16/34
|
Perhaps our thinking consciously "deludes itself" that this difference disappears completely "to the limit"; but if this were the case, the curve would also disappear, being no longer supported or justified by distances with a progressive inclination.
Going beyond the veracity of the possible cases would arrive at a rectilinear pace, interpreting the curvature by points only with a forcing.
This is true also if we are dealing with lines that, yet from a polygon of only 64 sides, even with an advanced graphics computer, must be enlarged in order to be able to distinguish them, as can be seen from this high-precision figure that zooms the previous one as far as the page allows, where the side -ai- on the background [angle 120°] is magnified and superimposed (thick lines – only half -ai- keeps visible, but you can view the full image).
On the other hand, I challenge the most experienced eye, or the most keen imagination (in physiological terms) to become aware of the horizontal difference of 95 hundredths of a thousandth in the size of an already microscopic chord.
I will repeat myself, but suppose for purely visual absurdity, we have maximized the figure (the background curvature is only symbolic) until we have reached with -av- and -vc- the graphic rendering of two indivisible and irreducible elementary units (not points, which are abused since they are nothing more than a position by coordinates), represented in the figure by two ellipses.
Although obviously the curvature would be minimal, if not imperceptible at this magnitude, it would remain so that even if it wanted to identify with the linear dimension of the unit itself, that of each subsequent unit would be inclined with respect to the tangent at the center of the previous unit. Such inclination will be added to the third unit with a fourth and so on… and, whenever expressing a numerical distance between three or more units, it will only reiterate the aforementioned gap. |
---|