· 

すごく久々に、早朝から晴れて庭の芝生も喜んでいます！

「裁くことなかれ」の真意は、誤った判断を基に、他者を断罪してしまう可能性を示唆しています。仮に、正しい主張の人を断罪してしまえば、「天に富を積みなさい」とは、全く逆の行為ですからね。

人間を生きている限り、私達は残念ながら意識レベル200未満の感情から、完全に逃れることは不可能ですから。それは、有史以来、古今東西の聖人、賢人達や、ブッダでさえ証言していています・・・。

唯一、その不完全な自我を飼いならす方法は、受け入れ、放っておくことで感情が消え去るのを待ちます。

すなわち、抵抗や、執着をしないことです。相手が誤っていると感じても、それを放棄する勇気。それが「敵を愛せ」という意味です。

相手を、赦しのあとに愛のパワーは現れますから、非常に大事ですよね。

しかし、相手が、真実を捻じ曲げ、常にネガティブな感情や思想に執着していた場合、彼または彼女は、何回もあなたを裏切ることでしょうけど。

執着しないことと、真実のねじ曲げを見過ごすこととは、異なります。その人のケアをしなければ、いつか大切な仕事の大きな妨げになることは、これも真実です。

そして、相手のこころが溶けなければ、それはカルマ(因果応報)の影響ですけども、それは、あなたが変わらねば変わらないでしょうが・・・。

Transcending the levels of consciousness, David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. 2006,
Chapter 11 Acceptance (Calibration Level 350) その意識レベルを超える、デヴィッド・R・ホーキンズ博士、2006年、第11章　受容、（計測レベル350）page 215,

Discussion (2)
The surrender of judgmentalism is resisted by the ego’s inflationary self-importance gained by viewing itself as righteous and sovereign arbiter of moral worth. Acceptance does not require denial but instead replace it by realistic perception and recognition of its innate limitation. It does not feel compelled to ‘take a stand’ about what is perceived or to take action and feel compelled to ‘fix it’. Therefore, Acceptance can see and accept the limitations of human life and the world of distortions without losing its balance and equanimity.

Acceptance is a result of wisdom as well as surrendering positionalities in that it accepts that the varied expressions of life are in accord with Divine will and that Creation is thereby multitudinous in its expressions as evolution. Acceptance does not get caught in the ‘either-or’ of ‘black and white’ duality and is able to bypass the temptation of judgmentalism. Acceptance sees that perceived qualities are innate to the human condition and reflective of individual as well as group karma and innate to the species Homo sapiens. Society includes admixture of different levels of evolutionary development, including a panorama of options and alternate ways to go in the existential ‘house of mirrors’.　

Acceptance at level 350 is harmless because it does not seek to judge, control, change, or dominate others. It is not out to ‘save the world’, or to condemn it in its multitudinous expressions. By surrendering the wish to change or control others, there is a reciprocal freedom of not being controllable by others opinions and values, nor is there a desire or need for their approval. With freedom from the need of approval by others, there is release from the compulsion to seek and carve social agreement. This is, however, in contrast to and different from passivity or indifference, which innately devalue others as a protective maneuver.

議論（2）
白黒つけることを放棄することは、道徳的価値観のもっともらしい、そして最高決定者と考えられている自我の肥大化した、うぬぼれそのものによって抵抗を受けます。受容は、拒絶を求めるのではなく、代わりに現実的知覚と、その本質的限界の認識によって、それを強要されると感じることなしに、そして固定するよう強要する感じもありません。従って、受容は、そのバランスと落ち着きを失うことなしに、歪められている人間の人生と、世界の限界を受け入れ、理解することです。

受容は、人生の多様な表現が神聖さと一致し、従ってこの創造は、進化としてのその表現が、おびただしい数あるとして、受け入れ委ねられ、その立場(状況)の性質同様の結果です。受容は、白と黒のどちらかの二元性を、捕まえるものではありません。そして裁くことの誘惑を避けることが出来ます。受容は、知覚される性質が、集団的カルマと、種としてのホモサピエンスの生得的なもの同様に、人類の状況と、個人の影響を共に、内在していると分かるでしょう。社会は、実存主義の「鏡の家」の中を歩む、まるで万華鏡のように変化する道を、選択肢の全容を包んだ進歩の様々な展開のあり方と、さらに異なるレベルが混合され含まれています。

