№885

この場合には　置き換えて、通常の考えて　常識的な結果を、ゼロ除算算法でも　出ますが、分母を一つのものと考えて、それがいくつ入るか　という考えではないと　いう意味で　注意をしておく必要が　あります。

Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 179: Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics\\

}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Abstract: } In this announcement, we shall introduce the zero division $z/0=0$. The result is a definite one and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bigskip

\section{Introduction}

%\label{sect1}

By a natural extension of the fractions

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

for any complex numbers $a$ and $b$, we, recently, found the surprising result, for any complex number $b$

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{0}=0,

\end{equation}

incidentally in \cite{s} by the Tikhonov regularization for the Hadamard product inversions for matrices, and we discussed their properties and gave several physical interpretations on the general fractions in \cite{kmsy} for the case of real numbers. The result is a very special case for general fractional functions in \cite{cs}.　

The division by zero has a long and mysterious story over the world (see, for example, google site with division by zero) with its physical viewpoints since the document of zero in India on AD 628, however,

Sin-Ei, Takahasi (\cite{taka}) (see also \cite{kmsy}) established a simple and decisive interpretation (1.2) by analyzing some full extensions of fractions and by showing the complete characterization for the property (1.2). His result will show that our mathematics says that the result (1.2) should be accepted as a natural one:

\bigskip

{\bf Proposition. }{\it Let F be a function from ${\bf C }\times {\bf C }$ to ${\bf C }$ such that

$$

F (b, a)F (c, d)= F (bc, ad)

$$

for all

$$

a, b, c, d \in {\bf C }

$$

and

$$

F (b, a) = \frac {b}{a }, \quad a, b \in {\bf C }, a \ne 0.

$$

Then, we obtain, for any $b \in {\bf C } $

$$

F (b, 0) = 0.

$$

}

\medskip

\section{What are the fractions $ b/a$?}

For many mathematicians, the division $b/a$ will be considered as the inverse of product;

that is, the fraction

\begin{equation}

\frac{b}{a}

\end{equation}

is defined as the solution of the equation

\begin{equation}

a\cdot x= b.

\end{equation}

The idea and the equation (2.2) show that the division by zero is impossible, with a strong conclusion. Meanwhile, the problem has been a long and old question:

As a typical example of the division by zero, we shall recall the fundamental law by Newton:

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}

\end{equation}

for two masses $m_1, m_2$ with a distance $r$ and for a constant $G$. Of course,

\begin{equation}

\lim_{r \to +0} F =\infty,

\end{equation}

however, in our fraction

\begin{equation}

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{0} = 0.

\end{equation}

\medskip

Now, we shall introduce an another approach. The division $b/a$ may be defined {\bf independently of the product}. Indeed, in Japan, the division $b/a$ ; $b$ {\bf raru} $a$ ({\bf jozan}) is defined as how many $a$ exists in $b$, this idea comes from subtraction $a$ repeatedly. (Meanwhile, product comes from addition).

In Japanese language for "division", there exists such a concept independently of product.

H. Michiwaki and his 6 years old girl said for the result $ 100/0=0$ that the result is clear, from the meaning of the fractions independently the concept of product and they said:

$100/0=0$ does not mean that $100= 0 \times 0$. Meanwhile, many mathematicians had a confusion for the result.

Her understanding is reasonable and may be acceptable:

$100/2=50 \quad$ will mean that we divide 100 by 2, then each will have 50.

$100/10=10　\quad$　will mean that we divide 100 by10, then each will have 10.

$100/0=0　\quad$　will mean that we do not divide 100, and then nobody will have at all and so 0.

Furthermore, she said then the rest is 100; that is, mathematically;

$$

100 = 0\cdot 0 + 100.

$$

Now, all the mathematicians may accept the division by zero $100/0=0$ with natural feelings as a trivial one?

