You are on page 1of 86

Toward the Determination of the Non-numeric Value of the Golden Section

By Charles B. Stevens, 2/1/2013

Almost two decades ago Lyndon H. LaRouche specified that the non- numeric value for the Golden Section could be derived from the then recently rediscovered Carl Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum through the application of the Eudoxus Method of Exhaustion. The determination of this non-numeric valuation of the Golden Section is essential to both the immediate and near- term survivable of the human species on this Earth. Only in the last 50 years has the degree of threat to human survival from asteroid and comet impacts emerged as the data on past such events and observation of current actual planetary impacts and growing numbers of observed near-misses have grown exponentially. (This is not to mention more distant astronomical threats such as the recently detected Vela emissions.) Due to the work of such scientists as Eugene Merle Shoemaker and the spectacular impacts of Comet Shoemaker- Levy-9 on Jupiter, science leaders such as Dr. Edward Teller initiated efforts for mobilizing Planetary Defense and more recently the Russian proposed program for Strategic Defense of the Earth (SDE). And while all such efforts should be fostered and supported, they may prove to be not sufficiently effective to meet the actual threat. What is minimally required are major advances in our scientific comprehension of the dynamics of the Asteroid belt. Any such advance will depend on the determination and general recognition of the non-numeric valuation for the Golden Section. More immediately the United States and Europe are threatened with an immediate economic collapse fueled by super hyperinflation and the march toward global thermonuclear war. The inability to meet these dual threats to the immediate survival is strongly reinforced by the long-term degeneration of culture and education leading to an almost complete absence of creative thought generally. Concomitantly, the composition and practice of classical music and art has essentially evaporated. As history has shown, the renewed recognition and practice of Golden Section harmonics are essential for reversing this collapse and sparking a revival from this nadir for human civilization.

Kepler's Asteroid Belt

Johannes Kepler (1596) famously forecast the existence of the Asteroid Belt. But it was not until Carl Gauss provided the specification for asteroid orbits that, just about 200 years later, scientists were able to make telescopic direct observation of them. Kepler's forecast of the Asteroid Belt were based on the method by which he discovered his principle of Universal Gravity and the characteristic physical dynamics of planetary orbits. Kepler's work increased the accuracy of astronomical forecasts by several orders of magnitude. About 7 decades later, a practicing witch, who later became an accountant and chief torturer for the English Treasury, utilized the work of others to derive an inverse square law for representing the Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Sir Isaac Newton's work did not significantly affect the accuracy of astronomic observations. (Gauss's work provided the leap in astronomic accuracies, again, by several orders of magnitude.) In the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, Newton discusses the differences between his approach and that of Kepler. According to Newton, Kepler's approach was primarily focused on the formation and evolution of the Solar System as a unified process, while Newton was only concerned with “accounting” for what we currently observe. Newton assumed that the “lump” masses of the planets interact pairwise. Kepler derived his laws for planetary dynamics on the general Golden Section harmonics of the system as a whole and their evolution. For Kepler, particular aspects of the system were to be derived from the harmonics of the system as a whole. The work of Kepler can be explored in detail here:

http://science.larouchepac.com/kepler/harmony/

Implicitly Kepler's notion of the Asteroid belt was that it acted as a sort of placenta of Solar System's birth. What we see today is the detritus of that placenta. Explicitly, the actual determination of the Asteroid Belt was an experimental verification of Kepler's method and concept of Universal Gravity, as opposed to multi-body chaos of Newton. To make any progress on fundamentally comprehending the dynamics of the Asteroid Belt we must revive Kepler's approach and no longer worship the abominable Newton

concoction. A crucial feature of that revival of the Kepler approach is the necessity of recognizing the actual non-numeric value of the Golden Section.