350レベルでの受容は、他者を裁くこと、コントロールすること、変えること、もしくは支配することを欲することがないと言う理由から無害です。「世界を救う」や、その類のおびただしい表現を非難することはありません。他者を変えることやコントロールする欲求を放棄し、他者の意見に関してコントロールせず、それらの承認についての必要性から、自由と共に、社会の承認を望み、そして気にすることへの強制から解放されます。しかしながら、これは自らの安全のための策略とし、そのほかの本質的な価値を下げることに対する無関心、消極性とは対照的なもので、それとは異なります

 

 

 

 · 

受容のレベルでは、嘘などを含む過ちは、人間にとってこころの成長のために、必要不可欠なものと理解できるようですね。

度量が大きいというのは、このレベルからなのでしょう。

ですから、感情に左右されることなく、その過ちを受け入れることが出来、その恩恵は相当大きなものだと言えるのです！

何故なら、自分の信じている政治思想、宗教、哲学といった、その人のライフスタイルの根幹を揺るがすような過ちに気づき、または遭遇しても、それを受け止め、飲み込むことが出来る能力だからですよ。

これ、すごいことですよね。

ゆえに、道徳的相対主義に陥ることを免れ、対立ではなく、調和を生み出します。

現在の人類は、誕生して以来、これほど極端な、道徳的相対主義に陥り、政治思想、宗教、哲学を、人々の支配と搾取に利用されている時代はないでしょう。

自我が、暴れまくっています！

その偽善による支配と搾取を見破り、溶かしてしまうには、その道徳的相対主義の根源がどこにあるかを突き止め、それを白昼にさらすことのみです。嘘は、白昼にさ
らされたとき、溶けてしまいますから。

Transcending the levels of consciousness, David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. 2006,
Chapter 11 Acceptance (Calibration Level 350) その意識レベルを超える、デヴィッド・・ホーキンズ博士、2006年、第11章　受容、（計測レベル350）page 214,

Discussion (1)
Consciousness levels below 350 reflect the domination of perception by emotionalized positions and presumed values. At levels below 200, the emotions are harsh, destructive, and adversarial, and thus prone to conflict and strife. At level 200, the emotionality moves away from negativity to a more positive view of the world and self and becomes supportive of life. By level 310, the emotionality and volitions are predominately positive but still represent emotional drives. At level 350, by acceptance, tranquility replaces disturbing emotions so that the interference of emotionality fades into background rather than determines feelings.

At level 350, the narcissistic ego’s demand to control others is silenced by virtue of the cessation of value-driven judgmentalism and its innate desire to promulgate its views. Dualistic mentations diminish, as do judgments predicated on perceptions based on the dichotomy of good and evil. Choice presents itself as freedom of options rather than as opposing moralistic categories.

At the world’s level of consciousness, to choose vanilla means to see chocolate as a rival, an enemy, or a quality to be hated. At level 350, there is the freedom to see that they are merely alternate options and one can choose one flavor without demonizing the other. Thus, there is release from the coercion that ensues from labeling options as severe degrees of desirability or aversion.

Critical to this level is the utilization of the previously achieved capacity for Willingness (which was acquired at level 310). The success of level 350 is based on the willingness to apply the principle of forgiveness in order to counterbalance morality and judgmentalism. Thus, vindictiveness is replaced by mercy, which allows for greater inner, as well as interpersonal and social, harmony and well-being. Error is seen to be in need of correction, forgiveness, and compassion rather than the justification for punitive attitudes or actions.

議論（1）
350を下回る意識レベルでは、感情に左右される状態と、価値を仮定する支配的な影響があります。200を下回るレベルでは、その感情は無慈悲で破壊的、そして対立を生みます。従って、争い、反目の傾向があります。200レベルでは、感情の性質は、世界と自己に関して、消極性から積極的な観点に移り、そして生命を支えるようになります。310レベルは、まだ感情に駆り立てられます。350レベルでは、その感情の性質と、決断力は、積極性が支配的になり、感覚による決断より、むしろ感情の動きによる干渉は、陰を潜め、感情を乱すものは、落ち着きに置き換わります。

350レベルにおいて、その観点を広める生得的欲求のおかげで、利己的な自我からの他者を支配する要請や、価値に白黒つけたがる衝動の休止、そして沈黙させられます。二元的な精神作用の特徴を有する、良いものと、悪いものという分裂に基づいた知覚を、ほのめかす判断をする状態は、このレベルでは減少します。選択は、対立する道徳的範疇と言ったものより選択的自由、そしてそのものを示します。

