Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1200-year-old problem 'easy' [dividing by zero]
BBC ^ | 12/8/06

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: anderson; dividing; easy; education; iaresmart; piledhigheranddeeper; publickskool; pythagoras; zero
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 321-333 next last
To: JamesP81

Yeah - thanks - I figured out the computer language point a little too late...


221 posted on 12/08/2006 2:38:40 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy; Gabz; Slip18

OK, OK.

Ah know you jest loooooooooove math, so ....

Ya gotta believe!


222 posted on 12/08/2006 2:39:05 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Allan

b.


223 posted on 12/08/2006 2:39:41 PM PST by Allan (*-O)):~{>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Making up a word is not solving a problem!


224 posted on 12/08/2006 2:39:44 PM PST by N3WBI3 ("Help me out here guys: What do you do with someone who wont put up or shut up?" - N3WBI3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xsmommy; Gabz; Slip18
This makes more sense, sense it doesn't need the integral equations to make the same sensible (null) point.
225 posted on 12/08/2006 2:40:32 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Erasmus
But the point is for the program to be able to catch the NaN before applying it, and do something appropriate instead.

Doing something appropriate is not crashing and instead giving me a useable number that's effectively rounded to infinity. It's wasteful to make the code do it, and it causes issues then the programmer forgets.

The value 0.1 cannot be represented in floating point, and this doesn't cause anyone any greef when I use a rounded value instead. I'm of the opinion that computer hardware should do the same for divide by zero exceptions, and return a rounded value of infinity that operates in succeding calculations. Returning a NAN merely trashes everything afterward, and it's not a useable option.

226 posted on 12/08/2006 2:41:29 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Don't see it as anymore ridiculous than i.

Me either. When "i" refers to thee not me ;)

All numbers are abstractions, even the ordinary counting numbers. It took a while for mankind to accept fractions, then gradually irrational numbers, then transcendental numbers, like pi, that are not the root of any algebraic equation with a finite number of terms and then negative numbers and "finally" complex numbers. If you accept all the others, you're five-sixths of the way there!

Complex numbers are useful, in that they complete the algebra of real numbers. The interesting thing is that solutions involving complex numbers are surprisingly useful in solving real world problems.

As others have pointed out, they can represent voltages, or for that matter, any time vary quantity. The complex notation falls naturally from the solution of linear differential equations, and they represent a very convenient notation for representing the phase and amplitude of real time or spatially varying quantities.

227 posted on 12/08/2006 2:43:17 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (The hallmark of a crackpot conspiracy theory is that it expands to include countervailing evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
No, he calls it a "theorem." That means he claims to have a proof.

I reread the article. It was only refered to as a "theorem" once in the article, and it was unclear as to whether or not that was advanced by the professor or the writer of the article. Every other time in the article, it's referred to as a "theory" which makes much more sense to me... Note that it is called, "The Theory of Nullity" in the article.
228 posted on 12/08/2006 2:43:38 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: paulat

It occurs to me that I never see debates like this over at DU. And they are the self-professed "Intelligent Progressives"...

DU = Nullity!


229 posted on 12/08/2006 2:43:54 PM PST by Syntyr (Freepers - In the top %5 of informed Americans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: narby
I'm sure centuries from now, programmers will be pre-testing for zero and handling the issue manually, and dealing with computer crashes from nowhere when they forget.

You'd be testing for the "nullity" value in your computer programs if you had your theoretical new hardware anyhow, so what's the difference? Is a little precondition checking or exception handling too hard for you? We need new computer hardware to solve this horrendous problem that plagues the software development community!!

230 posted on 12/08/2006 2:43:57 PM PST by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Tinman

I think you've got it! You implied that it was confusing in some way to you to "divide something by nothing." All I'm saying to you is that it's confusing to you because it makes no sense; i.e., you've got very good intuition! :-)


231 posted on 12/08/2006 2:44:46 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: IYAAYAS
"It's always been possible to divide by zero. infinity/zero=1

No.

232 posted on 12/08/2006 2:45:17 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1

Excel already deals with division by zero:

#DIV/0!


233 posted on 12/08/2006 2:45:58 PM PST by paulat (about)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons
I suspect this has been "worked around" many times and that there are many redundant systems in aircraft to take care of the problem.

Yeah. The programmer had to put in manual exception handling. That's a cheezy solution when the divide could merely return a useable value. Other operations round to the nearest value that can be stored, such as the 1/10 floating point issue. What's so sacred about divide by zero that mathmaticians think they need to crash my software instead of returning a rounded value of infinity?

234 posted on 12/08/2006 2:46:41 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: lepton
I prefer PV=nrT


K = nefpLsLf ... Rickover made the very best.

Sung (sum what) to the tune of "
N.e.s.t.l.e.s Nestles makes the very best"
235 posted on 12/08/2006 2:49:45 PM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: spunkets

Yeah, it's infinity^2! Of whatever.

>> 1/0
Warning: Divide by zero.
(Type "warning off MATLAB:divideByZero" to suppress this warning.)

ans =

Inf

>> Inf/0
Warning: Divide by zero.
(Type "warning off MATLAB:divideByZero" to suppress this warning.)

ans =

Inf

>> 1/Inf

ans =

0

>> Inf*0

ans =

NaN


So there! I performed the experiment, rather than speculate.


236 posted on 12/08/2006 2:53:56 PM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (The hallmark of a crackpot conspiracy theory is that it expands to include countervailing evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Leftism is Mentally Deranged
Saying "how many zeros are in this other number" is a meaningless phrase.

No it isn't. For example, if you ask, "How many zeros are in one thousand?", without hesitation I will correctly answer, "Three."
237 posted on 12/08/2006 2:54:25 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Give Them Liberty Or Give Them Death! - IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Thank you for bringing some sanity to this conversation. Now I will put on my panchromatic peril sensitive sunglasses and get back to the party to have a "Jin and Toenik".
238 posted on 12/08/2006 2:55:59 PM PST by Woodman ("One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives." PW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: vrwc1
You'd be testing for the "nullity" value in your computer programs if you had your theoretical new hardware anyhow

Why? A "nullity", would merely be infinity rounded down to the nearest value that can be stored in the machine. No need to test for it. The whole point of the "nullity" is to avoid having to bother to test for it.

We've established that mathmaticians have no problems with rounded values, such as the 1/10 rounding error in floating point. It's just rounding infinity into a storable value that they can't tolerate.

Maybe the problem is the fact that most mathematicians are teachers, and they teach the issue of *why* you can't divide by zero, so when the hardware designers tackled the problem the math guys ran screaming NO, NO, NO, YOU CAN'T DIVIDE BY ZERO. So they crash the computer instead. Often actually crashing the machine, if the OS doesn't handle the divide by zero interrupt. Now there's an intelligent solution.

239 posted on 12/08/2006 2:56:22 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Okay, I'll take a stab at this:

Zero is not a number in a real world sense compared to practical numbers that can be ascribed to an object as conveying a meaningful attribute of the object. Consider, 1 could be described as a count attribute at a given state-time for an object, an apple let's say. If the apple is removed, there are not only zero apples, but also zero bananas, zero pairs and zero elephants, etc. The connection of the count attribute to any object is broken at zero. As attributes convey meaning and information, the dissociation of an attribute from an object renders the attribute meaningless. Dividing by zero, a meaningless attribute, therefore can convey no real world meaning. In reality, it is an answer for a question never asked.

Philosophically, an optimist would say that zero is not a number but a 100% probability of anything. Nature abhors a vacuum.

240 posted on 12/08/2006 2:56:37 PM PST by JTHomes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 321-333 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson