### Nullity and dividing by zero by professor James Anderson

Recently this was highlighted at Slashdot and Digg.com both.

A math professor James Anderson has made a new 'number' or entity that he calls NULLITY, in order to solve problems such as 0/0, which traditionally is left undefined.

Basically he first defined 1/0 as infinity, -1/0 as negative infinity, and 0/0 as nullity, using Φ (Phi) as a symbol for it. He said this nullity lies outside our normal number line, not on it.

I watched the video shown on BBC news, and there he went on to show what happens with the "age-old" problem of 0

Anderson said in the comments following the main article on BBC that two other professors have helped him develop axioms for this new theory, and one of them checked them for consistency.

So.... a new theory. It doesn't sound that earthshaking to me; in fact I wonder if somebody in times past hasn't already tried this...?

(And yes, there exists a system for an "extended real number line".)

In the BBC 'divide by zero' article, you can leave comments, and lots of people have. Most of those seem to be on the mocking angle, putting down the theory.

That truly disappointed me! The same attitude seemed to prevail in people's comments at Digg.com.

Haven't we learned? The best I can remember from math history, negative numbers were certainly disliked and resisted for a long time, becore accepted by mathematicians.

And similarly when complex numbers came on the scene - Descarteds coined the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term.

It seems that no one knows an application or use for this idea - at this time. But so what? It's no reason for ridiculing someone's theory. He has even consistent axioms written for it.

People have found uses for negative and complex numbers; they've proven very useful. Time will tell if this theory is of use or not; that's not my expertise or business at all. But I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to judge.

A math professor James Anderson has made a new 'number' or entity that he calls NULLITY, in order to solve problems such as 0/0, which traditionally is left undefined.

Basically he first defined 1/0 as infinity, -1/0 as negative infinity, and 0/0 as nullity, using Φ (Phi) as a symbol for it. He said this nullity lies outside our normal number line, not on it.

I watched the video shown on BBC news, and there he went on to show what happens with the "age-old" problem of 0

^{0}, (zero to zeroth power) using just normal rules of arithmetic plus these definitions:

0 ^{0}= 0 ^{(1 − 1)}= 0^{1}× 0^{-1}=(0/1) ^{1}× (0/1)^{-1}

Now, for every number, the 1st power is the number itself, while the -1 power is its reciprocal:

= (0/1) × (1/0) = (0 × 1) / (1 × 0 ) = 0/0 = Nullity.

Anderson said in the comments following the main article on BBC that two other professors have helped him develop axioms for this new theory, and one of them checked them for consistency.

So.... a new theory. It doesn't sound that earthshaking to me; in fact I wonder if somebody in times past hasn't already tried this...?

(And yes, there exists a system for an "extended real number line".)

In the BBC 'divide by zero' article, you can leave comments, and lots of people have. Most of those seem to be on the mocking angle, putting down the theory.

That truly disappointed me! The same attitude seemed to prevail in people's comments at Digg.com.

Haven't we learned? The best I can remember from math history, negative numbers were certainly disliked and resisted for a long time, becore accepted by mathematicians.

And similarly when complex numbers came on the scene - Descarteds coined the term 'imaginary' as a derogatory term.

It seems that no one knows an application or use for this idea - at this time. But so what? It's no reason for ridiculing someone's theory. He has even consistent axioms written for it.

People have found uses for negative and complex numbers; they've proven very useful. Time will tell if this theory is of use or not; that's not my expertise or business at all. But I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to judge.

## Comments

Math will always suffer from blunders like this until a formal theory of triviality is adopted.

First, "The Existence of a Trivial is Indeterminate". This is very important and easy to prove. It says that you cannot prove whether an object is really itself, or if it might in fact be an identical clone of itself. That this is strictly "indeterminate". This is also true of numbers, etc. There are many simple proofs of this.

It is clear that there are 3 distinct existential types to consider:

1) That which exists.

2) That which is nonexistent.

3) The trivial, where "existence is indeterminate".

James Anderson was after something but he missed it, and this is what it was. Triviality.

Triviality is an extremely useful concept and thus far is not part of mainstream math. Eventually, this will change.

Here is a neat thing to consider, a clever trick using triviality :

I have zero bananas, and Bob has zero kiwis. We have the same thing, we have zero. So, when is a banana a kiwi ? When you have zero of each !

This is triviality in action. I think it's pretty cool.

Cheers -

Becky

If in the case x/0, there were a real number, z, that this equalled, we would be saying (by the fact that multiplication is the inverse operation for division), that 0*z = x, where x is non-zero. There is no real number z that has this property (all real numbers times 0 are 0, by the multiplicative property of zero). So the operation of division of a non-zero real number by 0 must be undefined.

However, with 0/0 (and 0^0, which can be shown to be the same thing as 0/0), let 0/0 = y. By the same argument, we are claiming that 0*y = z. What is y? ANY real number, by the multiplicative property of zero, again). WHICH ONE? It can't be determined.