Eudoxus

To carry out this determination and demonstration for the actual non- numeric valuation of the Golden Section it is essential that we address the second issue raised in the opening paragraphs. At a later point I will develop a number of precise exercises to demonstrate and explore “native” human creativity. But there still remains the problem that we do not emerge into the world as blank sheets. By the age of reason we have had embedded in our personal psychologies the personalities and key experiences of thousands of generations or more. How can we even begin to organize this vast array in any rational manner? One approach is to proceed through a program in which one relives the creation of great discoveries, like that of Kepler and Bach. I will proceed by first laying out Lyndon LaRouche's specifications of his concept of the Golden Section. We will then address the one almost universal block to creative thinking: Euclid. And, in general, we will proceed by developing the anti-Euclidean method of Carl Friedrich Gauss and Lyndon H. LaRouche. This process will be informed through the application of the Eudoxus Method of Exhaustion. Even among many of his closest collaborators it is believed that LaRouche made an error in 1994 when he suggested the application of the Eudoxus Method of Exhaustion to the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum to derive and demonstrate the non-numeric value of the Golden Section. First of all, none of Eudoxus's original work remains extant. Second, all extant sources report that the Eudoxus Method is identical to that of Archimedes. And in 1994 LaRouche and others had completed a series of papers demonstrating that Nicholas of Cusa had refuted the Archimedes Method of Exhaustion and its application to the Measurement of the Circle. Obviously, Lyndon LaRouche thought there was a basis for distinguishing Eudoxus from Archimedes. It is only recently that I have developed the means of addressing this question.

I will take the specifications for the Golden Section from a September 9, 1986 LaRouche paper titled “Truth is Beauty, And Beauty is Truth:

Understanding the Science of Music.”

LaRouche Specifications

The design of the Athens Acropolis is one of the true wonders of ancient civilization. Contrary to some textbook myth-making, the Acropolis's design was not a hodge-podge of successive additions at different points in time. The final structure was the fulfillment of a comprehensive, original design, to the effect, that from Erectheum, through Parthenon, and Nike Apteros by the gate, the whole is a coherent design, based on the elaboration of a single principle.

The principle of design, is a constructable series of divisions of the circle. These divisions correspond to the harmonic composition of the human form. Underlying that ordering, is a very special geometric construction, the Golden Section. All great classical Greek plastic art and music were based on that same ordering principle: the harmonic orderings determined implicitly by the Golden Section ....

Plato's dialogues are the first still-surviving source in European literature, for the proof that whatever is beautiful according to these principles is also truth, and that whatever is truthful is also beautiful. Plato's dialogues define the proposition, that physical science is the study of the universe in terms of the same Golden-Section harmonics ....

Modern physical science was founded by Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa.

Formally, Cusa's founding of modern science appeared first in the 1440 publication of his De Docta Ignorantia (“Of Learned Ignorance”), and in those of his sermons which address the same matters. In this, Cusa picks up the central topic of Plato's Parmenides dialogue (most emphatically), the knowable and efficient interconnection between the macrocosm (the universe, etc) and the microcosm (the human individual, etc.). In De Docta Ignorantia, Cusa's treatment of this connection is posed in terms of the efficient interconnection between the Maximum (the macrocosm) and the Minimum (the microcosm).

This writing has many implications for the most fundamental issues of physical science, but two of those features are most noteworthy at this

immediate point

First,

Cusa presents his argument in the terms of what

.... modern science terms a “synthetic,” or “purely constructive” geometry. A synthetic geometry is one, which prohibits all axioms and any use of an axiomatic-deductive method of argument; the only allowed argument is one based on construction from a starting-point of nothing but circular action ...

(End of first selection)

We shall proceed along the lines suggested above on the Athens Acropolis And that shall provide our model, though, instead of describing that particular construction we shall set fourth a series of hypothesized first constructions for the first calendar with its embedded “star map.” As suggested by Tilak, this star map was realized tens of thousands of years ago. It furthermore provided the basis for global navigation over the world's oceans. See

And while the realization of that workable star map took thousands of years, nevertheless, I believe it is the product of a single harmonically coherent conception and not the episodic gathering of simple observations. In fact the

transmission of that star map research and development over many, many generations was carried out via hymns as detailed by Tilak. At the core of this harmonically coherent conception was the continually perfecting, non- numeric Golden Section value. Thus the Golden Section exists as a tranfinitely, self-developing ordering principle as strongly put forward by Fra Luca Pacioli,even before the counting numbers come into existence.

