Divide by zero, solved?

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8456
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Divide by zero, solved?

Post by Ace Pace »

Abit confusing, and I can't see the video link.
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.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |
User avatar
Zac Naloen
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5488
Joined: 2003-07-24 04:32pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Zac Naloen »

High down?

eugh, I'm shocked they didn't use Maiden Erleigh, that school has better Ofsted reports and is about 5 minutes from University of Reading campus.
Image
Member of the Unremarkables
Just because you're god, it doesn't mean you can treat people that way : - My girlfriend
Evil Brit Conspiracy - Insignificant guy
User avatar
Kuroneko
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2469
Joined: 2003-03-13 03:10am
Location: Fréchet space
Contact:

Post by Kuroneko »

This is not mathematics. He "solves" the problem of 0^0 by arguing that this is 0^(1-1), and in his system it comes out to be his new nullity Φ. Repeating his exact steps on 0^0 = 0^(2-2) gives Φ² = Φ, so it is idempotent. Furthermore, by rearranging terms, we have nΦ = n0^0 = Φ. This clearly breaks the field structure of the reals for no good reason, thus breaking algebra. The real issue is this: Φ becomes a solution to every polynomial equation with no constant term.

It's not even proper computer science. Dr. Anderson has just discovered the NaN (non-a-number) symbol of IEEE floating point and called it "nullity." This is newsworthy? My respect for BBC has just died.
"The fool saith in his heart that there is no empty set. But if that were so, then the set of all such sets would be empty, and hence it would be the empty set." -- Wesley Salmon
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Kuroneko wrote:It's not even proper computer science. Dr. Anderson's has just discovered the NaN (non-a-number) symbol of IEEE floating point and called it "nullity." This is newsworthy? My respect for BBC has just died.
That, and he makes it out to be a much bigger problem than it should be - any competent software engineer in a critical field will check for divide-by-zero errors (or divide-by-close-to-zero)
User avatar
Mad
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:32am
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Mad »

Kuroneko wrote:It's not even proper computer science. Dr. Anderson has just discovered the NaN (non-a-number) symbol of IEEE floating point and called it "nullity." This is newsworthy? My respect for BBC has just died.
That was my first thought as well. "So, he's just mapping NaN to his new 'nullity'?"

This doesn't "solve" anything that I can tell, because coding a new system to handle "nullity" in the case of a divide by zero would be the same as coding it to handle NaN. A computer program, after all, isn't going to suddenly be able to properly add 5 to "nullity" anymore than it can add 5 to NaN.

As for how much it breaks... using GCC 3.3.2, I just did 5 / 0 and added 5 to the result. I got "Inf" both times. Perhaps not the correct answer, but it hardly crashed.
Later...
User avatar
haard
Padawan Learner
Posts: 343
Joined: 2006-03-29 07:29am
Location: Center of my world

Post by haard »

Kuroneko wrote: It's not even proper computer science. Dr. Anderson has just discovered the NaN (non-a-number) symbol of IEEE floating point and called it "nullity." This is newsworthy?
My thought exactly while reading this. NaN has been around since... forever? *checks* IEEE 754 is from 1985, which for me ~= forever (first used a computer -89)
If at first you don't succeed, maybe failure is your style

Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03

Thus Aristotle laid it down that a heavy object falls faster then a light one does.
The important thing about this idea is not that he was wrong, but that it never occurred to Aristotle to check it.
- Albert Szent-Györgyi de Nagyrápolt
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Mad wrote:As for how much it breaks... using GCC 3.3.2, I just did 5 / 0 and added 5 to the result. I got "Inf" both times. Perhaps not the correct answer, but it hardly crashed.
Isn't the behavior of divide-by-zero undefined in the C standards?
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

So really, as I was expecting upon reading the title, he's redefined something and said "Hah! I can do this now". Gee, I bet I could divide by zero if I maintained that "zero" was actually "two".

EDIT: Additionally, it should be noted that plenty of people who thought this through posted their comments on the page linked. It is also telling of the lowering of journalistic standards within the BBC who have so far managed to report on pseudoscience, kill the award winning series Horizon with stupid dumbed down stories and make the most basic errors on stories. It's like they don't care anymore. At least New Scientist, who supply a lot of the stories the press later pick up on, doesn't actively promote dodgy ideas, but just lists articles dealing with them.

Course, anyone who wants real science should be reading Nature, but you have to actually think about that.

Oh, and maths isn't science, ergo, sucks. :P
Last edited by Admiral Valdemar on 2006-12-07 11:17am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mad
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2002-07-04 01:32am
Location: North Carolina, USA
Contact:

Post by Mad »

phongn wrote:
Mad wrote:As for how much it breaks... using GCC 3.3.2, I just did 5 / 0 and added 5 to the result. I got "Inf" both times. Perhaps not the correct answer, but it hardly crashed.
Isn't the behavior of divide-by-zero undefined in the C standards?
I don't know, but the GCC-compiled (C++) program did die when I used integers instead of floating point numbers. The floating point numbers would have to follow IEEE standards, integer divide by zeros may not be handled consistently.

In any case, with the IEEE floating point numbers, dividing by zero isn't an unsolved problem. (Granted, the program may not work correctly when using the computed values, but that problem will exist if using this "nullity" thing, too, so nothing new is solved.)
Later...
Velthuijsen
Padawan Learner
Posts: 235
Joined: 2003-03-07 06:45pm

Post by Velthuijsen »

Not sure about C, a quick trawl through the net gave a reference to the 9X revision of C incorperating IEEE 754, labelled iec 559 the same standard just another standards body that put it's label on it.
For C++ it is in the standard.
And that means (if the IEEE 754 reference I have used for my work is still correct) that division by zero is a special NaN, special enough in any case to merit it's own designation. Instead of the general undefined code of NaN that is.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

There is no way to "solve" the problem of the concept of division simply not being compatible with a denominator of zero. Division by zero will always be an undefined result. Assigning a name to that undefined result won't change anything.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Zac Naloen
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5488
Joined: 2003-07-24 04:32pm
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Zac Naloen »

Out of curiosity under what situation is something like a pace-maker ever going to divide by zero anyway?
Image
Member of the Unremarkables
Just because you're god, it doesn't mean you can treat people that way : - My girlfriend
Evil Brit Conspiracy - Insignificant guy
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

Zac Naloen wrote:Out of curiosity under what situation is something like a pace-maker ever going to divide by zero anyway?
There isn't any. This is addressed in the first posted comment on that page. This guy is also not affiliated with Reading's maths dept., so anything he says is purely from the computing dept. And it would seem a great many people are trying to retcon this story now.
User avatar
Dooey Jo
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3127
Joined: 2002-08-09 01:09pm
Location: The land beyond the forest; Sweden.
Contact:

Post by Dooey Jo »

Mad wrote:
phongn wrote:Isn't the behavior of divide-by-zero undefined in the C standards?
I don't know, but the GCC-compiled (C++) program did die when I used integers instead of floating point numbers. The floating point numbers would have to follow IEEE standards, integer divide by zeros may not be handled consistently.
Try checking for exceptions. I'm pretty sure it's C++ standard that an integer division by zero should throw an exception.
Image
"Nippon ichi, bitches! Boing-boing."
Mai smote the demonic fires of heck...

Faker Ninjas invented ninjitsu
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Post by Ariphaos »

phongn wrote:Isn't the behavior of divide-by-zero undefined in the C standards?
It's defined as undefined - ie, NaN. My beef on Slashdot was along similar lines - "He redefines undefined (which is high school math), gives it a new name and calls it new math? BS."
User avatar
Darth Servo
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8805
Joined: 2002-10-10 06:12pm
Location: Satellite of Love

Post by Darth Servo »

If dividing by zero equals this "nullity", the following multiplication equations are valid.

"nullity" times zero = 5
"nullity" times zero = 253
"nullity" times zero = 190.44

<repeat ad nauseum for every real number>
"everytime a person is born the Earth weighs just a little more."--DMJ on StarTrek.com
"You see now you are using your thinking and that is not a good thing!" DMJay on StarTrek.com

"Watching Sarli argue with Vympel, Stas, Schatten and the others is as bizarre as the idea of the 40-year-old Virgin telling Hugh Hefner that Hef knows nothing about pussy, and that he is the expert."--Elfdart
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27384
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Post by NecronLord »

In other news, 20/1 is a new number, Equivalncey. To be represented by the symbol ¤.

Wait, do I need to get a doctorate in mathematics before I can come up with bullcrap names for numbers?

EDIT: What's more, how does he propose that this will make operations with 1/0 viable for computers? Given that such an operation is either some flavour of ∞ or as computers preffer 'take a hike bozo, I'm not even going to try.' It seems a lot like he's just assigned a new name to a n/0 error and is saying it's a breakthrough. How are we to get a computer that can process an n/0 command and continue to work based on Ф, any more than on NaN?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
Prozac the Robert
Jedi Master
Posts: 1327
Joined: 2004-05-05 09:01am
Location: UK

Post by Prozac the Robert »

The excellent www.badscience.net has a link to his paper.

It starts out odd, and then sorta remains that way.

Section 2. Axiomatisation. In 2.1 he has (amongst other things) defined some properties of nullity:

Phi + a = Phi

-Phi = Phi

Phi.a = Phi

1 / Phi = Phi

These seem to ensure that once you get Phi in a calculation you get stuck with it. Not very promising.

Of course, the worst thing in the section is this one:

0^-1 = infinity


At least he's done us the courtesy of listing it as an axiom, since it means that it's the only thing that needs disproving.

3.1 is pointless since it just shows a bunch of machine proofs. 3.2 shows some maths that people ought to be able to follow, but I can't be bothered. After all, the axioms are stupid. If anyone can be bothered, 4 and 5 are ramblings. I have too much stuff I'm supposed to be reading for my course to want to read them. If there is any point to his stuff, it's in 3.2 or 4. I doubt it exists though.
Hi! I'm Prozac the Robert!

