■3000年前に古代ギリシャ人が生みだした説得の技術

 

上司を説得したい、生意気な部下を動かしたい、不機嫌な妻を笑顔にしたい。そんなときに武器になるのが、「レトリック」だ。本書を執筆したジェイ・ハインリックス氏によると、レトリックとは、3000年前に古代ギリシャ人が生みだした説得の技術であり、古代ローマのジュリアス・シーザーやキケロ、そしてリンカーンやオバマは、この技法で自身の演説に磨きをかけ、聴衆の心をつかんだという。

ジェイ・ハインリックス氏

口下手でもすぐに実践できることはあるのだろうか。ハインリックス氏によれば、「相手の目を見ること」も説得をするうえで効果があるという。

 

「相手とコミュニケーションをとりやすくなります。古代ギリシャの偉大な哲学者で、ソクラテスの弟子にして、アリストテレスの師であるプラトンはこう言いました。『目は心の窓である』。目の周りの小さな筋肉は、疑念、不信感、好意、微笑みなど、さまざまな感情を表すことができます。あなたが心に抱いている感情も、目で伝えることができます」

 

「私は人と話すとき、自分にこう言いきかせています。『愛情光線を目から出すんだ！』。馬鹿馬鹿しいとお思いかもしれませんが、そうすることで愛情を持って相手に接することができるようになり、絆を結ぶことができるのです」

 

■「いい質問ですね」という返しには、3つの意味がある

 

また、何かを質問されたときに「いい質問ですね！」と返すのも有効だという。

 

「語り手であるあなたの『エートス（人柄）』を高めて、『あなたは信頼に値する、好感の持てる人物だ』と聞き手に思わせる方法が3つあります。まず、あなたがその事柄に精通しており、持っている知識を使って、いま起こっている問題に対処できる、と思わせること。『いい質問ですね』と返せば、質問に対して、あなたがこれから的確な返答をしようとしている、という印象を与えます。

■相手をほめると、たいていのことはうまくいく

 

2つ目の方法は、あなたが自分本位な人ではなく、聞き手の利益を第一に考えている、と聞き手に思わせることです。『いい質問ですね』と言えば、あなたが相手の質問に真摯に答えようとしていると示すことができます。

 

最後は、アリストテレスのいう『アレテー（徳）』を示す方法です。『いい』という言葉は、あなたの徳を示すのに大切な言葉です。何がよくて何が悪いのかを見極める力をあなたは持っている、と示すことになるからです」

続けて、ハインリックス氏は言う。

 

「なにより『いい質問ですね』という言葉は、質問者をほめる言葉です。相手をほめると、たいていのことはうまくいくものです。そう思いませんか？」

 

レトリック、つまり説得の技術は、語り手と聞き手の関係を構築するところから始まる。聞き手の好感と信頼を得ることができれば、相手を説得しやすくなるのだ。

 

本書では、古代の文献から拝借して現代の状況に合わせた技法を100通り以上紹介、家庭、学校、職場、コミュニティでの使い方も提案している。「聞き手の心をほぐすためには」「聞き手の怒りを和らげるためには」など、状況に応じた使い方がわかる。

 

なめらかな人間関係をつくるのに役立ちそうだ。

 

———-

ジェイ・ハインリックス

ミドルベリー大学教授としてレトリックと演説の授業を担当。NASA、米国国防総省、ウォルマートなどでコンサルティングや講演も行っている。

———-

（プレジデント編集部 面澤 淳市 撮影＝大杉和広）

 

ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：

∞？？？    

∞は定まった数ではない・

人工知能はゼロ除算ができるでしょうか：

 

とても興味深く読みました：2014年2月2日　4周年を超えました：

ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した：日本、再生核研究所

 

 

ゼロ除算関係論文・本

 

2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：

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 lea
st 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.

 

 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.

 

 

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

 

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,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
…/our-humanity-and-division…/

 

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. T
he 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

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.

 

ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在

 

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

再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　 
 

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 
 
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 
 
1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0 
 

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他 
 

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 
&t=3318s 
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか 
 
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 
 

再生核研究所声明 411(2018.02.02): 　ゼロ除算発見4周年を迎えて 
 

再生核研究所声明 416(2018.2.20): 　ゼロ除算をやってどういう意味が有りますか。何か意味が有りますか。何になるのですか　－　回答 
再生核研究所声明 417(2018.2.23): 　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　中学生、高校生向き　回答 
再生核研究所声明 418(2018.2.24): 　割り算とは何ですか？　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　小学生、中学生向き　回答 
再生核研究所声明 420(2018.3.2): ゼロ除算は正しいですか，合っていますか、信用できますか　－　回答 

2018.3.18．午前中　最後の講演：　日本数学会　東大駒場、函数方程式論分科会　講演書画カメラ用　原稿 
The Japanese Mathematical Society, Annual Meeting at the University of Tokyo. 2018.3.18. 
 より

 

*057 Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.): Differential and Difference Equations with Applications: ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017. (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230) May 2018 587 pp. 