\medskip

For simplicity, we shall consider the numbers on non-negative real numbers. We wish to define the division (or fraction) $b/a$ following the usual procedure for its calculation, however, we have to take care for the division by zero:

The first principle, for example, for $100/2 $ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

100-2-2-2-,...,-2.

$$

How may times can we subtract $2$? At this case, it is 50 times and so, the fraction is $50$.

The second case, for example, for $3/2$ we shall consider it as follows:

$$

3 - 2 = 1

$$

and the rest (remainder) is $1$, and for the rest $1$, we multiple $10$,

then we consider similarly as follows:

$$

10-2-2-2-2-2=0.

$$

Therefore $10/2=5$ and so we define as follows:

$$

\frac{3}{2} =1 + 0.5 = 1.5.

$$

By these procedures, for $a \ne 0$ we can define the fraction $b/a$, usually. Here we do not need the concept of product. Except the zero division, all the results for fractions are valid and accepted.

Now, we shall consider the zero division, for example, $100/0$. Since

$$

100 - 0 = 100,

$$

that is, by the subtraction $100 - 0$, 100 does not decrease, so we can not say we subtract any from $100$. Therefore, the subtract number should be understood as zero; that is,

$$

\frac{100}{0} = 0.

$$

We can understand this: the division by $0$ means that it does not divide $100$ and so, the result is $0$.

Similarly, we can see that

$$

\frac{0}{0} =0.

$$

As a conclusion, we should define the zero divison as, for any $b$

$$

\frac{b}{0} =0.

$$

See \cite{kmsy} for the details.

\medskip

\section{In complex analysis}

We thus should consider, for any complex number $b$, as (1.2);

that is, for the mapping

\begin{equation}

w = \frac{1}{z},

\end{equation}

the image of $z=0$ is $w=0$. This fact seems to be a curious one in connection with our well-established popular image for the point at infinity on the Riemann sphere.

However, we shall recall the elementary function

\begin{equation}

W(z) = \exp \frac{1}{z}

\end{equation}

$$

= 1 + \frac{1}{1! z} + \frac{1}{2! z^2} + \frac{1}{3! z^3} + \cdot \cdot \cdot .

$$

The function has an essential singularity around the origin. When we consider (1.2), meanwhile, surprisingly enough, we have:

\begin{equation}

W(0) = 1.

\end{equation}

{\bf The point at infinity is not a number} and so we will not be able to consider the function (3.2) at the zero point $z = 0$, meanwhile, we can consider the value $1$ as in (3.3) at the zero point $z = 0$. How do we consider these situations?

In the famous standard textbook on Complex Analysis, L. V. Ahlfors (\cite{ahlfors}) introduced the point at infinity as a number and the Riemann sphere model as well known, however, our interpretation will be suitable as a number. We will not be able to accept the point at infinity as a number.

As a typical result, we can derive the surprising result: {\it At an isolated singular point of an analytic function, it takes a definite value }{\bf with a natural meaning.} As the important applications for this result, the extension formula of functions with analytic parameters may be obtained and singular integrals may be interpretated with the division by zero, naturally (\cite{msty}).

\bigskip

\section{Conclusion}

The division by zero $b/0=0$ is possible and the result is naturally determined, uniquely.

The result does not contradict with the present mathematics - however, in complex analysis, we need only to change a little presentation for the pole; not essentially, because we did not consider the division by zero, essentially.

The common understanding that the division by zero is impossible should be changed with many text books and mathematical science books. The definition of the fractions may be introduced by {\it the method of Michiwaki} in the elementary school, even.

Should we teach the beautiful fact, widely?:

For the elementary graph of the fundamental function

$$

y = f(x) = \frac{1}{x},

$$

$$

f(0) = 0.

$$

The result is applicable widely and will give a new understanding for the universe ({\bf Announcement 166}).

\medskip

If the division by zero $b/0=0$ is not introduced, then it seems that mathematics is incomplete in a sense, and by the intoduction of the division by zero, mathematics will become complete in a sense and perfectly beautiful.

