I could even make some mathematicians horrified by having turned the subject upside down, but so be it:
that aforesaid π – exquisitely geometric in the reality – it cannot be the object of instrumental geometry, it invalidates its absolute or indisputable validity.
Why can't a number that is part and function of natural intelligence - not artificial or resulting from mathematical devices - be geometrically representable? is it not geometry itself that claims the distinctive criterion of classification?However, I am confident that at the end of the reading they may have reviewed this reaction.
In other words, if that artificial π cannot result from, or belong to any algebraic equation with rational coefficients, this does not prove that [the true]
It has always been clear to everyone that a straightedge or ruler simply indicates a rod rightly suited to drawing straight lines, not millimetre-marked – nor should it be depicted that way, as almost all articles on the Web illustrate! – since it is not intended, nor enabled by practice to measure lines or distances, but only to produce them, as does the compass, which does not function as a protractor.
Was that already universalized a theoretical impossibility or a rhetorical impossibility? although exasperated in the most varied ways, in these inexperienced pages it risks collapsing unexpectedly.
The question haunted me: will not so much transcendence – that not even the
On the other hand, it cannot be scientifically excluded that the research approach developed to date may not be 100% exhaustive or substantial, even if it has been indispensable; since indeed it encloses and itself flaunts its geometric impracticability so sought after and ideally necessary.
A circle is not to be thought of as the limit of
a sequence of regular polygons with an ever-increasing number of sides.
Because it isn't.
Thanks to its transcendent nature, by no stretch a polygon can become circle.