 

再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): 　レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチとゼロ除算

 

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

 

私は数学を信じない。　アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681。

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

 

 

ゼロ除算は定義が問題です：

 

再生核研究所声明　１４８（2014.2.12）　100/0=0,  0/0=0　－　割り算の考えを自然に拡張すると　―　神の意志 

 

再生核研究所声明１７１（2014.7.30）掛け算の意味と割り算の意味　―　ゼロ除算100/0=0は自明である？

 

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

 

私は数学を信じない。　アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。1423793753.460.341866474681。

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero

 

#divide by zero

TOP DEFINITION

  

A super-smart math teacher that teaches at HTHS and can divide by zero.

Hey look, that genius’s IQ is over 9000!

    

by  October 21, 2009

 

 

Dividing by zero is the biggest  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.

ホーキング、ビッグバンが計算不能であることを証明する

　相対性理論から導かれるブラックホールですが、このブラックホールの中心を、相対性理論にしたがって計算しようとすると、時間や空間のゆがみなどに無限大がでてきて計算不能になります。このような計算不能な箇所を「特異点」といいます。ブラックホールの中心は特異点なのです。

 

　一方、この宇宙は138億年前にビッグバンという大爆発で生まれたと考えられています。どうやって考えたかというと、これもやっぱり相対性理論を用いて考えられています。宇宙全体も、相対性理論の方程式の解なのです。

　そしてホーキング博士は、宇宙の始まりビッグバンの瞬間もやはり特異点であることを証明しました*³。ブラックホールもビッグバンも、相対性理論から導かれるにも関わらず、計算を進めていくと、あるところで相対性理論が使えなくなってしまうのです。

　どういうことかというと、相対性理論はまだ不完全な理論で、ブラックホールやビッグバンをきちんと計算するには、新しい完全な物理学理論が必要なのです。

　その新しい完全な物理学理論を見た人はまだいませんが、二つのことは分かっています。一つは、その理論は相対性理論と量子力学を組み合わせたものになるということ、もう一つは、それが「量子重力理論」という名前だということです。それ以外は、まあ、あまり分かってないと言っていいんじゃないですかね。（分かってる方がいらっしゃったら教えてください。）

　ホーキング博士が研究を始めたころには、ブラックホールが実在するかどうか誰も知りませんでした。「ブラックホール」という言葉さえありませんでした。そんなふざけたものがあるはずがない、机上の空論に過ぎないという研究者も大勢いました。

　現在では、ブラックホールから放射された「重力波」をはじめとするさまざまな証拠がそろっています。ブラックホールの実在を疑う人はほとんどいません。

　そしてホーキング博士は、1960年代から1970年代にブラックホール研究をリードした、世界最高の研究者だったのです。

*3：

 

再生核研究所声明 375　(2017.7.21)：ブラックホール、ゼロ除算、宇宙論

                        

本年はブラックホール命名５０周年とされていたが、最近、wikipedia で下記のように修正されていた：

名称[]                                    

“black hole”という呼び名が定着するまでは、崩壊した星を意味する”collapsar”（コラプサー）などと呼ばれていた。光すら脱け出せないに対して “black hole” という言葉が用いられた最も古い印刷物は、ジャーナリストのアン・ユーイング (Ann Ewing) が1964年1月18日の Science News-Letter の “‘Black holes’ in space” と題するの会合を紹介する記事の中で用いたものである。一般には、のが1967年に “black hole” という名称を初めて用いたとされるが、実際にはその年にニューヨークで行われた会議中で聴衆の一人が洩らした言葉をホイーラーが採用して広めたものであり、またホイーラー自身は “black hole” という言葉の考案者であると主張したことはない。

 

世界は広いから、情報が混乱することは　よく起きる状況がある。ブラックホールの概念と密接な関係のあるゼロ除算の発見（２０１４．２．２）については、歴史的な混乱が生じないようにと　詳しい経緯、解説、論文、公表過程など記録するように配慮してきた。

ゼロ除算は簡単で自明であると初期から述べてきたが、問題はそこから生じるゼロ除算算法とその応用であると述べている。しかし、その第１歩で議論は様々でゼロ除算自身についていろいろな説が存在して、ゼロ除算は現在も全体的に混乱していると言える。インターネットなどで参照出来る膨大な情報は、我々の観点では不適当なものばかりであると言える。もちろん学術界ではゼロ除算発見後３年を経過しているものの、古い固定観念に囚われていて、新しい発見は未だ認知されているとは言えない。最近国際会議でも現代数学を破壊するので、認められない等の意見が表明された（再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　　報告）。そこで、初等数学から、５００件を超えるゼロ除算の証拠、効用の事実を示して、ゼロ除算は確定していること、ゼロ除算算法の重要性を主張し、基本的な世界を示している。

ゼロ除算について、膨大な歴史、文献は、ゼロ除算が神秘的なこととして、扱われ、それはアインシュタインの言葉に象徴される：

 

Here, we recall Albert Einstein’s words on mathematics:

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).