\bigskip

section{Remarks}
For the procedure of the developing of the division by zero and for some general ideas on the division by zero, we presented the following announcements in Japanese:
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 148} (2014.2.12):　 $100/0=0, 0/0=0$ 　--　 by a natural extension of fractions -- A wish of the God
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 154} (2014.4.22): A new world: division by zero, a curious world, a new idea
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 157} (2014.5.8): We wish to know the idea of the God for the division by zero; why the infinity and zero point are coincident?
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 161} (2014.5.30): Learning from the division by zero, sprits of mathematics and of looking for the truth
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 163} (2014.6.17): The division by zero, an extremely pleasant mathematics - shall we look for the pleasant division by zero: a proposal for a fun club looking for the division by zero.
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 166} (2014.6.29): New general ideas for the universe from the viewpoint of the division by zero
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 171} (2014.7.30): The meanings of product and division　--　The division by zero is trivial from the own sense of the division independently of the concept of product
\medskip
{\bf Announcement 176} (2014.8.9):　 Should be changed the education of the division by zero
\bigskip
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ahlfors}
L. V. Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
\bibitem{cs}
L. P. Castro and S.Saitoh, Fractional functions and their representations, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory {\bf7} (2013), no. 4, 1049-1063.
\bibitem{kmsy}
S. Koshiba, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh and M. Yamane,
An interpretation of the division by zero z/0=0 without the concept of product
(note).
\bibitem{kmsy}
M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,
New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,
Int. J. Appl. Math. Vol. 27, No 2 (2014), pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.
\bibitem{msty}
H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, M. Takagi and M. Yamada,
A new concept for the point at infinity and the division by zero z/0=0
(note).
\bibitem{s}
S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. Vol.4 No.2 (2014), 87-95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/
\bibitem{taka}
S.-E. Takahasi,
{On the identities $100/0=0$ and $ 0/0=0$}
(note).
\bibitem{ttk}
S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operators on the real and complex fields. (submitted)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

アインシュタインも解決できなかった「ゼロで割る」問題

http://matome.naver.jp/odai/2135710882669605901

Title page of Leonhard Euler, Vollständige Anleitung zur Algebra, Vol. 1 (edition of 1771, first published in 1770), and p. 34 from Article 83, where Euler explains why a number divided by zero gives infinity.

https://notevenpast.org/dividing-nothing/

私は数学を信じない。　アルバート・アインシュタイン / I don't believe in mathematics. Albert Einstein→ゼロ除算ができなかったからではないでしょうか。

1423793753.460.341866474681。

Einstein's Only Mistake: Division by Zero

http://refully.blogspot.jp/2012/05/einsteins-only-mistake-division-by-zero.html

ドキュメンタリー 2017: 神の数式第２回宇宙はなぜ生まれたのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQld9cnDli4

〔NHKスペシャル〕神の数式完全版第3回宇宙はなぜ始まったのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvyAB8yTSjs&t=3318s

NHKスペシャル〕神の数式完全版第1回この世は何からできているのか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjvFdzhn7Dc

NHKスペシャル神の数式完全版第4回異次元宇宙は存在するか

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWVv9puoTSs

\documentclass[12pt]{article}

\usepackage{latexsym,amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amstext,amsthm}

\numberwithin{equation}{section}

\begin{document}

\title{\bf Announcement 362: Discovery of the division by zero as \\

$0/0=1/0=z/0=0$\\

(2017.5.5)}

\author{{\it Institute of Reproducing Kernels}\\

Kawauchi-cho, 5-1648-16,\\

Kiryu 376-0041, Japan\\

}

\date{\today}

\maketitle

{\bf Statement: } The Institute of Reproducing Kernels declares that the division by zero was discovered as $0/0=1/0=z/0=0$ in a natural sense on 2014.2.2. The result shows a new basic idea on the universe and space since Aristotelēs (BC384 - BC322) and Euclid (BC 3 Century - ), and the division by zero is since Brahmagupta (598 - 668 ?).

