Calcium can be a essential nutrient that assist to build and keep strong and healthy bones and teeth. It also involves using a number of other body processes, including blood clotting, enzyme and hormone secretion, blood vessel and muscle contraction, as well as the central nervous system functioning. Nearly 99% of calcium in your body is saved in bones. Its role is usually to help bones to be strong and stiff enough to transport the extra weight with the body. It happens to be the most common mineral for maintaining human health.

This remedies is created on notable discovery the epidemic of prostate enlargement reducing urinary tract symptoms can be substantially affected by the modifiable lifestyle or diet plan like diet. According to the experiments they have inked, individuals who drink more green tea herb experience less symptoms than others who don’t. People who eat less spicy foods have a quicker recovery than others that do. According to the diet they list, all enlarge prostate victims should think about eating balanced and healthy diet which includes legumes (beans, peas, lentils, soy); certain vegetables (like garlic and onions); and certain seeds (flax seeds); and avoids refined grains, eggs, and poultry.

If you have among the severe symptoms like watery diarrhea, abdominal cramps, shortness of breath, hives, rash swelling of lips face or tongue, fainting, vomiting or white patches about the tongue, please educate doctor immediately, since this is so serious, even this is rare, and might deprive your health of your stuff.Antibiotics aren’t well suited for while taking, because the toxic bacteria existed within your body can generate anti-body to antibiotics. Therefore, the longer you adopt the antibiotics, the worse the consequence you’re going to get. To maintain the effects of the antibiotics, patient can improve the dosage or change the medicine.

Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill which can be authorized by the SIPO this year helps a lot of enlarged prostate patients. According to Dr. Lee, who not merely is the owner of this herbal pill but additionally takes it her kid, the components like polygonum aviculare, dianthus superbus, talc and plantago can clear heat and toxic materials. Safflower can activate the blood flow. The houttuynia can soften the hardness and dissolve the stasis. Every herb she adds in is useful and indispensable. What’s more, she also adds one channel ushering drug into this medicine to shorten the treating time and enhancing the effect with the functions list above.

Inside No-Fuss Advice For

Did you know that males are 24% unlikely than women to see a physician for routine care? Men, not unlike women, should care for their health during all life stages. It may be uncomfortable to talk about prostrate, impotence problems, or infertility difficulty with your personal doctor, yet it is in your greatest interest to tell the truth. These conditions impact your overall health and affect your love life, relationships, and emotional health.

First of all, your medical professional is required to ensure that a bacterial infection produces your problems with chronic prostatitis. There can be a number of different issues be a catalyst for a problem with prostatitis, and perhaps, antibiotics are not going to help. As a matter of fact, giving antibiotics every time a bacterial infection can’t be identified can give rise to stronger strains of bacteria that will lead to stronger infections. If a medical expert has determined that antibiotics for prostatitis is the correct way to visit, you happen to be either likely to be given an oral antibiotic or, if you are problem is severe, you might be put in hospital for injections/iv treatment.

In my quest for better prostate health I came across a prostate supplement which has changed my well being. This supplement carries a high dose of pomegranate juice in it. Even my urologist suggested, that I do what he does, which is to drink a glass of pomegranate juice each day. Well this prostate supplement comes with the equal of over 500 servings of pomegranate juice in every pill.

When these tubes get infected, one’s body, in reaction for the bacteria or fungi coats them a type of calcium that forms a hardcore ball round the microbe and isolates the infection. The problem is that once this coating is performed, the tube is effectively blocked. The blocking from the tube however won’t prevent continuing to make the semen.

Studies done at Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine and University Hospitals Case Medical Center showed comes from a small group that inflammation from periodontal disease and prostate problems might be linked. They discuss their new evidence in the Journal of Periodontology, the official journal from the American Academy of Periodontology. The researchers compared two markers: the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) employed to measure inflammation levels in prostate disease, and clinical attachment level (CAL) from the gums and teeth, which may be an indication for periodontitis. The researchers compared two markers: the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) employed to measure inflammation levels in prostate disease, and clinical attachment level (CAL) from the gums and teeth, which may be indicative for periodontitis.

