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.
But the definition of the delta function doesn't divide by zero -- it explicitly avoids doing so. From the always excellent Mathworld site:
The closest you get, definitionally, is this one:
,
But you'll not that the 0+ specifically precludes division by zero.
Good example
"Zero" has no value. What, then is the opposite of "zero"? It cannot be any number with a value (either positive or negative), because positive is the opposite of negative. The opposite of zero then, is "infinity", which is not valueless, but of indeterminate value. If "zero" is taken as a nullity, then what you are saying is that it represents not only a lack of value but a lack of existence. You cannot then perform a mathematical operation on a number that exists with one that does not, so I think we're back where we started. Where's the Tylenol?
Yes, but they still have a certain bodily part that makes them deisrable.
(Just kidding, you women)
Only after Jack Bauer did it.
Vicodin would work better.
Unless your code has...oh, I don't know...EXCEPTION HANDLING?!
Now that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are.
The definition of 'i' is properly stated as:
"The precise moment, and resulting argument between professor and student, at which Norton transforms from 'hard' to Politcal 'Science'."
Discovered in the 'Sixties, these kids are way behind.
That's one way to interpret it. Another is that it simultaneously yields all values. Dividing both sides by zero lets you simply pick which ones.
Maybe they're saying that their "math" will put in a real low value in place of zero, and say that the results are good anyway.
Still stupid.
Or did they take the idea of null from some programming languages and database systems which have the concept of null? However, if you divide by null you get null.
Doesn't matter. In liberal land you don't have to be accurate in your math. In fact, you don't even have to study math. Math is a male, European concept. You should study whiteness. You should study the history of oppression. You don't need math since the left will grab all the money and property from the oppressors anyway, and you won't need math to know if you got all the money.
And believe you me, this has made the world a much better place to live in.
As a concept, it is fabulous; if it caused a computer to search on both sides of zero for an answer that didn't exist and then set the problem aside it might be able to continue processing while the operator would be alerted to a possible error in coding.
The funny part is, if you divided by zero, usually the problem was getting a zero to divide with, not the fact that you want to use it in the division.
So allowing the calculation to proceed isn't helpful, what you might want to do is go back and figure out why you got a zero to begin with.
In signal processing code, they often use the NaN for this and keep going if that's what is necessary. This isn't a new concept.
You didn't ping me to this thread because?????
Perhaps, but I tend to prefer my painkillers in liquid form. And the work day is almost over...;-)
Guys. This has no connection at all to "i", the square root of -1.
Every time I've read "nullity" in this thread, I've thought of Steven Colbert, both because he likes to add the "ity" ending to words for no reason, and because "nullity" describes his philosophy pretty well.
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.