In particular, Brahmagupta defined as $0/0=0$ in Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628), however, our world history stated that his definition $0/0=0$ is wrong over 1300 years, but, we will see that his definition is suitable.

For the details, see the references and the site: http://okmr.yamatoblog.net/

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\begin{thebibliography}{10}

\bibitem{kmsy}

M. Kuroda, H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M. Yamane,

New meanings of the division by zero and interpretations on $100/0=0$ and on $0/0=0$,

Int. J. Appl. Math. {\bf 27} (2014), no 2, pp. 191-198, DOI: 10.12732/ijam.v27i2.9.

\bibitem{msy}

H. Michiwaki, S. Saitoh, and M.Yamada,

Reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$. IJAPM International J. of Applied Physics and Math. {\bf 6}(2015), 1--8. http://www.ijapm.org/show-63-504-1.html

\bibitem{ms}

T. Matsuura and S. Saitoh,

Matrices and division by zero $z/0=0$, Advances in Linear Algebra

\& Matrix Theory, 6 (2016), 51-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/alamt.2016.62007 http://www.scirp.org/journal/alamt　

\bibitem{mos}

H. Michiwaki, H. Okumura, and S. Saitoh,

Division by Zero $z/0 = 0$ in Euclidean Spaces.

International Journal of Mathematics and Computation Vol. 28(2017); Issue 1, 2017), 1-16.　

\bibitem{osm}

H. Okumura, S. Saitoh and T. Matsuura, Relations of $0$ and $\infty$,

Journal of Technology and Social Science (JTSS), 1(2017), 70-77.

\bibitem{romig}

H. G. Romig, Discussions: Early History of Division by Zero,

American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 31, No. 8. (Oct., 1924), pp. 387-389.

\bibitem{s}

S. Saitoh, Generalized inversions of Hadamard and tensor products for matrices, Advances in Linear Algebra \& Matrix Theory. {\bf 4} (2014), no. 2, 87--95. http://www.scirp.org/journal/ALAMT/

\bibitem{s16}

S. Saitoh, A reproducing kernel theory with some general applications,

Qian,T./Rodino,L.(eds.): Mathematical Analysis, Probability and Applications - Plenary Lectures: Isaac 2015, Macau, China, Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, {\bf 177}(2016), 151-182 (Springer).

\bibitem{ttk}

S.-E. Takahasi, M. Tsukada and Y. Kobayashi, Classification of continuous fractional binary operations on the real and complex fields, Tokyo Journal of Mathematics, {\bf 38}(2015), no. 2, 369-380.

\bibitem{ann179}

Announcement 179 (2014.8.30): Division by zero is clear as z/0=0 and it is fundamental in mathematics.

\bibitem{ann185}

Announcement 185 (2014.10.22): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann237}

Announcement 237 (2015.6.18): A reality of the division by zero $z/0=0$ by geometrical optics.

\bibitem{ann246}

Announcement 246 (2015.9.17): An interpretation of the division by zero $1/0=0$ by the gradients of lines.

\bibitem{ann247}

Announcement 247 (2015.9.22): The gradient of y-axis is zero and $\tan (\pi/2) =0$ by the division by zero $1/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann250}

Announcement 250 (2015.10.20): What are numbers? - the Yamada field containing the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann252}

Announcement 252 (2015.11.1): Circles and

curvature - an interpretation by Mr.

Hiroshi Michiwaki of the division by

zero $r/0 = 0$.

\bibitem{ann281}

Announcement 281 (2016.2.1): The importance of the division by zero $z/0=0$.

\bibitem{ann282}

Announcement 282 (2016.2.2): The Division by Zero $z/0=0$ on the Second Birthday.

\bibitem{ann293}

Announcement 293 (2016.3.27): Parallel lines on the Euclidean plane from the viewpoint of division by zero 1/0=0.