EBC: "We can categorically state that we will be releasing giant man-eating badgers into the area."
User avatar
phongn
Rebel Leader
Posts: 18487
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:11pm

Post by phongn »

Xeriar wrote:It's defined as undefined - ie, NaN. My beef on Slashdot was along similar lines - "He redefines undefined (which is high school math), gives it a new name and calls it new math? BS."
No, if x/0 = NaN in C, then the behavior is defined even if the result is effectively undefined. I thought that C simply didn't define the behavior of divide-by-zero entirely and thus left it up to the compiler designers.
Dooey Jo wrote:Try checking for exceptions. I'm pretty sure it's C++ standard that an integer division by zero should throw an exception.
C++ will not throw an exception
User avatar
Ariphaos
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-10-21 02:48am
Location: Twin Cities, MN, USA
Contact:

Post by Ariphaos »

phongn wrote:
Xeriar wrote:It's defined as undefined - ie, NaN. My beef on Slashdot was along similar lines - "He redefines undefined (which is high school math), gives it a new name and calls it new math? BS."
No, if x/0 = NaN in C, then the behavior is defined even if the result is effectively undefined. I thought that C simply didn't define the behavior of divide-by-zero entirely and thus left it up to the compiler designers.
Well there are a pair of overflow flags in the status register (in x86 processors). When the processor does a divide by zero, one or both of these is triggered (I think both, but I forget the specifics... my assembly courses were years ago - there are two flags representing different types of overflow situations).

The specific return from the processor depends on various set flags, but the condition is considered undefined and it's up to the flags and or the compiler and programmer-set directives to define what the result should be - some use Max_Float or Max_Int instead of NaN, for example - especially since the NaN convention is fairly recent (my oldest C books make no mention of it whatsoever despite discussing divide by 0 errors).

Borland's early compilers crashed on error if it wasn't specifically handled - I think Div0 was #200 (I saw it a lot >_>)
User avatar
B5B7
Jedi Knight
Posts: 787
Joined: 2005-10-22 02:02am
Location: Perth Western Australia
Contact:

Post by B5B7 »

Computers simply cannot divide by zero. Try it on your calculator and you'll get an error message.
One can get an error message with all sorts of things on a calculator.
Division by zero isn't simply an artifact of limits of calculator or computer operations - it is fundamental axiom of maths that can not divide by zero.
TVWP: "Janeway says archly, "Sometimes it's the female of the species that initiates mating." Is the female of the species trying to initiate mating now? Janeway accepts Paris's apology and tells him she's putting him in for a commendation. The salamander sex was that good."
"Not bad - for a human"-Bishop to Ripley
GALACTIC DOMINATION Empire Board Game visit link below:
GALACTIC DOMINATION
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6116
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Post by bilateralrope »

Computers simply cannot divide by zero. Try it on your calculator and you'll get an error message.
Most can't calculate the square root of negative 1 either, but complex numbers do have their uses.

So what problems does this definition solve, that defining x/0 = infinity doesn't ?
User avatar
DPDarkPrimus
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18399
Joined: 2002-11-22 11:02pm
Location: Iowa
Contact:

Post by DPDarkPrimus »

[quote]
Dear Dr. Science,

Why can't you divide by zero?


I can and often do divide by zero, but only after I've made the necessary preparations. First of all, I fast for 48 hours, consuming during that time only mildly fluoridated water. Next I don my special Teflon division-by-zero suit. Then I put on my digitally recorded compact disc of Gregorian chants and begin with dividing very small numbers by other very small numbers. As the numbers get smaller, the sparks begin to fly. If all goes well, I take a deep breath and divide a very small number by zero. There's a flash of light, a muffled roar, and when I regain consciousness, the lab is filled with smoke and the scent of burning mylar. So, you see, you can by divide by zero if you really want to. Chances are....you just don't want to badly enough.
Mayabird is my girlfriend
Justice League:BotM:MM:SDnet City Watch:Cybertron's Finest
"Well then, science is bullshit. "
-revprez, with yet another brilliant rebuttal.
User avatar
Sriad
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3028
Joined: 2002-12-02 09:59pm
Location: Colorado

Post by Sriad »

Darth Wong wrote:There is no way to "solve" the problem of the concept of division simply not being compatible with a denominator of zero. Division by zero will always be an undefined result. Assigning a name to that undefined result won't change anything.
Yea. L'hopital's rules let you do everything you CAN do in terms of meaningful division by 0 already.
User avatar
Lord Zentei
Space Elf Psyker
Posts: 8742
Joined: 2004-11-22 02:49am
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.

Post by Lord Zentei »

BBC really needs stricter editorial standards for their mathematical and scientific news articles. And by that I don't mean some random geek, I mean they need actual professionals with credentials on their payroll.

Despite this, they are markedly less bad than the great majority of mainstream media - a fact which is all the more shocking. I still cringe at the recollection of a news article on CNN.com which discussed a paper on abiogenesis where it was postulated that certain types of clay could have formed the protective environment for early self-replicating molecules. CNN's take: "Science now shows that life was created from clay, just as faiths preach". Ugh.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron

TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet

And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! :mrgreen: -- Asuka
Post Reply