The first definition (prior to the well-known five postulates) of Euclid describes the point as “that of which there is no part”. Here we show how the Euclidean account of manifolds is untenable in our physical realm and that the concepts of points, lines, surfaces, volumes need to be revisited, in order to allow us to be able to describe the real world. Here we show that the basic object in a physical context is a traversal of spacetime via tiny subregions of spatial regions, rather than the Euclidean point. We also elucidate the psychological issues that lead our mind to think to points and lines as really existing in our surrounding environment.
Authors: Ryan Haddad
Comments: 1 Page.
This conjecture may be a tool in defining the indefinite tangent of 90 degrees, and is a (new) mathematical coincidence that is indeed strange; why would the tangent of angles near 90 degrees be equal to the angle of the radian multiplied by powers of 10? In fact, if there is no geometrical explanation in current mathematics, it may resides in metamathematics.