1200-year-old problem 'easy'
Schoolchildren from Caversham have become the first to learn a brand new theory that dividing by zero is possible using a new number - 'nullity'. But the suggestion has left many mathematicians cold.

Given the, er, light-hearted mathematical debate Dr Anderson's theory has generated, we're delighted to announce he will join us on Tuesday 12 December to answer questions and discuss some of the criticisms levelled against his theory of 'nullity'.
You will be able to hear in more detail from Dr Anderson on this page later on Tuesday.
Many thanks for your comments.

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:
video Dividing by zero: Ben Moore reports >
video Dr Anderson's theory in detail >
Audio and Video links on this page require Realplayer

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.

source

He should be fired these kids will be laughed at when they get into high school and or college if they make it to college. I think Dr Anderson needs to explain this theory in more detail, instead of making up a whole new number.

I always thought if you divided by zero the number didn't actually change...

Pythagorian War Part Due.

So wow, all you need is a teaching license to start just making up your own rules?

It seems like it.

I am amazed at him: He cannot solve something so he just makes an arbitrary answer up that has absolutely no physical or mathematical meaning at all.
But then again, they did that with i more or less as well, and the imaginary number is commonly accepted now.
He should, however, confereed with professionals first before he went out to "teach" this to high-school students. A theory has to be accepted first before you start confusing kids who have better and more important things to learn.
div(0) is a very specialistic maths problem and high-school kids should not be bothered with it.

I will be very interested to follow the debate, but to say I am very sceptical about is is an understatement.



EDIT after taking the trouble of watching the video I can tell this is nonsence:
lim 1/x x--> 0 = infinity , but NOT 1/0 = inf
Also dividing by zero does not allow simple algebra, so his "evidence" cannot be used.

To give a (well-known?) example:
....................................a = b
(*a)...........................a*b = a^2
(-b^2).................a*b-b^2 = a^2 - b^2
(factor).................b*(a-b ) = (a+b )*(a-b )
(divide by a-b )...............b = a+b
(remember, a=b )...........b = 2*b
(divide by b )..................1 = 2

The thing is; since a=b, (a-b ) = 0, and you divide by it.
I hope this clears that normal algebra, as he uses in his equations is nonsence when you divide by 0.

Well all mathematics is a human creation (we defined all the laws and theorems, etc.) but I would still like to see him give a mathematical proof of his idea before he starts teaching it

12/0=0 Remainder 12

fizah. Thats what Im talking about.
I think I shall make up a number: it's called "alwayscorrectum" and its the correct mathematical answer to all mathematical questions. 1+1= alwayscorrectum. 0exp 0? = alwayscorrectum.

can you prove it?

Imaginary numbers actually do have a use. [besides scaring the hell out of students trying to overcome the idea]

Now thats getting a lot of gears turning ....... I smell something burning

Math is one of my strong subjects, but I'm gonna need some convincing that this can actually be done.

I don't think it can...unless he proves it.

Gosh, this guy sounds like my PreCalc teacher from two years ago. We (the students) knew more than she did!

Dividing by zero results in contradictions.

Lets say 10/0 =

being any number.

This would mean that..... x 0 = 10

And that isn't the case since anything multiplied by zero results in zero. So 10/0 can't equal anything.

10/0=0

0x10=0

Don't think about it too much

Zero isn't a value anyways, its more of a placeholder for nothing.

10/0 DOES NOT equal 0.

10/0 is undefined.

Well then. Wouldn't that make it

10x0=Undefined

How can you multiply by nothing?

If 10x0=0 why can't 10/0=0?

As I said 0 is not a value, its a placeholder.

0 is a value, it exists on the real number plane ranging (-∞, ∞)

That just makes it a reference point. Not a value.

No. Since it is undefined, you can't do that.


THAT IS WHY YOU CAN'T DIVIDE BY 0

0 only is a place holder here:

100
10000
2830
200300

like ashigaru said, it's a place holder.. nil
10/0 would imply 0*x=10.. which makes no sense since 0*x is always going to be 0.

how many nothings can we split 10 into.. lol

here's a simple answer, there is no answer.

Giving value to nothing to solve unsolvable equations...is not the answer infact 0 shouldn't even exist cause it is a name for nothing...10, 100, 1000 was written in pictures before numbers even existed...I believe it was the romans that invented that system although I could be wrong...
They themselves had no 0's in their numbering system....

a little adventuring into calculus teaches that you can divide by zero-- as a limit. for example, the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is infinity. the programming logic problems can be rerouted by if/then logic. you do not need to change math to do it, because it is only done for convenience and it will cause problems when trying to deal with a lot more complicated things. imagine how it would change L'Hospital's rule if the form 0/0 gives you something called "nullity" instead of letting you find the actual limit.

this seems to me like when they tried to get rid of fractions in the curriculum because they were "too hard"

Man the geek in here smells delicious. LOL

well I only took calculus 1 about a year ago, but from what i learned more like vaguely remember you never actually divide by zero, maybe a number like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 and if you do divide by zero its undefined as usual.

the closer you get to zero, the closer you get to infinity. the reason these are considered undefined is because infinity itself has no numerical value and is therefore itself undefinable. therefore, any finite number over zero is infinite. this is very very useful when you take l'hospital's rule into account, as well as riemann sums. how else could you add up an infinite number of rectangles of zero width?
point is, infinity and zero are closely related as mathematical concepts which are difficult to express in real-world functions. just because the number is undefined does not mean you cannot find a value for it.
consider
lim as x-->0 2x/x is very different from lim as x-->0 x/x
although both are technically undefined at zero because you get a form of 0*infinity, the two are very different as one would go to 2 and the other 1. it is concepts like these that would cause problems from defining infinity the way this guy wants us to.

boy, do i reek of geek.

cool, thats what I said.

whats the point

Mmm, smells like burning plastic.

This whole thread is about the number zero. A little Umbarger math here....

Conversation = 0

0= nothing

then conversation = nothing by way of 0.

Now, if I were to take the multiplicative of the conversation x 0 / UM = 29 posts debating over rather 0 has any value at all with a remainder of 1 dumb *ss post by me. See? It all works out in the end!

Another reason why he's a few almonds short of a fruit cake:

How is it possible to have a negative value of a number which is incalculable?