俗世界の意識レベルにおいて、バニラを選ぶことは、チョコレートをライバル、敵、もしくは、その性質がひどく嫌われたと見ることを意味します。350レベルにおいて、ただ代わりの選択肢があり、他を悪魔視することもなしに、ひとつのフレーバーを、選択したと見るおおらかなものです。その上、望ましさや、嫌う厳しい度合いといったラベル付けの選択を、強制することから解放されます。

このレベルにおいて決定的に重要なことは、あらかじめ到達した意欲の能力の活用(310レベルが求められる)です。350レベルの成功は、道徳と白黒つけることを相殺するために、赦すことの原理に、専念する意欲に基づいています。従って、執念深い性質は、人間関係と社会の調和と、福利と同様に、より偉大な内面の奥深いところへ従う恩寵へと、置き換えられます。誤りは、懲罰的態度と、行動による裁きより、むしろ赦し、慈愛、調整の必要なものとして理解されます。

 

 

 

 · 

今日は、いわゆる超能力についてのご紹介です。ここの箇所は、何回でもアップします。

何故なら、多くの方に、“真実”を知っていただき、偏見や恐れをなくしてほしいからです。

それは、ホーキンズ博士も論述している通り、「知能/理性/知性」での理解は不可能だそうですから。

また、「個人の中で制御出来るものにはなりません」ということを、まずお伝えねばなりません。自分の超能力を誇ることほど、神仏への道は遠回りとなるでしょうから。

テクニックによるクンダリニー・エネルギーの取り込みとは異なり、意識レベル540とそれを超えたところでは、本人の意志とは無関係にそのエネルギーは突然、体に流れ込みます。

また、540以上で生まれるヒーリング能力や、585以上で起こる霊視能力などの非日常的な超能力も、本人の意志とは無関係に芽生えるようですね。

従って、それらの能力は、非個人的なものであり、意識の進歩の過程でもたらされるものです。ゆえに、それを競い、必要以上の金銭を得る目的で利用することは、自我の罠、すなわちアストラルの回り道となることを認識すべきですよね。

あくまで、その能力は、神仏との合一への道標の一過程であり、それは統合的（意識レベル200以上）な意図に基づき活用され、人類の平安と進歩に寄与すべきものですから。

また、一言一句がホーキンズ博士の慈愛にあふれています。

その上、真実を知ることで、ひとりひとりの意識レベルが上がることにより、ひとりひとりが幸福になるのみならず、人類全体の平安にも、つながることを理解いただければ、私にとって、この上ない喜びです。

最後に、英語版のヴィキペディアから“Siddhis/シッディズ”の解説を引用しています。

その意識レベルを超える、デヴィッド・R・ホーキンズ博士、2006年、第一五章 無条件の愛、こころの底からの喜び、エクスタシー（計測レベル540～599）（8)
Transcending the levels of consciousness, David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph. D. 2006,
Chapter 15　love, Joy, and Ecstasy (Calibration Level 540～599)

Spiritual Phenomena: The Siddhis
From consciousness level 540 and up into the higher 500s, phenomena occur spontaneously that are inexplicable by reason, the customary conceptualization of logic, or course and effect. They are an accompaniment to the progressive dominance of the spiritual energy (Kundalini) and occur a consequence of the contextual field rather than by volition. They are witnessed and se
en to occur automatically. These have been classically termed Siddhis (Sanskrit) and denote ‘supranatural’ or ‘miraculous/mystical powers’, as they are not explicable by logic.

In the early stages of their appearance they may be sporadic, but as consciousness advances, they become frequent and sometimes continuous. They are unintended and arise of their own accord. These include faculties such as distant viewing, precognition, clairvoyance, extrasensory perception, psychometry, bilocation, and the occurrence of the miraculous, including spontaneous healings and transformations. There are also unique facilitations that are beyond expectation or possible explanation.

The capacities or phenomena are not within personal control: they are not the consequence of ‘cause and effect’. Therefore, students are forewarned not to claim them as personal as they occur independently of the person’s ‘I’, or self. Thus, as said previously, no ‘person’ performs miracles for they are solely a consequence of the Spirit. Inflation of the spiritual ego is precluded by honesty and humility, which results in temptation of exploitation for gain.

The phenomena tend to emerge and become strong for variable durations of years. Some seem to fade away and become less predominant, and others continue permanently.

The Kundalini energy flow is itself extraordinary in that subjectively, the sensation can only be described as exquisite as it flows up the back and into the brain, emerges as though through the heart chakra, and then goes on out into the world where its presence facilitates the unfoldment of the truly wondrous. The occurrences are witnessed as happening without intention. It is as though Divine qualities are brought into manifestation via high realms that transcend the mundane physical world.

Eventually, the apparent ‘extraordinary’ becomes a new reality as though one now lives in a different dimension in which the seemingly impossible manifests effortlessly as through orchestrated. The power of the field autonomously facilitates the emergence of karmic potentiality into manifested actuality in a harmonious unfoldment. The dynamics are nonlinear and therefore incomprehensible to the intellect, which presumes the limitations of the linear Newtonian model of causality and is unable to conceptualize emergence, Divine Order, or Harmony.

Wikipedia
Siddhi is a Sanskrit noun which can be translated as “perfection”, “accomplishment”, “attainment”, or “success”.
Siddhi not to be confused with the African… people of India (through sometimes spelt identically). Siddhi is Sanskrit is term for spiritual power… their path. Other perceptive hold that each Siddhi should be pursued because it will allow…

スピリチュアル現象：ザ・シッディズ
意識レベル540または、500台の高位への上昇より自然に生まれる現象について、知性、慣習、論理的概念化、もしくは成り行きとその影響は、説明できずに起こります。こころの奥深いところからのエネルギー（クンダリニー）の漸進的な（だんだんと増してゆく）支配はつきもので、意志作用よりむしろ情況（心の状態/状況）的領域の結果生じます。この現象は、目撃され、そして自動的に生じることだと分かります。それらは、古典的呼び方でシッディ（サンスクリット）と名付けられ、そして論理的説明は不可能なもので、超常的/魔術的パワーと描写されています。

それらの現象が現れたごく初期段階では、時折起こるでしょうが、しかし、意識が進歩したとき、頻繁に、そして度々継続されるようになります。それらの現象は、それ自体とは調和せずに起こります。それらとは、遠視力、超科学的予知、透視力、霊聴力、超能力、サイコメトリー（超感覚的知覚）、バイロケーション（生霊/複所在同時両存在）で、そして、自発生的なヒーリングと、変容を含む奇跡の発生といった能力を含みます。それらは予想や、説明の可能性を超えて独特の現象はまた促進されます。

この能力や現象は、個人の中で制御出来るものにはなりません。それらは、「原因と結果」に起因していません。従って、生徒達（こころの原理の探求者）は、それらを個人的な「私」「私自身」から離れて生じていて、個人に関することと、同じように主張することのないよう、事前に警告されます。従って、あらかじめ言われるというのは、非個人が、単に“こころの状況の進歩”によって起きた奇跡を、演じているといえます。こころの自我の肥大化は、謙虚さと正直さを排除する一方で、利得のために、利己的に使用する誘惑と結果的に終わります。この現象は、一定しない数年の持続期間に、強さを増して現れる傾向にあります。何人かは、消えてしまうようです。そして、少しの人はその能力が優勢で、他の人々は永遠に続きます。

クンダリニー・エネルギーは、主観的に、その感覚は、あたかもハート・チャクラを通じて現れ、背中を上昇し、脳内へ流れ込むように、ただ絶妙と描写されるのみでしょう。そして、そのとき、意志とは無関係に生じ、目撃されるその存在の促進は、宇宙から入ってきます。それ自体は非日常的なものです。あたかも神の特性が、この日常的な物質社会を超越した高い領域から現れ運ばれてきたようです。

最終的に、非日常的な現象の出現は、あたかも管弦楽用に編集された曲が、不可能に見える程、効果的に現れ、いまや別の次元に生きているかのように、新たな現実性が生まれます。その領域のパワーは、カルマの性質を明らかにされたことによって、表に示された現実性の中へ、カルマのその潜在性の表出を促進します。この力学は非線形です。従って理性において理解することは、因果律に関する線形のニュートン物理学のモデルに限界があると推定され不可能です。そして神性の摂理、もしくは、調和による現出について概念化できるものではありません。

ヴィキペディアより（英語版）
シッディは、完璧、成就、達成、成功として訳すことが出来るサンスクリットの名詞。
シッディは、インドの人々の言葉であり、アフリカの言葉と取り違えないこと（時々スペルを同一にしていることから）・・・。シッディは、インドの探求の道のことで、サンスクリットでいうスピリチュアル・パワー。それを許されるため、各々シッディは、追い求められ、そして他の知覚を手に入れる。