An Introduction To Rudimentary Elements Of

Dr. Lee told that it’s a common situation how the prostate appears some problems approximately as people get old, nevertheless the present of symptoms not simply mean the problem of the disease. It may cause by the mood of you. And if you are informed they have prostatitis, then the traditional Chinese medicine provides some consequence unexpected. Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill is a form of herbal medicine, it really works about the defense mechanisms, so almost all of bacterial infection are cleared through your immune system, thus, herbal medicine doesn’t have any drug resistance, it can help keep you body in healthy condition in lieu of antibiotic.

Origins of ordinary things: Mathematics

By 

 Published : July 17, 2018

 

Everyone uses mathematics in their daily activities and it is taught at all levels of education. Children use addition to compare their scores on the playground while engineers use trigonometry to make precise measurements.

Mathematics, commonly known as math, is as old as human existence since people from all walks of life have always needed to count.

By 3000 B.C in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, according to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, taxation was being done with the use of arithmetic, algebra and geometry. Further still, other areas of study, such as commerce and astronomy, made use of mathematical concepts.

However, the study of math as an academic subject did not start until 6th Century B.C with the Pythagoras theorem being the first concept. The theorem deduces that the relationship of the three sides of a right angle is this: “the square of the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides.”

According to Britannica, an encyclopedia, the theory is named after ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras, not because he developed it but because he was the first person to prove it.

It is the Greeks who then coined the term mathematics having derived it from the Greek word “máthema” which according to Wikibooks, a knowledge platform, means “subject of instruction.”

Many Greek mathematicians created formulas and theories during this time. For example, according to knowledge website History World, 3rd Century Greek mathematician Archimedes created formulas for calculating the surface area and volume of spheres and cylinders.

During the same time, Eratosthenes, another Greek mathematician and astronomer, worked out the circumference of the earth.

After Greece, China and Islamic civilisations carried Mathematics forward and developed new concepts. This is according to the website Story of Mathematics. Notable contributions include the invention of plus and minus symbols and x, y, z symbols which were introduced in the 17th Century to represent unknown numbers.

Over the years, people have developed and made use of mathematical formulas to create inventions for medical, information, scientific and numerous other purposes.

Famous mathematicians include French philosopher Blaise Pascal after whom the unit of atmospheric pressure Pascal (Pa) was named, English astronomer Sir Isaac Newton who developed Calculus, and American physicist, John Von Neumann, who came up with the set theory. French mathematician Marie-Sophie Germain initiated the elasticity theory.

The most commonly known mathematician is probably Albert Einstein. Einstein developed the theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics.

Mathematics will always be relevant and critical because it is universal and because its use transcends age, continent and social class.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

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 impo
rtant 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 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 p
eople, 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.

 

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

 

 

　私は平成７年に船橋市議会議員に初当選をさせていただき、その際に、全国若手市議会議員の会に入会いたしました。

 

 

　現在では、会員数も５００名を超えているようです。

 

　まあ、そんな中、我々卒業生もOB会を設立して細々とというか、活動をしています。

 

　事務局長のご尽力により、昨年度から新役員体制で活動をしています。

 

　今回は、代表である横山正人横浜市会議員のセッティングにより横浜市会で研修会をさせていただきました。

 

　参加者は、少なめですが、懐かしい顔ぶればかり。

 

　そして懐かしい話に盛り上がったりしてという完全にオヤジ状態でした。

 

　初日は、横浜市が積極的に推進している子育て支援策である「横浜式待機児童ゼロ」施策についての研修を受けることが出来ました。

「横浜保育室」など独特の施策の展開をなされているところを学ぶことが出来ました。

 

