PDA

View Full Version : Logical Suicide (dividing by ZERO)



Aetherius
December 7th, 2006, 12:04 PM
So some wise guy "computer scientist" decided that he can bypass all mathematics, divide by zero, make up a new symbol for it, call it "nullity", give it some half-assed proof, teach it to 14 year olds and think no-one will laugh at him?


What the hell is going on here?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

katgfan
December 7th, 2006, 12:08 PM
I hope this solves the "blue screen of death"

dbbolton
December 7th, 2006, 12:12 PM
once, i accidentally proved that infinity equals both 1 and 0, and thereby that 1 must equal 0, and thereby that i had too much time on my hands in astronomy.

zgornel
December 7th, 2006, 12:20 PM
I think it's just a joke or a way to make 14-yr olds more confused than they already are. :D

Rhubarb
December 7th, 2006, 12:20 PM
I dislike news sites that that never really explain the technicalities of a discovery. - Why publish it in the first place?

Sure by reading the article I've a brief idea of what nullity is (I can kind-of understand why there needs to be a nullity concept).
But more importantly, I need a simple example of how nullity can solve a simple problem.

... And I don't like the BBC's insistence of using real player either.

From trying to look at the tiny image of the whiteboard there, I'll try and derive nullity myself and work out how useful it is to me later this afternoon.

Rhubarb
December 7th, 2006, 12:23 PM
"Nullity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A new number, Devised by Dr James Anderson, that represents zero divided by zero. It has been nearly universally decried by mathematicians as nonsense[citation needed]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullity

There's a nice definition of "zero divided by zero" here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_divided_by_zero

slimdog360
December 7th, 2006, 12:23 PM
I feel sorry for those kids. I can understand the reasoning behind wanting some standard way to deal with infinities in a computer system, but this is ridiculous. How about a good old 'else' or 'default' statement to handle these types of things.

total wormage
December 7th, 2006, 12:28 PM
I dislike news sites that that never really explain the technicalities of a discovery. - Why publish it in the first place?

... And I don't like the BBC's insistence of using real player either.

From trying to look at the tiny image of the whiteboard there, I'll try and derive nullity myself and work out how useful it is to me later this afternoon.

copy that

hotbrainz
December 7th, 2006, 12:36 PM
The professor just wants to hog some limelight fellas.

Even i can sit on my couch and say ... 2+2= 4 + nullity assuming that nullity takes the value zero for that instance.

But we all know that it is plain nonsense. Well coming to think of it. If you were to apply nullity in complex math and then get results then i had genuflect to this discovery. Zero divide by Zero is not good enough for me.

Anyway..have any of you guys thought of the "Speed of light" constant in Einstein's theory. He says it is a constant and a maximum thus providing him a point if refernce to compare with other quantities but.... is he right...?

Shay Stephens
December 7th, 2006, 12:45 PM
Awwww come on, I bet they were sayin' the same thing back when they "invented" 0 too ;)

You're all a bunch of old codgers who hate new stuff hahahahaha

hotbrainz
December 7th, 2006, 12:49 PM
Well we are skeptical.... in the words of Socrates...


"Ask questions if you want answers"

Well zero is accepatable because you can independantly verify it with infinite mathematical expressions and there are no jarring anamolies. Except of course 0/0 :rolleyes:

Verminox
December 7th, 2006, 12:53 PM
Only Chuck Norris can divide by zero.

givré
December 7th, 2006, 01:12 PM
Awwww come on, I bet they were sayin' the same thing back when they "invented" 0 too ;)

0 was an important concept. But there is no real need for a "nullity", that's simply stupid. It seams more to be a random guy that wanted his minute of success.

hotbrainz
December 7th, 2006, 01:13 PM
0 was an important concept. But there is no real need for a "nullity", that's simply stupid. It seams more to be a random guy that wanted his minute of success.
Just my thoughts

Rhubarb
December 7th, 2006, 04:06 PM
π√(∞/0) = ЯR = Rhubarb's universal (non-real) number.

... Now where is my big news article on BBC's website?

Lster
December 7th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Its no big deal... In a way I bet a whole load of people have thought up nullity (including me), its just not been formally published before.

Yossarian
December 7th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I for one welcome the new math.

In fact, I've decided to a little bit of my own. 0 / 0 is now known as Gosson's constant.

I've been trying to calculate its value, but I keep getting different numbers. It seems to be around 10. Can anyone confirm this?

deanlinkous
December 7th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Actually I think 0 is a mistake.

How many do you have? zero?????
No you do not have any. There should be no placeholder for "none" at all. We should go from a positive 1 to a negative one since that is all that matters.

It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!

mips
December 7th, 2006, 04:46 PM
Actually I think 0 is a mistake.

How many do you have? zero?????
No you do not have any. There should be no placeholder for "none" at all. We should go from a positive 1 to a negative one since that is all that matters.

It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!

What if I give you halve and apple ? What do you have then, still nothing ?

Rhubarb
December 7th, 2006, 05:02 PM
What if I give you halve and apple ? What do you have then, still nothing ?
That's easy, because then you've got ONE half of an apple.

Lster
December 7th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Its stupid not to use zero. Zero is simply a lack of anything... How can you explain this without zero?



You have 3 apples and give 3 away to your friend... Now you have 0 apples!

deanlinkous
December 7th, 2006, 06:24 PM
So you have nothing apples? How do you have nothing apples? You either have something or you do not, there is no 'have nothing of something' you simply do not have.

I had three apples, I gave 3 away ergo I have nothing. No reason to mention apples beyond saying what I had and what I gave away because the nothing that I now have is not a apple it is simply nothing.

deanlinkous
December 7th, 2006, 06:26 PM
That's easy, because then you've got ONE half of an apple.

Yes, I was speaking about whole numbers should skip zero we would still have decimals of course.

PriceChild
December 7th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Awwww come on, I bet they were sayin' the same thing back when they "invented" 0 too ;)

You're all a bunch of old codgers who hate new stuff hahahahaha0, fractions, irrational numbers, complex numbers.... all VERY useful.

However I cannot understand what this is actually for? the limit of a/b where a is any (positive) number and b approaches 0 is infinity? Why can we not call a/0 infinity even though its up for debate. Why create a new name when we already have one? - Ok reading that I realise why /0 and infinity may be different... but personally I don't believe they are.

/me scratches head.

Pricey

Lster
December 7th, 2006, 09:05 PM
Its all just a form of notation...

Shay Stephens
December 7th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Why use double quotes when single quotes will do?
Why do I need dress shoes when I have perfectly good pair of sneakers?
Why do I need a paring knife when I have all these steak knives laying around?
Who needs anything but grape jelly?
Why is there so many ways of saying snow in eskimo?

Fine tools, make for fine work. Having the right tool for the job makes all the difference in the world. So if this new number thingy helps someone, anyone, then it is a good thing.

The people who look back a thousand years from now will chortle that we didn't the quad-dimensional zippy do dah, and how did we ever manage without it hehehe ;)

If zero were good enough, it would be used. If infinty were good enough, it too would be used. But apparently it's not, for reasons I frankly don't comprehend. So what is the harm in making a "number" or symbol or whatever it is to stand in for that situation. I know I would rather see that symbol in the calculator rather than the big flashing "does not compute" message I get now :D

Yossarian
December 8th, 2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by deanlinkous
...
It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!


I guess you could argue that it isn't even (although I see no reason why it shouldn't be even), there's no way zero is odd.

You must be thinking of infinity.

arnieboy
December 8th, 2006, 01:42 AM
a few comments on the article and the proof:
1) Infinity is not a number. It is a concept.
2) 0/0 has remained undefined for a good reason.
The scientist defined 0/0 = nullity (a new number outside the regular number line). Calling it a new number is not right. 0/0 is undefined because there are infinite answers for the same.
For example, 0/0 could be anything (ranging from -infinity to infinity) because any number multiplied by 0 would yield 0 (including 0 itself).
About the proof:
The scientist writes 0^0 as follows

0^0=(0^1)*(0^-1)=0/0= nullity
If I do believe in Nullity I can also write the above as follows:

0^0=(0^x)*(0^-x)=(0/0)^x= nullity^x
where x can be any number (lets take integers for simplicity's sake) ranging from -infinity to infinity excluding 0 itself
Now if the above two expressions are the same as they should be, then

Nullity^x=Nullity

which brings us back to the argument that "Nullity" is actually undefined and can take multiple solutions.
For example

1^x=1
0^x=0
Since both 1 and 0 satisfy Nullity's properties as well as the value of 0/0, Nullity is basically undefined and a wrong concept.

FyreBrand
December 8th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Actually I think 0 is a mistake.

How many do you have? zero?????
No you do not have any. There should be no placeholder for "none" at all. We should go from a positive 1 to a negative one since that is all that matters.

It would also lat to rest the 'is 0 odd or even' argument also!
0 is even by the accepted definition of even. I think more people argue whether it's appropriate to include 0 in the set of positive integers more than they argue whether 0 is even.

I didn't read the in-depth discussion on the news site because it's in real file format. But the more specific you can define mathematical properties the better. Maybe there isn't a daily applicational use for that, but what if it is the missing puzzle piece to a complicated proof that we've been trying to figure out? It would be silly to just discount it because it makes us feel uncomfortable or think out of the box. If it's utter rubbish then it will be proved to be so (or if he can't prove it) and be discarded by the math community.

Daveski
December 8th, 2006, 01:51 AM
Since both 1 and 0 satisfy Nullity's properties as well as the value of 0/0, Nullity is basically undefined and a wrong concept.

Well I'm convinced by this explanation. But then I think that 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2...

FyreBrand
December 8th, 2006, 01:53 AM
Well I'm convinced by this explanation. But then I think that 2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2...Hahaha. That's great. Maybe Nullity is what's behind the door to Room 101?

deanlinkous
December 8th, 2006, 01:54 AM
okay then explain this anomaly
leave zero out of the experiment and try this
odd+odd=even
go ahead try a few and I will wait.................
okay, now try it with zero :shock:

Peyton
December 8th, 2006, 01:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLxMN5YMS3A

givré
December 8th, 2006, 01:57 AM
zero by definition is nor even nor odd.

FyreBrand
December 8th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Where do you see that it's neither even or odd?


Peyton: That is hilarious.

arnieboy
December 8th, 2006, 02:01 AM
okay then explain this anomaly
leave zero out of the experiment and try this
odd+odd=even
go ahead try a few and I will wait.................
okay, now try it with zero :shock:
0 is even.
because

0(even)+0(even)=0(even)
0(even)*0(even)=0(even)
0(even)-0(even)=0(even)
also,
It cannot be odd
because odd-odd=even
and if 0 were odd, it would be as follows:

0(odd)-0(odd)=0(odd)--> does not satisfy the property of being odd.
it also satisfies

odd+odd=even
for example

5(odd)+(-5)(odd)=0(even)

deanlinkous
December 8th, 2006, 02:16 AM
huh?
now I have no idea what I said.... :D
Where was I going with that.....

I HAD a arguement in there somewhere and was going to trick you into it - dang should of wrote it down. I think it is nap time.

givré
December 8th, 2006, 02:22 AM
Where do you see that it's neither even or odd?

Because i'm stupid and i wanted it.
arnieboy is right :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_%28mathematics%29

dbbolton
December 8th, 2006, 02:50 AM
i thought that einstein said 0/0 was unity and thus one


on a side note, get consider i^i
i think it turns out to be e^(pi/-2)
or something to the tune of .208

yes. a real, positive number. trippy.

Yossarian
December 8th, 2006, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by dbbolton
i thought that einstein said 0/0 was unity and thus one


on a side note, get consider i^i
i think it turns out to be e^(pi/-2)
or something to the tune of .208

yes. a real, positive number. trippy.

Actually 0/0 is 13. Want proof?

0/0 = 13
0 = 0 x 13 (multiplying both sides by zero to eliminate fraction)
0 = 0 (Left side = right side)

Putting physical significance to it, speed is the ratio of distance and time (sort of). If you car is going 100 km/h, how far does it travel in zero seconds? What if you're only doing 20?

(Waits for someone to dig out the 1=0 proof)


Originally posted by deanlinkous
okay then explain this anomaly
leave zero out of the experiment and try this
odd+odd=even
go ahead try a few and I will wait.................
okay, now try it with zero


It's much simpler to see what zero is if you use the definition of odd and even in that an even number is one that takes the form n =2k, and an odd number takes the form n=2k+1 where k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

FyreBrand
December 8th, 2006, 03:45 AM
Because i'm stupid and i wanted it.
arnieboy is right :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parity_%28mathematics%29

You're not stupid. Math is incredible and complicated. The more I learn the more questions I get. That link is neat. There is some cool stuff in that article, thanks.

dbbolton
December 8th, 2006, 04:17 AM
Actually 0/0 is 13. Want proof?

