New Way To Divide By Zero

[i_lag]

link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/art...o_feature.shtml

by: N/A

date: 06/12/06

1200-year-old problem 'easy'

Schoolchildren in Caversham have become the first in the country to learn about a new number - 'nullity' - which solves maths problems neither Newton nor Pythagoras could conquer.

 

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.

 

"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.

nullity in depth (video)

 

Well there you have it. A theory on how to divide by zero, called 'nullity'. Very interesting.

[DECwakeboarder]

Basically he's just replacing "error: divide by zero" with "nullity"? At least that's all I've got from this. (don't have time to read the article you linked, but did see some stuff on digg)

[Verran]

Basically he's just replacing "error: divide by zero" with "nullity"? At least that's all I've got from this. (don't have time to read the article you linked, but did see some stuff on digg)

That's kind of how it seems to me as well. Seems like they're just putting a new name on the same old practice. But I'll read more on it later and watch the video. I'm curious.

[romeo55]

reminds me of the square rooting of a negative number and using "i" instead

[Kamikaze_Badger]

reminds me of the square rooting of a negative number and using "i" instead

Exactly what I thought.

[DECwakeboarder]

We just learned some theorem in calc...pretty basic theorem and someone else has a different theorem credited to their name but they used the old theorem and said something like "when x = 0, blah blah" I wanted to be like "so what you're saying is that those two theorems are the exact same, it's just that some guy wanted to be a gready bastard? Well, when x = 1....blah blah...and there you have it folks, the basis of Dan's Theorem"

[Verran]

Grab yourself a geometry book and look up the Reflexive Theorem. R=R. THAT guy was greedy.

[romeo55]

Grab yourself a geometry book and look up the Reflexive Theorem. R=R. THAT guy was greedy.

 

I have that memorized now Hehe, I loved that test on all the field axioms, ESPICIALLY that one

[markiemrboo]

Basically he's just replacing "error: divide by zero" with "nullity"? At least that's all I've got from this. (don't have time to read the article you linked, but did see some stuff on digg)

 

This is what I was thinking too... I wonder how long NULL / null has existed in programming languages?

[Kamikaze_Badger]

This is what I was thinking too... I wonder how long NULL / null has existed in programming languages?

40+ years I'm guessing? We had to have some way to end strings, and the 0 for null did it for us.

 

The Reflexive Axiom/Theorem/Principle is a mathematical fundamental, actually... helps us give long and un-needed answers to why we can simplify equations into no solution.

Edited December 9, 2006 by Kamikaze_Badger

[iKillSteal]

Well this just changes everything...Is the answer to the ultimate question still 42 or was nullity not calculated into it? I am so confused now...

[Skynet]

Looks interesting, but I don't think many mathematicians are going to except it very soon