　二日目は、横浜市が目指す「特別自治市制度」について研修を受けました。前月、大阪の研修会では「大阪副首都構想・大阪都構想」についての研修で学んだことと非常に良い「比較」となりました。

 

　中核市からは、私、大分市の三浦由紀議員、和歌山市の古川祐議員が参加でしたが、中核市ならではの問題意識を共有できた横浜市の取り組みでした。

 

　さて懇親会には現役の現会長の来本健作蒲郡市議会議員（研修会もフル出場）と次期会長予定者の伊藤友則香取市議会議員も参加なさって、横山代表の言葉が私に突き刺さりました。

 

　マッカーサー元帥の言葉ではありませんが、OB会は口を出さず、相談された時だけ応じるような関係を保とうということでした。

 

　そもそも、横山代表の以前からの信念というか、気持ちの表現が予てからあったのですが、我々チャーターメンバーは、長老議員の弊害、老害を打ち破って議会を改革していこうと全国の若手議員に呼びかけて立ち上げたのだから、その気持ちを大事に、貫いていこうというのです。

 

　今は、そもそも長老議員の弊害、老害側にいるんだから、会務運営を含めて我々の側の仲間がゆる～い寄り合い方で、酒でも酌み交わす会にしましょう。というのが趣旨であることを現役組の現、次期会長の前でもしっかりと述べたのでした。

 

　そこで、あ～、俺も地元でもそうしよう。と。

 

　思ったのが、マッカーサー元帥の言葉でした。

 

　Old soldiers never die, but fade away.

 

　これ、「老兵は死なず、ただ消え去るのみ」ではないようですね。正確な日本語にすると。

 

　なのであえて英文で書いておきます。私はこの原文の意味するところを自身で大切に考えていきたいと思います。

 

      I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride – humility in the wake of those great architects of our history who have stood here before me, pride in the reflection that this home of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised.

      Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race.

      I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan considerations. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected.

      I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

      I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country.

      The issues are global, and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector oblivious to those of another is to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other.

      There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism.

      If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his efforts. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You cannot appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

      Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia…

      While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision, from a military standpoint, proved a sound one. As I say, it proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

      This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy. Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

      While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

      Apart from the military need, as I saw it, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary —

(1) The intensification of our economic blockade against China.

(2) The imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast.

(3) Removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal area and of Manchuria.

(4) Removal of restrictions on the forces of the republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the Chinese mainland.

      For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and to bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and Allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

      I called for reinforcements, but was informed that reinf
orcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese force of some six hundred thousand men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

      We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and at an approximate area where our supply-line advantages were in balance with the supply-line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized his full military potential.

      I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

      Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said in effect that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.

      Indeed, on the second day of September, 1945, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

 

“Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful.

“Military alliances, balances of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”

 

      But once war is forces upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

      In war there is no substitute for victory.

      There are some who for varying reasons would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement had led to more than a sham peace.

      Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only alternative. Why, my soldiers asked of me, surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field? I could not answer.

      Some may say to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China. Others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a worldwide basis.

      The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

      Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description. They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific.”

      I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

      It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety. Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

      I am closing my fifty-two years of military service. When I joined the army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all my boyish hopes and dreams.

      The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barracks ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that old soldiers never die; they just fade away.

      And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good-by.

 

A new publication clearly proving that Takayama Masayuki is the only journalist in the postwar world is a must read for Japanese citizens and people all over the world.

I am in a book review column of the 7/7 Sankei Shimbun, but in the content introduction there was a section of ‘Asahi Shimbun that attacks Toshiba as much as possible’.

For a moment, I could not understand why the Asahi Shimbun was attacking Toshiba so much.

Yesterday, at 7 o’clock news, in Fuchu, Hiroshima, despite being sunny, suddenly the river was flooded.

French satellite pictures were aired that there were many landslides that have not been confirmed yet.

I remembered even my anger.

Asahi Shimbun not only severely hurt Japan’s honor and　credibility in comfort women, Nanjing massacre, etc.

