UK Scientist can divide by 0. (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

1200-year-old problem 'easy'​

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."
Watch a video report from BBC South Today's Ben Moore, then let Dr Anderson talk you through his theory in simple steps on the whiteboard:

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.
Pupils at Highdown School
Highdown pupils: 'confusing at first'

"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.

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

Most redundant maths ever? I call yes.

edit: Very sorry about not posting the link.

 

[withoutaface]

I think the nullity thing is actually a vast oversimplification of what he's done, and as for redundancy it might only be as redundant as sqrt(-1) (which is to say not very).

 

[withoutaface]

I'd also add that by definition 0/0 has to be one, if it exists at all.

 

[Frigid]

hehe, about to get deleted on wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transreal_number.

link to BBC articlehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Here's the guy's explanation why 0^0 = Nullity:

0^0=0^(1-1)
0^0=(0^1)*(0^-1)
0^0=((0/1)^1)*((0/1)^-1)
0^0=(0/1)*(1/0)
0^0=(0/0)

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html

Also, from a maths nerd I know:

I took the time to read his axioms, and I am not impressed. The semantics are similar to IEEE arithmetic (1/0 = +Inf, 0/0 = NaN), with very few differences (he thinks differently). In my opinion, the standard does it better.

In any case, an implementation would be full of implicit conditionals. For instance, he has the axiom "a/a = 1 for a != 0, Inf, NaN", implying that every division needs a check for 0, Inf or NaN in the denominator, as it did before. So if there was a problem, we are no closer to a solution. Redefining NaN or "Phi" as a "number" does nothing if we still need to treat it as a special case.

The rest of his site set off all my crackpottery detectors.

I'm too stupid to know what's going on.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

I agree with your maths nerd, because

if 1/0 = null
then for a real number x
null/x = 1/(0*x) = null, so null = x * null
if x = 0
null = 0 * null = 0 * 1/0 = 0/0
ie. 0/0 != 1
but according to waf, if 0/0 exists it should be 1 (and I believe him)

so as the maths nerd says it's still a special case that doesn't simplify the problem.

plus any computer program where someone's life depends on it running is probably going to check if it's going to divide by zero.

 

[Retrovertigo]

UK Scientist can divide by 0.

Well that explains the terrorist attack in London.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

plus any computer program where someone's life depends on it running is probably going to check if it's going to divide by zero.

Hahahha yea... the example of the pacemaker is hillarious.

 

[withoutaface]

I agree with your maths nerd, because

if 1/0 = null
then for a real number x
null/x = 1/(0*x) = null, so null = x * null
if x = 0
null = 0 * null = 0 * 1/0 = 0/0
ie. 0/0 != 1
but according to waf, if 0/0 exists it should be 1 (and I believe him)

so as the maths nerd says it's still a special case that doesn't simplify the problem.

plus any computer program where someone's life depends on it running is probably going to check if it's going to divide by zero.

0/0 = 0.0^-1. By definition 0.0^-1=1, as 0^-1 has to be the multiplicative inverse of zero.

 

[Silver Persian]

Hurray for arts degrees ._.

 

[HotShot]

Out of the blue moon create a new number:

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 coo

But it what way does that solve - 1/0? or 2/0? we still dont have the numerical value of it? or make any sense of it?