  • I would further suggest that the more mundane methods of measure and

ordering are projections down to more limited applications of these star map Golden Section harmonics. It is hoped that as we begin to unfold my hypothesized series of constructions we will see the emergence of a more and more perfected non-numeric Golden Section harmonic and emergence of the

Eudoxus Method of Exhaustion, together with the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum Kepler triangle centered construction. There is apparently a rather large monument whose composition reflects on that series of constructions, the Great Pyramid at Giza. The connection of Eudoxus to the first star map is even more provocative. This is given in Acts XVII where Paul makes the only scientific citation in the New Testament, that is, to Eudoxus's book on astronomy, Phaenomena. Paul quotes Eudoxus to the effect that the first principle of science is that all humankind are “offspring” of God, the Minimum-Maximum principle of Cusa cited above, or, in other words, all humans are made in the image of the living God (Imago Viva Dei). Interesting enough, Paul also goes on to the elucidate essential features of the Eudoxus Method of Exhaustion. As we will see, this is developed in much greater detail by Leibniz (the notion of transcreation) in his Dialogue on Continuity and Motion. (See “The Labyrinth of the Continuum, Writings on the Problem, 1672-1686, G.W. Leibniz,” translated by Richard T. W. Arthur.) It is precisely the “little leaps and miracles” that Leibniz elaborates there that distinguishes Eudoxus's method from that of Archimedes. And as Paul indicates, this quote shows the general direction of Eudoxus's method, top down, and not bottom up like Euclid.

LaRouche Specifications II

Second, Cusa presents the first statement of the most fundamental principle of a synthetic geometry, a principle know to modern geometrical topologists as “the isoperimetric theorem.”

Nothing respecting form is self-evident in the universe, except that there exists a relatively minimum perimetric action which defines a relatively

maximum area or volume. From this starting-point, all

...

physics can be

properly constructed, without permitting any resort to axiomatic-deductive- logical methods .....

The period of Leonardo da Vinci's greatest efflorescence began in Milan, Italy, during the 1480s. At Milan, Leonardo became a close collaborator of

Fra Luca Pacioli, the later author of the famous De Divine Proportione. Pacioli concentrated on elaborating crucial features of Plato's work from the vantage-point of Cusa's scientific writings. This led to Pacioli's elaboration of

the work

...

[of]

...

the

proof of Plato's report, that, in visible space, only five

regular solids can be constructed: the so-called “five Platonic solids.” ....

The first indicated proof of the uniqueness of the five Platonic solids had been supplied to Plato by a contemporary working at the Cyrenaic temple of Ammon. However, that proof itself was later misplaced. It was not until Pacioli, that the proof was rediscovered.

In brief, the construction of one of the five Platonic solids, the twelve-[faced] dodecahedron, is accomplished by first constructing the Golden Section. By simple division, the other four are constructed as a series: the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, and the icosahedron. No others are possible in visible space. (The fact that there are twelve tones in a musical scale, is shown to be necessary by understanding the topological implications of this construction.)

The next step

...

was

the collaboration among Pacioli, Leonardo, and their

associates, in proving that the form of living processes was also based on the

principles of proof of the five Platonic solids.

The medieval effort to explain the harmonic peculiarities of growth of living species' populations, had been Leonardo of Pisa's Fibonacci-number series. This method, based on arithmetic, rather than geometry, gives an interesting appoximation, but explains very little scientifically. Pacioli and Leonardo proved, that all living processes have a characteristic harmonic pattern in form of growth, which is consistent with the Golden Section. A Fibonacci- number series does converge upon the values determined by the Golden Section, but the attempt to understand this convergence from the standpoint of an axiomatic arithmetic or axiomatic algebra, leads to absurd results.

Today, we know, that, on condition that we except the extremes of scale, of astrophysics and microphysics, from consideration, that any process which has a harmonic ordering congruent with the Golden Section, is either a living process or a special class of object produced by a living process. It is a fact ....

that the fundamental laws of astrophysics and microphysics, are also based on harmonic orderings congruent with the Golden Section. The “fine structure constant,” which reflects the curvature of physical space-time on

both the astrophysical and microphysical scales, is one example of this constant speed of light and the quantum constant, also reflect, interdependently, the same connection ....

....

the

This work shaped Leonardo's fundamental discoveries in what became later several branches of physical science: hydrodynamics generally, optics as a branch of hydrodynamics, acoustics as a branch of hydrodynamics, Leonardo's discovery of the constant speed of light, of acoustical shock- fronts, of the wave-function of the propagation of all radiation, and so forth. The collaboration of Pacioli and Leonardo on the harmonics of living processes, leads into the relevant work of Louis Pasteur, and into modern optical biophysics ...

The only rational definition of “art,” is that which combines natural beauty (Golden-Section-congruent harmonics) with the essential characteristics of fundamental scientific discovery. The latter, “essential characteristics,” signifies that the composition of the work of art must be fully consistent with exactly the same creative faculties of mind required to effect a fundamental scientific discovery. The included restriction is: in no way, must the creative faculty violate the principle of beauty, and also, in no way must beauty as achieved by any means but the elaboration of this “essential characteristic.”

The relationship between the principle of beauty and the creative principle, which we have just identified, is of the form we call “doubly-connected” in synthetic geometry.

For example, in the case of doubly-connected circular action, an “independent degree” of circular action is acting upon circular action constantly. By adding a third, “independent degree” of circular action, we generate everything which it is possible to generate by construction within the bounds of visible space. (The “bounds of visible space,” are defined as to principle by the proof of the uniqueness of the five Platonic solids.)

In the case of art, beauty and creativity are, respectively, “independent degrees.” The one can not be derived simply from the other, and the action of neither can modify the moment as such. At every imaginable point, in the physical space-time of artistic composition, beauty is acting upon creativity, and creativity is acting upon beauty, such that the effect is their combined action, but that neither action as such is altered by the other. At least, this limitation is the first-approximation case, pending consideration of more advanced principles derived from the elaboration of this case.

However, creativity itself has a characteristic form of action. This is demonstrated by comparing the most fundamental laws common to astrophysics, living processes (as distinct from dead or inorganic ones), and microphysics. To make such a comparison, requires that we consider nothing true about the lawful composition of living processes, which does not distinguish each and all living processes absolutely from non-living ones. To make such a comparison requires, that nothing is fundamentally lawful in astrophysics or microphysics, which is not consistent with the absolute principle distinguishing living from non-living processes.

The widespread, ignorant assumption among literate persons, is that “laws of the universe” signifies fixed laws, as we associate “fixed laws” with the mechanics of Isaac Newton, for example. As Philo Judaeus of Alexandria argued correctly, Judeo-Christian theology views belief in “fixed laws” as not only very bad cosmogny, but as a most insulting attitude toward the Creator.

In Genesis, the Creator composed the beginning of the universe out of a formless void. If Plato were to read such a passage, he would grasp the meaning of this more or less correctly, and instantly so. From the standpoint of modern Platonic science, that of Gauss and Riemann, we are able to be more precise than Plato might have been. Plato would insist that we read any passage as profound as this one in the language of a synthetic geometry. From the standpoint of modern synthetic geometry, the mathematical physics of Gauss and Riemann, we can read this more precisely.

In synthetic geometry since Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia, the presentation of elementary synthetic geometry from an advanced standpoint, begins with

nothing but triply-connected circular action, acting within a domain which seems otherwise to be a formless void. No particles exist, no straight lines exist, no notion of measurement exists. This action creates a straight line, and then creates the first point. In the process of generating these two creations, the idea of measurement is first introduced, as divisibility by one half. With nothing more than these beginnings, every form which can be constructed in visible space is created, without introducing anything new from the outside.

(End of Selection II)

Construction I

This last construction, the double fold of the circle, provides a useful point at which to proceed to our first construction for the star map. Following Tilak, we assume that the first calendars were constructed in the Arctic region. Thus, the first calendar has only one day and one night in the week, month and year. It is a solar based frame since the sunset and sunrise are precise events termed astrophysically as the equinox. We begin by following LaRouche's suggestion. We fold the Celestial Equator of the Earth, the circular action extremum of the rotating star field, upon itself. This generates a diameter of that equator circle. If we fold it a second time, we generate both a division by two of that diameter and the apparent center of the Celestial Equator. Freeze our construction at this point and look at “in between the notes of the composition.” At the initiation of the second fold we are confronted with a choice: Shall it be a right-hand, or, left-hand fold? Does this issue of handedness introduce some hidden axiom or postulate? Does one or the other make any difference? While considering that, let us interrupt the second fold halfway. The quarter circle we are folding would be pointed straight up. The circle radius it carries would be at a right angle to the remaining circular action radius which remains in the plane of the first circular action. Is this up radius pointing at anything? From the standpoint of our star map, it points to the first singularity of our map: the Pole Star. This is the only star that does not apparently move. What is the relationship between this Pole Star and the Celestial Equator? This in between of our circle double fold provides the

conceptual basis and generating principle for Gauss's complex domain. From that construction standpoint, the Pole Star is called the Pole and the Celestial equator, its Polar. These are not definitions, but marks in a continuous process of lawful creation. (One should review Bertrand Russell's attacks on Riemann's Hypotheses paper in general and his attacks on Riemann's “quanta,” quantum from the standpoint of this construction. See Foundations of Geometry.) From this standpoint we have in hand the rigorous synthetic geometric process for generating Gauss's square root of minus one, “i”, once we have resolved the question concerning handedness of the fold. Consideration of this issue immediately catapults our efforts into the realm of synthetic physical geometry.

Here is a quote from Gauss's second biquadratics paper on these questions:

"To form a concrete picture of these relationships it is necessary to construct a spatial representation, and the simplest case is, where no reason exists for ordering the symbols for the objects in any other way than in a quadratic array, to divide an unbounded plane into squares by two systems of parallel lines, and chose as symbols the intersection points of the lines. Every such point A has four neighbors, and if the relation of A to one of the neighboring points is denoted by +1, then the point corresponding to -1 is automatically determined, while we are free to choose either one of the remaining two neighboring points, to the left or to the right, as defining the relation to be denoted by + i. This distinction between right and left is, once one has arbitrarily chosen forwards and backwards in the plane, and upward and downward in relation to the two sides of the plane, in and of itself completely determined, even though we are able to communicate our concept of this distinction to other persons only by referring to actually existing material objects.*

[* Kant already had made both of these remarks, but we cannot understand how this sharp-witted philosopher could have seen in the first remark a proof of his opinion, that space is only a form of our external perception, when in fact the second remark proves the opposite, namely that space must have a real meaning outside of our mode of perception.]

What Gauss is referring to are two early papers by Kant and Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. In all three Kant attacks Leibniz, and, Leibniz's concept of

analysis situs--what is known today as topology—in particular. In the early papers Kant brings up handedness to prove that one can only “communicate our concept of this distinction to other persons by referring to actually existing material objects.”

In his Critique Kant presents the opposite proposition on chirality, while still attacking Leibniz. (This oversight is almost congenital among reductionists and those who deny the very thought of human creative mentation. Bertrand Russell famously overlooks the very possibility of topology in his dissertation on the foundations of geometry in attacking Bernard Riemann and his physical geometry, which Riemann had directly developed on the basis of Leibniz's and Gauss's concepts. In fact Riemann directly refers to the above quote in his Hypotheses that Underlie Geometry habilitation paper which Einstein correctly emphasizes provides the foundations for his concept of relativity. Yet everything that Russell proclaims in his foundations paper is implemented with an iron fist in science and mathematics. This issue of chirality also underscores the connection between Felix Klein and Russell. Klein devoted his life's work to attacking Jacob Steiner on this question of right-hand versus left-hand on this, (Steiner was Riemann's geometry instructor), and distorting Riemann's work.)

Here are a few excerpts from Carl Friedrich Gauss Titan of Science on this question.