海外のメディアサイトには面白いネタが満載です。

恋愛、時事、教育などなど日本人でも共感するところが多くあります。

人類みな同じ星に生まれたのね〜と納得のいくものばかり。

 

 

できればお金を使わずに人生を楽しみたい。

それは誰もが思うことですね。

パ〜っと散財するのもいいけれど、小さな出費で大きな幸せを得られることもあります。

今回は、私たちが思っているより実はとってもお得なものたちを紹介しましょう。

 

 

英題は

“Things that are way cheaper than they seem like they should be”

 

Nobody enjoys spending money. 

I mean, sure, sometimes a little retail therapy is in order, but I think we’d all agree that we’d prefer to save money whenever and however we can. I thought I’d share some things that are actually pretty cheap considering what goes into them. 

 

retail therapy＝その商品を買うことではなく、「買う」という行為で満足感を得ること。

 

 

＜日本語訳＞

「お金を使う」という行為を楽しむ人はいないでしょう。もちろん時には、無性に何かを買いたい衝動に駆られます。

でもおそらく多くの人がどうあれ、出費をできるだけ少なくするという意見に

賛成なのではないでしょうか。というわけで、「お金をかける」と言いながら実際はかなりお値打ちなものたちを紹介しましょう。

 

 

 

1. Costco Hot Dogs

For a mere $1.50, you can get a hot dog and a drink from any Costco in the country.

Their pizza is super cheap (and delicious) too! Of course, the plan here is to get you to come inside and spend more money, but you don’t have to fall for that. You can just get yourself a good meal for super cheap.

 

 

＜日本語訳＞

コストコではたったの1.5ドルでホットドッグが食べられます。

ピザも超がつく安さ。（しかも美味しい！）

もちろんこれは、お店の中にとどまってもっとお金を使わせようという作戦です。

でも騙されたなんて思わずに美味しい食事を堪能しましょう♪

 

 

（このためにいって散財する人は多いはず。コストコマジックですね。）

 

 

2. Milk

This one may be a slightly touchy subject because I know milk might seem expensive to a lot of people.

But when you take into account how much dairy farmers have to pay in order to take care of the cows that produce the milk — and that a lot of those farmers are being driven out of business by low-priced product — milk is actually surprisingly affordable.

 

 

＜日本語訳＞

これはちょっとんん？？？となるトピックです。というのも牛乳は多くの人にとっては安いものではないからです。でも酪農家が牛乳を生産するのにどれほどのお金をかけているかを考えれば、しかもその労力の一方で低価格で牛乳を売っていることを考えたら、私たちが手にする牛乳はとってもお安いんですよ。

 

 

（それは盲点。でも価格が良い方が味が良い。値段は正直です。）

 

 

3. Pineapples

Do you know how long it takes to grow a ripe pineapple that’s ready to be eaten? Three years!And some people have the nerve to take them off their pizza and dump them in the trash! 

 

パイナップルって育って熟して食べごろになるまでどれくらいかかるか知っていますか？なんと3年もかかるんです！それなのにピザにのってるパイナップルを避けて捨てる人がいますよね。

なんて無神経な！！

 

 

（ディズニーランドのパイナップルピザ美味しいですよね）

 

 

4. Taco Bell

Similar to the Costco hot dog phenomenon, it just doesn’t seem right that you can buy multiple tacos and chalupas for just a few bucks.

I’m sure there’s probably something unsavory behind the fact that Taco Bell’s food is so cheap, but whatever it is, I don’t want to know it.

 

 

phenomenon＝現象

unsavory＝不穏な、受け入れられない

 

 

＜日本語訳＞

コストコのホットドッグ現象に似ていますが、単に数ドルでたくさんのタコスが買えるというわけではないようです。何かタコベルの安さには裏がありそうです。でもそんなこと気にしない方がいいですね。知りたくない知りたくない。

 

（！？・・・なんだろう？タコベルは本当に安くて早くて美味しい。私にとってはアメリカで一番好きなくらいのファストフード店です。）

 

 

 

5. Ikea Furniture

OK, yes, there are some pieces of Ikea furniture that are pretty cheap and basically built to fall apart. But there are other pieces that are sturdier than you’d expect. For example, I’ve had the same dresser from Ikea for the past 6 years and it’s still in great condition. The fact that you can spend minimal cash for furniture that looks nice and will last for years is a total win in my book.