\bibitem{ann300}

Announcement 300 (2016.05.22): New challenges on the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann326}

Announcement 326 (2016.10.17): The division by zero z/0=0 - its impact to human beings through education and research.

\bibitem{ann352}

Announcement 352(2017.2.2): On the third birthday of the division by zero z/0=0.

\bibitem{ann354}

Announcement 354(2017.2.8):　What are $n = 2,1,0$ regular polygons inscribed in a disc? -- relations of $0$ and infinity.

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}

再生核研究所声明371（2017.6.27）ゼロ除算の講演―　国際会議　https://sites.google.com/site/sandrapinelas/icddea-2017　報告

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/theme-10006253398.html

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12276045402.html

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12263708422.html

1/0=0、0/0=0、z/0=0

http://ameblo.jp/syoshinoris/entry-12272721615.html

Algebraic division by zero implemented as quasigeometric multiplication by infinity in real and complex multispatial hyperspaces
Author: Jakub Czajko, 92(2) (2018) 171-197
WSN 92(2) (2018) 171-197

http://www.worldscientificnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/WSN-922-2018-171-197.pdf

神の数式で　ゼロ除算を用いると　どうなるのでしょうか　という質問が　寄せられています。

神の数式：

神の数式が解析関数でかけて居れば、　特異点でローラン展開して、正則部の第1項を取れば、　何時でも有限値を得るので、　形式的に無限が出ても　実は問題なく　意味を有します。

物理学者如何でしょうか。

計算機は正しい答え 0/0=0 を出したのに計算機は何時、1/0=0　ができるようになるでしょうか。

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

そこで、計算機は何時、1/0=0　ができるようになるでしょうか。　楽しみにしています。　もうできる進化した　計算機をお持ちの方は　おられないですね。

これは凄い、面白い事件では？　計算機が人間を超えている　例では？

面白いことを発見しました。　計算機は正しい答え 0/0=0

を出したのに、　この方は　間違いだと　言っている、思っているようです。

0/0=0　は　１３００年も前に　算術の発見者によって与えられたにも関わらず、世界史は間違いだと　とんでもないことを言ってきた。　世界史の恥。　実は　a/0=0　が　何時も成り立っていた。　しかし、ここで　分数の意味を　きちんと定義する必要がある。　計算機は、その意味さえ知っているようですね。　計算機、人間より賢くなっている　様が　出て居て　実に　面白い。

https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero

２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３

https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/reproducingkerne/diary/201810110003/

計算機は正しい答え 0/0=0 を出したのに

カテゴリ：カテゴリ未分類

面白いことを発見しました。　計算機は正しい答え 0/0=0

を出したのに、　この方は　間違いだと　言っている、思っているようです。

0/0=0　は　１３００年も前に　算術の発見者によって与えられたにも関わらず、世界史は間違いだと　とんでもないことを言ってきた。　実は　a/0=0　が　何時も成り立っていた。しかし、ここで　分数の意味を　きちんと定義する必要がある。　計算機は、その意味さえ知っているようですね。　計算機、人間より賢くなっている様が　出て居て　実に面白い。

https://steemkr.com/utopian-io/@faisalamin/bug-zero-divide-by-zero-answers-is-zero