As a result, Japan provided the largest financial support for human history to China, and the Communist Party single-party dictatorship Not only is it helping to increase the economy and military capabilities of China and continuing violating acts against Japanese territory,

By switching the power generation of 30 million KW to fossil fuel by the absolute opposition movement against nuclear power plant, we reduced the national wealth of Japan by 15 trillion yen in just a few years.

Because of stopping all nuclear power plants and switching to fossil fuels,

Globally warming gases generated in the sky above Japan caused abnormal weather in the last few years and finally it has destroyed Japan’s land by catastrophe of concentrated torrential rain that covered this western Japan area It is from.

At that time, suddenly I understood.

The reason the Asahi Shimbun attacked Toshiba abnormally on the paper is that Toshiba is one of the companies with the world’s best nuclear technology.

Their movement against nuclear power plants that seems to be manipulation of China and the Korean Peninsula any longer,

In industrial power, military power greatly reduces Japan’s national strength …

Because it is a well-known fact that China and South Korea decide nuclear power plant expansion as the country opposite to Japan.

Anyway, to say Asahi Shimbun is an unusual company.

They attack violently their opponent who opposes their masochistic view of history, anti-Japanese thought, placebo moralism.

It is no longer a decent human group

Many citizens were in sync with their opinion survey on such a newspaper company ‘s opposition to nuclear reactivation movement.

So, the government was still unable to return nuclear power to its original state.

Meanwhile, it continued to burn oil, coal, LPG … fossil fuel emitting greenhouse gas.

In fact, Japan’s global warming since 2011 will be sharp.

Otherwise as in the past ghosts for the first time in 40 years Smog cannot cover Japan.

As I mentioned earlier, the amount of power generated by each nuclear power plant is extremely large.

Three people mentioned as having repeatedly stopped all 54 nuclear power plants that were in the best 3 in the world as well as the media such as the Asahi Shimbun and NHK which has been in tune with this and the opposition party politicians is there.

The decision to immediately stop the main power supply that had been generating power exceeding 30 million kW always was a stupidity less than kindergarten and not policy decisions of decent country.

It is no wonder that the world’s merchants have multiplied their stupidity.

Immediately, they called Japan premium, etc. for fossil fuels for Japan and sold it to Japan with a large profit added.

It would be so. Even if Japan does not buy no matter how expensive it is, the economy will collapse in an instant … because the supply of electricity, which is the minimum requirement for the civilized state, stops and it becomes a dark society.

The national wealth lost by Japan because of such foolishness as such a kindergarten child is 15 trillion yen in just a few years.

Correct the disparity the Asahi Shimbun and the opposition politicians talk about in government attacks and placebo moralism et. Can achieve 100%,

The huge amount of national wealth = taxes disappeared while generating a large amount of greenhouse gas.

I thought that the torrential rain that struck the western part of Japan, which is nothing more than this anomaly,

Three people who alone they are rogues no longer,

And Asahi Shimbun and NHK nuclear power plants promoted by media such as has been in sync with this re-work absolute opposition campaign,

I assert that it is the result they brought.

There is only one thing to argue, what people should be thinking about by unfortunate people suffering from abnormal weather.

If you really care about your hometown until you die, instantly restart the nuclear power plant at once, where you really live now, your living base! … LNG, Coal, Oil Warming Gas Decrease the use of fossil fuels as a source of gas instantly, greatly … to return to the state by 2011!

Besides that, you should know that there is no way for you to live in the present place.

If you abandon your hometown you love, there are a lot of unnecessary people, unusually high residential cost Tokyo … Tokyo where the media such as the Asahi Shimbun and NHK concentrate,

You do not love your hometown so much, you think that you can abandon anytime, like Tokyo … If you want to live in such a city, the story is different,

As it stands, even if nuclear power plants are not allowed to operate again, if we continue to burn greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuels that are over 30 million kilowatts, life in your hometown will no longer be possible.