 

 

＜日本語訳＞

IKEAには安くて簡単に組み立てられる家具があります。でもあなたが思っているよりもはるかに丈夫なんですよ。例えば、私なんてIKEAで買ったドレッサーを6年も使っていますが、問題ないコンディションです。見た目も良くて長持ちする家具は安く買うという事実は、私にとっては本当のようでした。

 

 

 

 

 

6. Youtube

10 years ago, if your headlight went out or you had to change your car’s oil, you were probably pretty likely to drive to a mechanic (or maybe your parents’ house) and have them take care of it for you. Now, though, you can type in virtually any make and model and find a plethora of tutorials on how to take care of your car.

Not to mention all the cat videos.

 

10年前のこと、車のヘッドライトが突然切れたり、オイル交換が必要な時は、エンジニアや（もしくは両親の家）に車を持ち込んでみてもらっていたのではないでしょうか。今やもう自分の車の型をタイプして検索すれば、どんな風にケアすればいいのか一目瞭然です。

猫の動画はいうまでもなく。

 

 

（今は当然のことですが、パソコン一つから世界が見えてしまう時代になりました。便利すぎて恐ろしささえ感じますね。）

 

 

7. The Internet

Actually, while we’re singing the praises of YouTube, let’s not forget how incredible it is that the Internet exists at all.

Virtually all of human knowledge can be found on the Internet, and it doesn’t cost very much to access it at all when you stop to think about it.

In fact, at your local library, it’s free!

 

 

 

おっと、Youtubeを取り上げたなら忘れてはいけないのがインターネットの存在です。事実、人類の全知識が見られる上しかもアクセスするのにお金は大してかかりません。公共図書館だったら無料ですよ(・∀・)

6. Your Smartphone

Yeah, there are some phones that cost a lot of money.

But think about this: Your phone acts not only as a way to communicate with people, but also as a GPS, calculator, digital camera, pedometer, compass, and portal to the Internet.

All that for less than $1,000. We’re living in the future.

 

たしかにお金のかかる携帯はありますが、よく考えてみてください。他人と連絡が取れるだけでなくGPS機能、計算機、デジタルカメラ、万歩計、コンパス、ネット接続までついていて千ドルしないんですよ！！

私たちは未来に生きてますよね(￣∇￣)

いかがでしょうか。なんて高いんだ！！とブツブツ文句を言う人は、今の便利すぎる時代に盲目になっているのかもしれません。高度なテクノロジーや生産者の努力を思い、食べ物は美味しく、ものは大切に消費していきたいですね。

 

 

§7(2)

Some explanations in “Chapeter 13  Minimum Livelihood Security” of “Japan’s Social Security: its conservative elements”（Isao Kishi & Kanji Masuda岸功・増田幹司著『社会保障の保守主義』BookWay, in Japanese）By welkana

 

7(2) Relief and Independence

 

     The Livelihood Protection Law makes all of the Japanese live at least minimum level. Is it a policy only to give money to the person who does nothing? Such understanding might be denied by the recommendation of the council of the social security institution in 1950 and the explanation by Sinjirou Koyama.

 

     In the philosophy of the Enlightenment the equalism of every people’s reason spread, and the anti-conservative progressivism asserted that the reason can improve the rational progress of the society.

 

     K.Marx described in the 19th century that the laborers can perfom nothing but labor as human activity in the capitalistic society, but in the communistic society they can develop their reason and personality freely. However the Charity Organization Society (COS) of UK looked believing that the pauper in capitalistic society became independent like a citizen after influence of persons of character, and activities of COS promoted the poor to do so. In the beginning of the 20th century, the moderate socialist S.Webb looked thinking that laborers in the capitalistic society could become rational depending on their environment, and he told that people take care of prevention of disease after public medical service was established. On the other hand, E.Engel, not a socialist, described a dynamic model of man in his Engel law that people become interested in advanced desires naturally after satisfaction of need for meals.

 

     A.Maslow described in his “Toward a psychology of being” (1962) as follows, each human being has mental characters as basic needs and ability, and these are sometimes suppressed by factors outside as culture, family, environment and learning. But the suppressed inner will have “dynamic force” to become the actual outside, therefore the psychotherapy, education and self-improvement can be carried on.

 

     It can be said that Webb, Engel and Maslow asserted the existence of the dynamic principle which original character of human being manifests character itself depending on conditions inner and outside.