0/0 = 13
0 = 0 x 13 (multiplying both sides by zero to eliminate fraction)
0 = 0 (Left side = right side)

Putting physical significance to it, speed is the ratio of distance and time (sort of). If you car is going 100 km/h, how far does it travel in zero seconds? What if you're only doing 20?

(Waits for someone to dig out the 1=0 proof)



It's much simpler to see what zero is if you use the definition of odd and even in that an even number is one that takes the form n =2k, and an odd number takes the form n=2k+1 where k = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
physical significance? what about Zeno's arrow?

the only solution is to quantise space and perhaps time.

-Phi-
December 8th, 2006, 04:29 AM
Well, I couldn't watch the .ram file, but I did read the two relevant papers he wrote (why yes, I am supposed to be studying for exams, how did you know?).

Other than a typo on property [T53] (darn you accidental -ve signs, you've lost me many a mark!), a lot of silly rhetoric* and IMHO a few sketchy points that I'd have to think about more (such as the whole thing hinging on (a/b)(a/b)^(-1) = 1 not being equivalent to (a/b)^(-1) = (b/a) ), I think he's got a valid point.

The papers mostly consist of lists of axioms and properties detailing how a computer could deal with calculations in a field of numbers consisting of the real numbers extended by 1/0, -1/0, and 0/0. He says the axioms are complete (ie. the rules hold true with themselves), and I futzed with enough to convince myself he's probably right.

That said, I have no clue where he's going with it. Certainly not into Real Analysis. And an answer of Φ isn't much more useful than an answer of ERR, dne, NaN, or undefined. Crazy computer science folks.

Plus he should have picked a different Greek letter :p

- Phi

* "A paradigm shift will occur when mathematicians, familiar with transreal arithmetic, read more into theorems than their colleagues who are familiar only with real arithmetic, and that those familiar with the newer and more powerful theory will go on to discover more, and more useful, mathematics." ...our math brings all the boys to the yard, damn right it's better than yours.

Yossarian
December 8th, 2006, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by dbbolton
physical significance? what about Zeno's arrow?

the only solution is to quantise space and perhaps time.


You can solve the paradoxes without worrying about space. All it takes is a little calculus.

The problem boils down to this: is it possible to add up an infinite number of non-zero numbers and get anything finite. The answer is yes.

How about this sum of infinite terms:

n = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 ...

If you have some time, add up every term to get one of the most important numbers in math.

(Actually, add up the 6 terms here and you're pretty close.)

crazedgremlin
December 8th, 2006, 04:52 AM
I just invented negative zero yesterday.... big whoop

LOL

msjulie
December 8th, 2006, 05:23 AM
Hello All:

Thanks for the fun trip into mathematics land. I had some good laughs along the way.

I too was unable to view the real player files... sigh.

Mathematics has had a long history of discovering / inventing mounds of useless theories, axioms, and methods. Mathematicians throughout history have dreamed up all kinds of apparently useless stuff. Then one day, somebody finds a perfect application for it. This idea was stated in an earlier post, though.

For now, though, it appears to be useless. I'll keep plugging away without nullity.

The absurdities of treating nullity as a tangible number sure makes our everyday mathematics go haywire.

Thanks for the fun.

Julie

Huang
December 10th, 2006, 01:27 AM
The guy was wrong about nullity, and he is wrong abotu division by zero. But he did come close to something valid. Namely, triviality.

Trivial objects, defined as violating uniqueness, are indeterminately existent. They are the 3rd existential type.

You have

1) That which exists.
2) That which does not exist.
3) That for which existence is indeterminate.

The existence of a trivial is indeterminate. To illustrate this, imagine that you have a trivial clone who is exactly like you in every way, even location. It is impossible to say whether you are really yourself, or if you are that clone. It is indeterminate. It cannot be determined.

This can be proved for mathematical objects, numbers, etc, very easily.

Too bad the professor he blew it so badly, missed his opportunity to reveal something of interest. There are some very useful consequences to this approach with trivials, and it aint mainstream math.

There are many interesting things about zero and triviality which remain undiscovered in my opinion.