Back in the mountains I knew as a child

Fish filled the rivers and rabbits ran wild

Memories, I carry these, wherever I may roam

I hear it calling me, my country home

Mother and Father, how I miss you now

How are my friends I lost touch with somehow?

When the rain falls or the wind blows

I feel so alone

I hear it calling me, my country home

I’ve got a dream and it keeps me away

When it comes true, I’ll go back there someday

Crystal waters, mighty mountains

Shining like an emerald stone

I hear it calling me, my country home,

As it can no longer be a mountain landslide, landslide mountain, flooding, overflow river,

You should notice things that you can only lose your homeland by continuing to agree with the magazine media such as the Asahi Newspaper and NHK and the political shoes of opposition parties and anti-Japanese thought, anti-moralism, zombie communism The time has arrived.

経営学者・野中郁次郎が選書！組織人としての「生き方」を学ぶ本

2018-06-10

※画像はイメージです

ハイブリッド型総合書店「」で好評の「」は、本の専門家たちが私たちの“関心・興味”や“読んでなりたい気分”などに沿って、独自の切り口で自由におすすめの本を紹介する企画です。 そんな数あるブックツリーの中から、ビジネスパーソン向けのものを編集部が厳選！　教養や自己啓発、ビジネスの実践に役立つものをピックアップしてお届けします。

“組織人としての善き「生き方」を識る”

ブックキュレーター：野中郁次郎

組織論は、戦略とリーダーシップの総合と実践にその核心があります。個人の知識を組織的に共有し、より高次の知識を創造するダイナミックな知識経営がこれまでの日本企業の競争力を培ってきました。組織人として、心身と環境の相互作用の中で生み出される実践知、善き「生き方」を身につけてほしいと思います。

ニコマコス倫理学 上

アリストテレスは彼の師プラトンと並ぶ西洋の知の原点です。演繹的・理念的なプラトンに対しアリストテレスは帰納的・実践的で、知識創造経営を推進するフロネシスという実践的な知恵の起源でもあります。人としての「生き方」を探るためにも、手に取ってほしい古典です。

 

第二次大戦回顧録抄

ナチス・ドイツとの5年に及ぶ戦いに戦争指導者としてどう臨みどう対応したかを描いた名著の要約版です。本書でノーベル文学賞を受賞したチャーチルの理想主義と実践主義を総合する政治家としてのあり方と教養が実感できる歴史物語です。

 

知識創造企業

我々は本書で日本企業のイノベーションの源泉として「暗黙知」と「形式知」の相互変換による新たな知識創造プロセスを提示し、知識社会の到来に向けた経営理論を日本から初めて発信しました。知識経営の古典といえる教科書です。

 

史上最大の決断

第2次世界大戦における空前絶後の敵前上陸戦を成功裏に導いた最高司令官アイゼンハワー。のちに合衆国大統領になる「偉大なる凡人」が、国家の戦略と現場の戦術の間で悩みながら巨大な組織を動かしていったリーダーシップの実践の物語です。

 

単純な脳、複雑な「私」 または、自分を使い回しながら進化した脳をめぐる４つの講義

著者は日本における脳科学の若手研究者の一人で、最新の脳科学に基づき、脳と身体を分離する従来の考え方を否定し、心は脳と身体と世界の関係性から創発すると提唱しています。知識創造理論に脳科学的な知見を提示してくれます。

 

ブックキュレーター：野中郁次郎

1935年東京生まれ。一橋大学名誉教授。知識創造経営（ナレッジマネジメント）理論の生みの親。2008年5月米ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナル紙「最も影響力あるビジネス思想家トップ20」でアジアからただ一人選ばれた。2002年紫綬褒章、2010年瑞宝中綬章受章。元組織学会会長。早稲田大学卒。カリフォルニア大学経営大学院バークレー校にてPh.Dを取得。

※本記事はより転載

タグ

 

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 tr
y 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 de
ployment 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 moto
r 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

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

 

 

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