 

     Behind the Livelihood Protection Law securing “healthy and cultural minimum living level”, it has latently the equalitarian premise that the poor has reason and the initiative equally, and the dynamic principle that they can surely be expected to become independent after satisfaction of daily necessities. Then this livelihood protection can be expected as the policy not only giving money but also bringing restoration of human nature in activities.

 

     In sociology, T.Parsons explained subsystems of social action as cultural system, social systm, personality system and behavioral organism. Referring to him the Livelihood Protection Act the 3rd article involves cultural system and behavioral organism, and two intermediate subsystems remain. In social system every member has social role, participates to the society and maintains social relations, and personality system is person’s behavioral disposition, and challenging spirit, mind of harmony with others and the rest. In sociology menbers are expected to have internalized norm and dispodition of social participation and effort of independence through socialization process.

 

     There is a problem of “reversal phenomenon” of the income between the worker working at the minimum wage and the person assisted by the livelihood protection. The take-home pay of the person who works 8 hours a day and 25 days a month at the legal minimum wage is less than the income of the person who receives the livelihood protection benefits and free medical service. Some people asserted that the minimum wage was too low, and the to raise the criterion of the livelihood protection might drive the raise of the minimum wage”.

In 2007 the “Legal Minimum Wage Act” the 9th article 3 was reformed as “To take the consistency with the policy of the livelihood protection into consideration”, and it is said that the “reversal phenomenon” disappeared in 2014.

 

    In Holland the minimum wage is coordinated with the elderly pension and the Public Assistance perfectly. Generally the elderly pension for the couple is 100% of the minimum wage from 65 years old, for the one parent family with child 18 years is 90% and for the single is 70%. On the other hand the Public Assistance provides 90% of the minimum wage for the couple, 70% for the oneparent family and 50% for the single.

ソクラテスもニーチェもキャラ化　公益大の湯本さんが本出版

2018年07月27日　11:42

 

世界の思想家をキャラクター化し、主な思想などをまとめた「ワ・タ・シの思想家ずかん」

　東北公益文科大2年の湯本巴瑠季（はるき）さん（19）が、世界の思想家約180人をキャラクター化して主な思想や功績をまとめた学習本「ワ・タ・シの思想家ずかん」が、清水書院（東京）から出版される。大学受験の勉強で倫理科目の要点を覚えるためにまとめたノートが基になっており、楽しく学べる一冊として注目を集めそうだ。初版5千部で、来週以降に全国の書店に並ぶ。

　一番の特徴は、思想家をイラストで描いてキャラクター化した点だ。「無知の知」を唱え、分からないことは質問を重ねた古代ギリシャの哲学者ソクラテスは、ギリシャ風の衣装を着て素直そうな表情。全国を歩いて昔話や伝承、習俗を集めた日本民俗学の創始者柳田国男は大きなリュックを背負っている。「神は死んだ」（ニーチェ）、「人間は考える葦（あし）である」（パスカル）などの名言や功績も同じページに紹介し、眺めるだけで情報が入るようになっている。

　湯本さんは米沢中央高出身。子どものころから絵が好きで、受験勉強のため描けないストレスを発散しつつ絵に描いて覚えようと、イラスト入りのノートづくりを始めた。思想家の絵が増えるにつれ成績が上がり、「センター試験ではノートをつくる前の2倍の点数を取れた」と話す。

　ツイッターで漫画やイラストを紹介しており、約1万人のフォロワーがいたが、昨年8月ごろ、このノートを載せたところ、1週間足らずで2万近くリツイートされたという。教育関連の書籍で知られる清水書院関係者の目に留まり、湯本さんに連絡が入った。担当者は「受験生自身が頭の整理のために書いたノートが基。キャラクターが特に面白い」と評価する。

　「ゆも」のペンネームで出版した。湯本さんは「どうやったら楽しく覚えられるかを考えて編み出した勉強法。この本をきっかけに勉強が楽しくなったと思ってもらえたら、うれしい」と話している。Ｂ6判200ページ。1620円。

 

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

 

 

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 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. 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 Stereograph
ic 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.

Divide by zero?!?!! OMG!!! Epic failzorz

    

 

3

  

 by  is undefined.

Divide by zero is undefined.

    

by  October 28, 2006

 

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  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

    

by  September 08, 2006

 

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.

:
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

 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  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.

        

by  February 15, 2010