So this, I hope, highlights a key difference between undefined and indeterminate.

As to the mocking of the nullity concept, that seems all-too-typical. I've not thought about it, but I would't dismiss it out of hand without a lot of thought and conversation with others. Lots of wise fools out there seem awfully quick to make fun without considering that history may see them as the fools in the long run. Thanks for posting and bringing attention to Anderson's idea.

From mthforum.org, it seems that Dr. Anderson's derivation of 0^0 is invalid.

The fatal step is at

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

0^-1 is the multiplicative inverse of 0 which he has already defined as +infinity. Therefore what we really have is 0^0 = 0 * +infinity.

And 0 * +infinity is also an indeterminite form so we cannot proceed onto the 0/0 step.

Therefore the assertion that 0^0 = nullity is fallacious.

Check out the 'extended real number line' for a system similar to Dr. Anderson's system that is very careful in defining what is allowed and what is not.

Other problems include:

Real numbers are not closed under division (no zero divisors). By introducing +infinity, -infinity and nullity, Dr. Anderson makes his system not closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as well!

I hope Dr. Anderson gets to read this last comment himself to see the 'fatal' error...

'0 * +infinity' has not been established yet from his axioms therefore it cannot be used sneakily in his proof.

I suppose you can say that he can define '0 * +infinity' as another axiom in his system but that becomes another new system that also has to be proven consistent. Ie. you should not be able to derive a contradiction from just the axioms eg. 1=2 or +infinity=nullity, etc.

This supposed new proof is not presented on the BBC website.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/12/nullity_061212_feature.shtml

According to Dr Anderson, the system has been checked for consistency by hand by himself and by machine at another unnamed university. I have a Mathematics degree from Oxford and am studying for a Masters in Mathematical Modelling. So far I can't see anything immediately wrong with the system.

The 'flawed' step is only a problem for real numbers, not transreal numbers.

The difference between real numbers and transreal numbers is the different axioms each system uses.

0*infinity is indeterminate only in the real numbers. This proof is not in the real numbers, it is in the TRANSREAL NUMBERS.

Reference : http://www.bookofparagon.com/Mathematics/PerspexMachineVIII.pdf

So 0^0 = nullity is a theorem in his system but his derivation is still incorrect (hint: his system is not a field or even a ring)

Anderson's transreal arithmetic is more similar to wheels (see wikipedia's entry under Wheel_theory) which are not fields either. The key difference between those two is that wheels define multiplicative inverses everywhere, which in turn implies that there is no difference between +infinity and -infinity. Anderson's arithmetic preserves that distinction.

Anderson's arithmetic shows a lot of influence from the work on IEEE floating point numbers. The principal difference between those two is that nullity is a number but NaN is not. As a consequence, nullity = nullity but NaN /= NaN. NaN is more like an error state but nullity is a sensible value.

The most interesting aspect of this unfolding story has been the social one. The hostile reaction to Anderson's work is all too often personal and frequently accompanied by "counter-proofs" with elementary mistakes.

It seems to me that we have become over-sensitised to quackery. And when something comes along that doesn't fit the standard, we challenge it reflexively as if it was quackery, without pausing for consideration. It is a kind of intellectual laziness in an overloaded world.

For me, the moral of this story has been that debunkers should always be polite - just in case, as appears to be true here, that the "nonsense" is nothing of the kind.

If you have a reason why his derivation is wrong, I think you should write to Dr Anderson and tell him why. And post the reason on this blog. We want to know!

Maths from Oxford

(Example : 1/0 = infinity is not a rule of real arithmetic. 1/0 is usually undefined in real arithmetic.)

When you say he's arguing I'm right because I say so in my axioms you're right. That's why I think the application of nullity remains to be seen.

I also think that it's irresponsible to start on a proof in front of a group of kids without first explaining how and why your system is different to the normal rules they learn.

Maths from Oxford

post by Lawrence Gage.

In programming, it's called NaN (not a number), for example.

In mathematics, there is also something called the Extended Real system which incorporates the infinities as numbers.

Basically, once you get into the "nullity" concept in an equation, there is no way out, so it doesn't help anyone produce anything useful.

The ridicule was the fact that he had not consulted other mathematicians who would have easily known such previous facts. The other major ridicule was directed at BBC for publishing this. News reporters always jump on subjects that say "ooh, zero reinvented" or "speed of light broken" without consulting other scientists first as to whether or not the work has been TRIED and TESTED in the past. it has nothing to do with ridiculing new theories. his work is just plain not new.

Great new concepts in any scientific field tend to show up in research journals first. Even the great geniuses of the past published to journals about their findings, not the BBC.

0phi=1

i^2=-1

i^2=+1

e^x=-1

Let's say 0/0=nullity (where nullity is an alien number )

0/0=(0-0)/0=(0/0)-(0/0)=nullity-nullity=0 !

p.s. I'm an alien, not an idiot !