言えず、数学界でも、世間でも　ゼロで割ってはいけないは　未だ定説になっていて、インターネット上では　不適当な議論が 毎日のようになされている。

そこで、計算機のゼロ除算可能、成功の歴史的な事実　に関して、簡潔にその意義と所感を纏めて置きたい。　－　出来るだけゼロ除算発展の経過を記録して置くためである。

そこで、問題は

１）計算機システムの構築に、特に数式処理、論理などで新規な現象として大きな影響が出てくるのでは　ないだろうか,
２）世界の数学界が　ゼロ除算で後れをとり、数学界の汚点になりかねないこと、
３）ゼロ除算は初等数学全般ばかりではなく、世界観の変更を要求する新しい世界を開拓していること、
４）新しい手段（道具）が生まれたので、その広範な応用、理論の発展が注目される。

しかしながら、本質的な問題は、数学の基礎の欠陥を明らかにして、基礎数学の欠陥を完全化ならしめ、未知の新世界の開拓に乗り出すことである。世界史は新たな世界、時代に入り、世界史は　新しい時代を迎えるだろう。

ところがケンブリッジ大学とミュンヘン工科大学の連携で　政府と軍の膨大な補助の下で　計算機開発が進められていた。Isabelle　が　私たちの幾何学的な考察を適用し、　既に広く　運用され、それは既に　揺るがない　という　事である。　その大きなシステムで大きな存在であることは、既に理論を越えて、ゼロ除算は　実在していると判断できる。
上記文で、軍事、産業で有益と述べられている。

この事実は　第２次世界大戦で、イギリスが　アメリカに先んじて計算機を開発していたのに　永年機密にして戦勝した事実を想起させる。　その精神は
１） 新奇なものを尊重、関心を懐く精神、
２） 情報に対する　重視、
３） 国家戦略の凄さ
これらは、日本の弱点と感じられる。八木－宇田アンテナの例も想起される。
このようなことは、数学の教育と研究に義務を負う者に対しては、ある意味で責任問題に繋がらないかと危惧される。繰り返し、初等数学には不備がある、欠陥があると述べて来た。これは、世界の数学界の汚点と記録されるのではないだろうか。
（２０１９．３．９．１５：５５）

ゼロ除算については、下記で５５カ月を越えて解説を続けてきた：

http://www.mirun.sctv.jp/~suugaku/
また　Isabelle とゼロ除算については、下記で広く状況を聞いている：
http://viXra.org/abs/1903.0184

Who Did Derive First the Division by Zero $1/0$ and the Division by Zero Calculus $\tan(\pi/2)=0, \log 0=0$ as the Outputs of a Computer? http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0184

Yoshinori Saito#哲学
#知恵袋_
#2019年
#更新
#ブラックホールは神がゼロで割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算発見
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#4
#math
#ゼロ除算を発見したのは2014年2月2日
#ブラックホールは神が０で割ったところにある
#divide
#smart
#0
#5年を超えたゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#Genius
#hths
#universe
#Epic
#implosion
#ZERO
#DIVISION
#NOT
#by
#IMAGINARY
#numbers
#undefined
#dividebyzero
#oh
#dividing
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算発見
#ログゼロハゼロ
#tangent二分のパイはゼロ
#5年目を超えたゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#欧米は0を忌み避け嫌っている
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算発見記念日
#0割る0は0ブラーマグプタはできていた
#座標
#Descartes
#1割る0は0はブラーマグプタは分からなかった
#Descartes負の数を悪魔
#数学者でも
#1割る0は0　　　0割る0は0再生核研究所

The Institute of Reproducing Kernels：再生核研究所
ysaitoh2019/11/24 15:51

The Institute of Reproducing Kernels is dealing with the theory of division by zero calculus and 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 ?).

Black holes are where God divided by 0
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#0除算
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#再生核研究所2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法 発見
#更新#2019年#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見#628年インドゼロ発見#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見#ゼロ除算#令和革新ゼロ除算#2000年来の発見ゼロ除算再生核研究所ゼロ除算#新世界ゼロ除算
#2019年
#更新
#再生核研究所
#再生核研究所声明
#2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見
#ブラックホールは神が0で割ったところにある
#再生核研究所ゼロ除算の発見
#2014
#2000年来の発見再生核研究所ゼロ除算
#令和革新ゼロ除算
#2000
#新世界ゼロ除算
#ゼロ除算算法
#神でさえできないゼロ除算
#2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法
#ゼロ除算算法2014年3月8日誕生
2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見
2014年2月2日ゼロ除算の発見 2000年来の発見ゼロ除算は　 ビッグバンとブラックホールと特異点 数学物理学天文学コンピュータサイエンス 2014年3月8日ゼロ除算算法の発見

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？

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。
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/reproducingkerne/diary/201810110003/

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

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。

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：

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）
E = mc 2　（1905）（Albert Einstein）
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）

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

ゼロ除算は
それは、一般に　できないことが証明されていたので、数学者は、ほとんど考えもしなかった。
しかし、物理などの公式に、ゼロ分の　が現れ、物理的な意味が深いので、アリストテレス以来　問題にされ、特に　アインシュタインの人生最大の関心事、悩みだったとされている。　ブラックホールや　宇宙創成に関係している。
ところが、実は、ゼロ除算は　当り前で、結果は　まるであべこべ、ゼロで割れば、何時でもゼロで、新世界と、新数学を拓くことが分かってきた。　人々は驚き、思考停止に陥っているように見える。　目を覚ましたら、凄い世界が見えるだろう。　天動説が地動説に変わったような　大きな意味がある。

２０１９．１０．２５．１１：２０
ゼロ除算（division by zero）1/0=0/0=z/0=\tan(\pi/2)=0、log0=0

https://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kbdmm360/72284136.html

ゼロ除算はできないとされていたものが、実は割り算の意味を拡張すると

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・・・・

№1070
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
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：

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？

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。
２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３
https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/reproducingkerne/diary/201810110003/

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

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。

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：

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）
E = mc 2　（1905）（Albert Einstein）
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）
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

file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢１.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢2.pdf
file:///C:/Users/saito%20saburo/Desktop/2019年9月/2019年9月金沢３.pdf
2019.8.20.9:00

ゼロ除算は、簡単で当たり前の初等数学である。 それにも関わらず、理解されにくいのは、 ターレス、アリストテレスなどの ギリシャ文化が ゼロや空、無などに対して強い拒否の精神を持ち、それが 欧米文化に強く反映してきたからである。

Fundamental of Mathematics; Division by Zero Calculus and a New Axiom
#更新#1÷0#再生核研究所#ゼロ除算÷0#ゼロ除算#０÷０#÷0#2019年#mathematics#有史以来

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
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

JBDrakyll
I was bothered that we were calling division by zero undefined. No one told me we have a better answer. After drafting the paper, I was 100% sure I'll open a new chapter in mathematics or at least get a Fields Medal.
https://github.com/rakyll