Nullity is nothing.<BR>

First off, I recognize that <A HREF="http://80below.com/Geek/antea.html">Antea professed that thinking outside the normals</A> is what's required to move on. <BR>
Not only do I recognize it, I rather enjoy looking at the world from an ever-so-slight skewed perspective.<BR>
<BR>
However, <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml">this guy </a> is a moron.<BR>

<BR>
As most of the universe falls under non-euclidean space, it could be, if you were a crackhead, argued that his theory could (possibly) be applied to non-eucliden space, as 1+1 != 2. (cos^ -1 (x*y/||x|| ||y||), and all that), but even still, he can't provide a proof for either hyperbolic or elliptic space.<BR>

<BR>
How do people progress this far is their careers by professing whacked shit like this?  Here's a simple (read high school level) proof that he's not right.<BR>
Take, f(x)=(sin x)/x. As x gets closer to zero, sin x also gets closer to zero. When x=0, sin x = 0. However, as sin x = x - x^3/3! + x^5/5! + ...., when x is very small, you can say that (with very small error) sin x = x; so, (sin x)/x when x is very small is 1, no matter what is the value of x. So, f(0) = (sin 0)/0 "=" 0/0 = 1.<BR>
<BR>
Now, g(x)=(1 - cos x)/x. As x gets closer to zero, cos x gets closer to 1, so (1 - cos x) gets closer to zero. Etc, etc; but cos x = 1 - x^2/2! + x^4/4! + ...., so when x is very small, you can say that (with very small error) cos x = (1 - x^2/2), so (1 - cos x) = x^2/2. So, for very small x, g(x) = (x^2/2)/x, or g(x)=x/2. So, g(0) = (1 - cos 0)/0 "=" 0/0 = 0.<BR>
<BR>
If he defines 0/0 = something, then 0 = 1. 0/0 can be defined as a limit of whatever function you use, but it changes for each function.<BR>
<BR>
Making shit up and giving it a name doesn't serve any purpose.<BR>
<BR>
This is not a beautiful miracle.<BR>