２０１８．１０．１１．１１：２３

ゼロ除算、ゼロで割る問題、分からない、正しいのかなど、　良く理解できない人が　未だに　多いようです。そこで、簡潔な一般的な　解説を思い付きました。　もちろん、学会などでも述べていますが、　予断で　良く聞けないようです。まず、分数、a/b は　a 　割る b　のことで、これは　方程式 b x=a　の解のことです。ところが、　b　がゼロならば、　どんな　xでも　0 x =0　ですから、a　がゼロでなければ、解は存在せず、　従って　100/0　など、ゼロ除算は考えられない、できないとなってしまいます。　普通の意味では　ゼロ除算は　不可能であるという、世界の常識、定説です。できない、不可能であると言われれば、いろいろ考えたくなるのが、人間らしい創造の精神です。　基本方程式　b x=a　が　b　がゼロならば解けない、解が存在しないので、困るのですが、このようなとき、従来の結果が成り立つような意味で、解が考えられないかと、数学者は良く考えて来ました。　何と、　そのような方程式は　何時でも唯一つに　一般化された意味で解をもつと考える　方法があります。　Moore-Penrose　一般化逆の考え方です。　どんな行列の　逆行列を唯一つに定める　一般的な　素晴らしい、自然な考えです。その考えだと、　b　がゼロの時、解はゼロが出るので、　a/0=0　と定義するのは　当然です。　すなわち、この意味で　方程式の解を考えて　分数を考えれば、ゼロ除算は　ゼロとして定まる　ということです。ただ一つに定まるのですから、　この考えは　自然で、その意味を知りたいと　考えるのは、当然ではないでしょうか？初等数学全般に影響を与える　ユークリッド以来の新世界が　現れてきます。

ゼロ除算の誤解は深刻：

最近、3つの事が在りました。

私の簡単な講演、相当な数学者が信じられないような誤解をして、全然理解できなく、目が回っているいるような印象を受けたこと、
相当ゼロ除算の研究をされている方が、基本を誤解されていたこと、1/0　の定義を誤解されていた。
相当な才能の持ち主が、連続性や順序に拘って、４年以上もゼロ除算の研究を避けていたこと。

これらのことは、人間如何に予断と偏見にハマった存在であるかを教えている。
まずは　ゼロ除算は不可能であるの　思いが強すぎで、初めからダメ、考えない、無視の気持ちが、強い。　ゼロ除算を従来の　掛け算の逆と考えると、不可能であるが　証明されてしまうので、割り算の意味を拡張しないと、考えられない。それで、　1/0,0/0,z/0　などの意味を発見する必要がある。　それらの意味は、普通の意味ではないことの　初めの考えを飛ばして　ダメ、ダメの感情が　突っ走ている。　非ユークリッド幾何学の出現や天動説が地動説に変わった世界史の事件のような　形相と言える。

２０１８．９．２２．６：４１
ゼロ除算の４つの誤解：

１．ゼロでは割れない、ゼロ除算は　不可能である　との考え方に拘って、思考停止している。　普通、不可能であるは、考え方や意味を拡張して　可能にできないかと考えるのが　数学の伝統であるが、それができない。

２．可能にする考え方が　紹介されても　ゼロ除算の意味を誤解して、繰り返し間違えている。可能にする理論を　素直に理解しない、　強い従来の考えに縛られている。拘っている。

３．ゼロ除算を関数に適用すると　強力な不連続性を示すが、連続性のアリストテレス以来の　連続性の考えに囚われていて　強力な不連続性を受け入れられない。数学では、不連続性の概念を明確に持っているのに、不連続性の凄い現象に、ゼロ除算の場合には　理解できない。

４．深刻な誤解は、ゼロ除算は本質的に定義であり、仮定に基づいているので　疑いの気持ちがぬぐえず、ダメ、怪しいと誤解している。数学が公理系に基づいた理論体系のように、ゼロ除算は　新しい仮定に基づいていること。　定義に基づいていることの認識が良く理解できず、誤解している。

George Gamow (1904-1968) Russian-born American nuclear physicist and cosmologist remarked that "it is well known to students of high school algebra" that division by zero is not valid; and Einstein admitted it as {\bf the biggest blunder of his life} [1]：1. Gamow, G., My World Line (Viking, New York). p 44, 1970.

E^πⁱ =-1　（1748）（Leonhard Euler）

E = mc 2　（1905）（Albert Einstein）

1/0=0/0=0　（2014年2月2日再生核研究所）

1+1=2　　（　　　　　　）

a²+b²=c²^（Pythagoras）

1/0=0/0=0（2014年2月2日再生核研究所）