Especially apple.
Posted on 12/08/2006 12:20:06 PM PST by LibWhacker
Schoolchildren from Caversham have become the first to learn a brand new theory that dividing by zero is possible using a new number - 'nullity'. But the suggestion has left many mathematicians cold.
Dr James Anderson, from the University of Reading's computer science department, says his new theorem solves an extremely important problem - the problem of nothing.
"Imagine you're landing on an aeroplane and the automatic pilot's working," he suggests. "If it divides by zero and the computer stops working - you're in big trouble. If your heart pacemaker divides by zero, you're dead."
Computers simply cannot divide by zero. Try it on your calculator and you'll get an error message.
But Dr Anderson has come up with a theory that proposes a new number - 'nullity' - which sits outside the conventional number line (stretching from negative infinity, through zero, to positive infinity).
'Quite cool'
The theory of nullity is set to make all kinds of sums possible that, previously, scientists and computers couldn't work around.
"We've just solved a problem that hasn't been solved for twelve hundred years - and it's that easy," proclaims Dr Anderson having demonstrated his solution on a whiteboard at Highdown School, in Emmer Green.
"It was confusing at first, but I think I've got it. Just about," said one pupil.
"We're the first schoolkids to be able to do it - that's quite cool," added another.
Despite being a problem tackled by the famous mathematicians Newton and Pythagoras without success, it seems the Year 10 children at Highdown now know their nullity.
Another thing. The media have no idea what they are writing about. They think it's like those math problems that math professors dream about, like Fermat's last theorem. Every math professor would like to be the one who solves Fermat's last theorem. (It has been solved.)
Every math professor knows that the division by zero problem has no solution and will never have one. No math professor will waste any time trying to solve that "problem".
The media types know nothing and as always, write about things that they know nothing about.
Combine 'nullity' with the speed of light "C" and the product is S-enility
Actually the Love of Money is the root of all Evil if you are quoting the Bible!
But e likes pi!
Because CS majors have to take lots of math beyond algebra, where this concept is fully explained. If Anderson thinks you can discover a mathematical proof that demonstrates to the world what the correct "answer" is to a division by zero problem, then he is truly a nincompoop who didn't even understand elementary algebra. Much less all the other math he was required to take. IMNSHO
Now, now; angle-trisectors need egoboo too.
LOL
On reflection, however, how many Dhimmis can multiply 2 X 2 and get the same answer three times running?
Especially apple.
You are forgetting...
These are the people who call a smaller "increase" a "cut."
Mathematics is supposed to be a foundation to model the real world. Basically i represents a situation where the square of a quantity results in a sink as opposed to a source. For example, the volume of water that goes down the drain that is a square pipe is (i times w (width of one side of the square pipe)) squared.
In 2 d space, whenever you see i, that means it is a sink, not a source and this is important in chaos theory too. As far as we know, nullity does not exist. Zero does not exist. There is no situation where all quantum numbers are zero. The essense of quantum mechanics is that there is a graininess to the universe or there is in fact an indivisible quantity. Even empty space has an indivisible quantity or is discontinuous.
Zero is a decent approximation to things that are "normal" to humans. But division by zero makes no sense to a "normal" situation and in the abnormal (incredibly small), zero does not seem to exist.
Nullity has little or no use in mathematical modeling while i has a great many uses.
Yeah. It's semantics. But words do mean things.
If you think it's so useful in the "computer universe", how are you going to represent this number "nullity" in that universe?
The largest value possible for the variable type you're using. It will not be an exact value, but there are quite a few irrational numbers in this business, and "close enough" is the norm.
n/0=n=nx0 Why? Simple : Law #1 : multiplication is repetitive addition(quantity). Law #2 : multiplication is vector comparison(quality). Thus you get 5(magnitude)and then 2 oranges + 3 apples. Law #3 : division is repetitive subtraction(quantity). Law #4 : division is vector partition(quality). Thus there is a quantity/quality duality in math like the wave/particle duality of energy. By Law #3 : n/0 = n-0-0-0-0-...until hell glaciates and the world wears flat...-0-0-0- = n. You have done NOTHING to the finite number/entity of n by subtracting NOTHING FROM IT! Try this with a watermelon and knife at your next picnic. Thus infinity=zero, two words for NOTHING(a crosseyed zero if you will). As to nx0, what is 2x3x0? 6 units of magnitude, 6 lines or areas, or 0 volumes, what was it you were looking for anyway? So, program in n/0=n as a REALITY check, and check the validity of the 0 vector in nx0. Cantor and turing died as lunatics over infinity, will you too?
As far as we know, all numbers are imaginary. some just hurt your brain more than others.
0/0 can be infinity, one or zero depending on exactly what 0/0 represents.
Oddly, nobody seems to have said it yet:
"Black Holes are where God divided by zero."
I've always considered that the infinity*0 problem came under the "multiply by zero rule", rather than the inverse operation rules.
What it really comes down to is that infinity itself is not a number, but is a concept for a number that cannot be represented. Fitting this concept into a representational system (such as decimals) requires mathematically inexact language, or "exceptions", such as the use of the multiplication-by-zero rule in place of the inverse operations rules.
To use your own illustration, 0*n (where n is approaching infinity) cannot be defined as "approaching every number", because "every number" is a definable quantity, whereas infinity is not.
Hmmm... I never figured I'd be discussing mathematical philosophy on the internet. Ain't America wonderful! ;-P
Yours is the proof that satisfies!
Similarly, in truth-functional calculus, allowing both p and not-p permits the generation of limitless propositions.
Once one accepts a lie as truth, one can believe anything at all without evidence at all. The socialists teach us that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.