24/34 In this case, it would not be at all obvious how an infinite number of points can be contained in a finite space, area or even segment, even more so if the fragments, such as the decimal tails, are discarded. These would be single entities and com­men­su­ra­ble with the existing for which they in turn follow spatial laws, until the limit of containment is reached. With infinite points on the other hand, all figures could boast identical extension. A point represents only a spatial intersection; and what is a line, if not an exclusive place of points? Can we perhaps today – just to meet Leibniz's pun – use or consider them vir­tu­al pix­els, by pure analogy? or else, how many points will need to be added to a line to alter its length? will be enough as many as the millions of sides of polygons that can be in­scribed in the circumference? Treccani then continues, on the same entry: It is true, says Carnot, that we make an error every time we substitute one quantity with another that differs by an infinitesimal; but the various errors compensate for each other, so that the final result is exact. But of this compensation he gives no direct evidence; I just don't see how it ever could; at least, I would have avoided using the term "exact". However in the case in question, at the moment in which the extreme min­i­mi­za­tion of the sides of a polygon would seem to [sub]merge with the cir­cum­fer­ence, regarding to the relative hundred thousandths added you should see the effect I recalled, since a summation occurs instead of compensations. Well, in the end it is only a question of ascertaining an error of less than 1‰ which in one way or another makes itself plausible, although 3,14 seems to have satisfied more or less everyone up to now as it is (and perhaps this it was its luck), even if 3,145 could probably have done better ... and here no one is at fault, except those who wanted to indirectly afflict the Power, sealing a mark of im­pos­si­bil­i­ty in the creation and to Divine Grace, at the conclusion of a long chain of ex­pe­di­ents, the only chance for improvised experimental meth­od­ologies. Do we want to discuss it for a few tenths of a thousandth? Mhmm Someone will object that math is not a ground for negotiation, but in that case – kidding aside – I'd have to answer the same thing! I agree that more could not have been done until yesterday to get as close as possible to the value of π with a specious method; but it is a surrogate, still a­waiting con­ver­sion; whose maximum character of rationality consists, in the light of these data, precisely in the artificial way in which it was constructed: a stopgap that right in fact conflicts with a potential transcendent logic. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS , IT IS EXACTLY IN THIS THAT RESIDES THE RIGHT MEANING OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY TO SQUARE THE CIRCLE, WHICH NEVER MUST BE EX­CHANGED WITH THE POSSIBILITY, WHICH I AM REVEALING, TO GEOMETRICALLY TRACE THE SQUARE WITH PERIMETER AND AREA CORRESPONDING TO THE CIR­CUM­FER­ENCE AND TO THE CIRCLE! Do you believe that the Creative Intelligence has put in place exhaustive polygonal methods to trigger the π? or that It has resorted to an impracticable parameter?