 

ところが結果は、実に簡明であった：

 

The division by zero is uniquely and reasonably determined as 1/0=0/0=z/0=0 in the natural extensions of fractions. We have to change our basic ideas for our space and world

 

しかしながら、ゼロ及びゼロ除算は、結果自体は　驚く程単純であったが、神秘的な新たな世界を覗かせ、ゼロ及びゼロ除算は一層神秘的な対象であることが顕になってきた。ゼロのいろいろな意味も分かってきた。　無限遠点における強力な飛び、ワープ現象とゼロと無限の不思議な関係である。アリストテレス、ユークリッド以来の　空間の認識を変える事件をもたらしている。　ゼロ除算の結果は、数理論ばかりではなく、世界観の変更を要求している。　端的に表現してみよう。　これは宇宙の生成、消滅の様、人生の様をも表しているようである。　点が球としてどんどん大きくなり、球面は限りなく大きくなって行く。　どこまで大きくなっていくかは、　分からない。しかしながら、ゼロ除算はあると�
�ろで突然半径はゼロになり、最初の点に帰するというのである。　ゼロから始まってゼロに帰する。　――　それは人生の様のようではないだろうか。物心なしに始まった人生、経験や知識はどんどん広がって行くが、突然、死によって元に戻る。　人生とはそのようなものではないだろうか。　はじめも終わりも、　途中も分からない。　多くの世の現象はそのようで、　何かが始まり、　どんどん進み、そして、戻る。　例えばソロバンでは、願いましては　で計算を始め、最後はご破産で願いましては、で終了する。　我々の宇宙も淀みに浮かぶ泡沫のようなもので、できては壊れ、できては壊れる現象を繰り返しているのではないだろうか。泡沫の上の小さな存在の人間は結局、何も分からず、われ思うゆえにわれあり　と自己の存在を確かめる程の能力しか無い存在であると言える。　始めと終わり、過程も　ようとして分からない。

 

ブラックホールとゼロ除算、ゼロ除算の発見とその後の数学の発展を眺めていて、そのような宇宙観、人生観がひとりでに湧いてきて、奇妙に納得のいく気持ちになっている。

 

以　上

*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. 

 

2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：

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.

 

 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 i
t 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.

 

 

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

 

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,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
…/our-humanity-and-division…/

 

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

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 i
n 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.

 

 

The 10 Equations That Changed The Course Of History

Do you know that mathematical equations affect our day-to-day lives? In fact, mathematics has been called the language of the universe that has shaped our understanding of the world in numerous ways.

Once well-known UC Berkeley mathematician Edward Frenkel had said, “mathematics directs the flow of the universe, lurks behind its shapes and curves, holds the reins of everything from tiny atoms to the biggest stars.”

Hundreds of talented mathematicians and physicists have through mathematics put the abstractions and interpretations of our world into a concrete and readable form. It allows humans to both interpret and predict their surroundings.

While there are many mathematical equations that have molded mathematics and human history, let’s have a look at 10 of them:

1. The Pythagorean Theorem:

One of the fundamental principle in Euclidean Geometry, the Pythagorean theorem, also known as Pythagoras’s theorem deals with the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. The theorem states that: The sum of the squares of the lengths of the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square of the length of the hypotenuse. Currently, there are over 130 different proofs for the Pythagorean Theorem, ranging from geometric arrangements to differential calculus.

2. Isaac Newton’s Law Of Universal Gravitation:

Issac Newton’s publication of the Principia in July 1687 changed the way how we look at the universe, as no one before that knew how the earth and the other planets fit together with the sun. He explained why the planets move the way they do, and how gravity works on earth and the universe. Newton not only concluded that planets revolve around each other because of gravity, but he also gave the exact formula that calculates how much force is between two large objects given their masses. Newton’s Law Of Gravity was the defacto reference equation for more than 200 years until Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity replaced it. However, Newton’s laws are still good to calculate the orbits of satellites and the paths of spaceships.

3. Albert Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity:

Einstein’s theory of relativity usually covers two interrelated theories: special relativity and general relativity. This theory was proposed in 1905 and depicts the relationship between space and time. Special relativity brought in ideas like the speed of light being a universal speed limit and the passage of time being different for people moving at different speeds. General relativity explains the law of gravitation and its relation to other forces of nature. Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity changed the course of physics and helped the world understand the past, present and future of earth.

4. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics:

Rudolf Clausius’second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy can never decrease over time for an isolated system, that is, a system in which neither energy nor matter can enter nor leave. The total entropy can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium), or is undergoing a reversible process. In all other real cases, the total entropy always increases and the process is irreversible. It also states that whenever energy changes or moves, it becomes less useful as it keeps losing energy on the way. It has led to the discovery of inventions like electricity, internal combustion engines, and cryogenics.

5. Logarithm functions:

Introduced by John Napier in the early 17th century, logarithms turn multiplication into addition (and division into subtraction, and exponentiation into multiplication, and roots into division). That means the logarithm of a number is the exponent to which another fixed number, the , must be raised to produce that number. This was the most common way to quickly multiply together large numbers, greatly speeding up calculations in physics, astronomy, and engineering until the development of the digital computer.

6. Maxwell’s Equations:

James Clerk Maxwell’s equations are a set of four fundamental forces in the world that describe the behavior of and relationship between electric and magnetic fields. First published between 1861 and 1862, by combining the electric and magnetic fields into a set of four equations they define the key mathematics behind radio waves of all types also called as electro-magnetic radiation by scientists and engineers. The mathematics applies to all electro-magnetic radiation, including low frequency radio waves, to microwave and radar, to infrared (night vision goggles), to lasers, to visible light, to x-rays and much more.

7. Chaos Theory:

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. In other words, it shows how small changes can lead to consequences of much greater scale. It is used to gain greater mathematical insight into weather predictions, and into unstable systems such as turbulence in fluid flows, instability in finance and economic systems, and so on.

8. Wave Equation:

The wave equation is a linear second-order partial differential equation which describes the propagation of oscillations at a fixed speed in some quantity. It describes how a property is changing through time in terms of that property’s derivative and describes the behavior of waves. The wave equation has a great many practical applications in engineering (electrical, mechanical, civil), and physics.

9. Schrödinger Equation:

Developed by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, his equation was a significant landmark in developing the theory of quantum mechanics. The equation is a type of differential equation known as a wave-equation, which serves as a mathematical model of the movement of waves. It governs the behavior of atoms and subatomic particles in quantum mechanics. Today, all of our semiconductors (transistors, integrated circuits, Intel CPU chips, etc.) depend on the science of quantum mechanics that wouldn’t have been possible to understand without Schrödinger’s equation. It also paved the way for nuclear power, microchips, and electron microscopes.

10. Fourier Transform:

The Fourier Transform defines the mathematics that allows us to put many different signals onto one wire, or one radio signal, and to then extract each individual signal at the other end. It is essential to understanding more complex wave structures, like human speech. Basically, it helps in breaking down the complicated signals into simple waves. According to explanation by Boston University alum, Fourier theory “states that any signal, in our case visual images, can be expressed as a sum of a series of sinusoids.”

 

ゼロ除算の発見は日本です：

∞？？？

∞は定まった数ではない・

人工知能はゼロ除算ができるでしょうか：

 

とても興味深く読みました：

ゼロ除算の発見と重要性を指摘した：日本、再生核研究所

 

 

ゼロ除算関係論文・本

 

 

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

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　　報告

ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス　その他

Ten billion years ago　DIVISION By ZERO：

One hundred million years ago　DIVISION By ZERO

 

 

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式 第２回 宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか 
 
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第3回 宇宙はなぜ始まったのか 
&t=3318s 
〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式 完全版 第1回 この世は何からできているのか 
 
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 
 

再生核研究所声明 411(2018.02.02): 　ゼロ除算発見4周年を迎えて 
 

再生核研究所声明 416(2018.2.20): 　ゼロ除算をやってどういう意味が有りますか。何か意味が有りますか。何になるのですか　－　回答 
再生核研究所声明 417(2018.2.23): 　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　中学生、高校生向き　回答 
再生核研究所声明 418(2018.2.24): 　割り算とは何ですか？　ゼロ除算って何ですか　－　小学生、中学生向き　回答 
再生核研究所声明 420(2018.3.2): ゼロ除算は正しいですか，合っていますか、信用できますか　－　回答 

2018.3.18．午前中　最後の講演：　日本数学会　東大
駒場、函数方程式論分科会　講演書画カメラ用　原稿 
The Japanese Mathematical Society, Annual Meeting at the University of Tokyo. 2018.3.18. 
 より

再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): 　レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチとゼロ除算

再生核研究所声明 427(2018.5.8): 神の数式、神の意志　そしてゼロ除算

 

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

私は数学を信じない。　アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don’t believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681。

 

Einstein’s Only Mistake: Division by Zero