Once we have located the generation of the Pole and its Polar within this synthentic physical geometric framework of Gauss, it can usefully be pointed out that virtually everything that Gauss and Riemann do is grounded in the Pole and Polar process—that is Gauss's secret—the general process of “inversion,” or reciprocity. We are now confronted with the need to generate a “miracle” or what Leibniz also terms “a little leap.” In this case the leap is rather far, from the macrocosm of the celestial equator with a virtually infinite diameter to a local reproduction in the microcosm. This can be done by either reproducing a model of the celestial hemisphere on a hemispherical mound of dirt, or, a hemispherical hole. In any case we see that our singular center links up with another astronomical singularity, the pole of the Celestial Equator, the pole star which does not move, everything else apparently does. This also demonstrates the essential tool of all of Gauss's and Riemann's constructions and all of synthetic geometry, the pole (North Star) and polar (Celestial Equator of the Earth), more generally know as the process of inversion, triangle reflection and reciprocity. (Reference Pierre Beaudry's articles.) I will now suggest an alternative to this first cut at the initial construction. This is provided by master synthetic geometer, Jakob Steiner, who was also the geometry teacher of Bernhard Riemann. He published a little book on constructions with a straightedge and a fixed circle. That was in effect the title of the work when first published in German. David Hilbert reacted quite strongly to this. Without a center to the fixed circle being given, which is incorporated into the title of later editions of the same book, one can construct very little and not reproduce all of Euclid's constructions, as Steiner suggests his method will. What you do have is a fairly good basis of generating what later became known as hyperbolic geometry, the anti- Euclidean geometry of Carl Gauss. Hilbert launched a major research effort to determine what you would need minimally if you were given just a straightedge and a fixed circle with no center being given. Hilbert reported that you could find the circle center and thus carry out all of Euclid's constructions if you had two concentric circles, or two intersecting circles or three circles in general. What you can construct in the hyperbolic case are complete quadrilaterals. This first consists of four lines which form two intersecting V's. The four

intersections of V's give a four-sided quadrilateral. If you add three more lines--a total of seven lines which may indicate where the week comes from at a later point when we learn how to count—you have what is termed an harmonic division of a line into three pieces. The three required lines are the two extended diagonals of the quadrilateral and the line determined by the vertexes of the original V's. The two extended diagonals in general will intersect this line connecting the V's vertexes. Altogether along this line there will be four points dividing the line into three segments. Let us call the three segments from left to right successively, A, B, C. And they are related by the following A is to B as the entire length A+B+C is to C.

If we explore the continued extension of this initial quadrilateral through generating lines through newly generated points, like the lines through the intersection of the diagonals and V vertexes, we generate more and more harmonic divisions. And this leads to an infinitely extendable net or map of harmonically connected singularity points and line segments. At first sight it appears that this harmonic net can be infinitely extended out or in so that it densely covers any space we project it upon. We arrive at even more interesting results if we use our centerless fixed circle to generate quadrilaterals. We intersect one V with the circle, which for convenience we locate its vertex outside the circle. This generates four intersection points. We can utilize these four point to generate the second V of the quadrilateral. We find that lines 8 and 9 suggested above generate new intersections with the circle which are the four tangent points for the two V vertexes. That is we can construct the four tangents from the centerless circle to the vertex points. Here is the actual construction:

From a point external to the circle construct two lines which cut the interior of the circle. This forms a V cutting through the circle interior.

We then construct a second V from the four circle intersection points generated by the first

We then construct a second V from the four circle intersection points generated by the first V.

We then construct a second V from the four circle intersection points generated by the first

This is called a quadrilateral as it consists of four lines.

We next construct an X.

The X consists of the two remaining lines that can be constructed between the four circle

The X consists of the two remaining lines that can be constructed between the four circle intersection points.

The X consists of the two remaining lines that can be constructed between the four circle

We next construct the line through the X point and the vertex of the second V.

This generates two additional circle intersection points. We find that these points permit us to construct tangents to the circle from the first V vertex.

This fact is quite miraculous and permits us to construct a new type of angle, the

This fact is quite miraculous and permits us to construct a new type of angle, the horn angle which is between the tangent and the circle. Are all horned angles the same? Are there bigger ones? Smaller ones? How many horns does it take to equal an angle between lines? Between a circle and one of its cords?

We have here an introduction to the distinction between the Archimedes method of exhaustion and that of Eudoxus.

When we add the concentric circle, we find that we have generated two local parallels.

If we proceed with the second V in a like manner we find:

If we proceed with the second V in a like manner we find:

If we proceed with the second V in a like manner we find:

Now returning to the beginning of our construction. We have the Celestial Equator and its local reproduction—our little miracle. Wait, that is two concentric circles! We reflect this configuration on itself to construct a local model and we now have three concentric circles: the celestial equator and a local reproduction of it circumscribing the first local reproduction. We proceed to construct a V with vertex outside both local circles and intersecting both circles. The quadrilateral we can construct as Steiner shows will generate two locally parallel lines. With that we can, as Steiner shows, find the center of the two concentric local circles and then proceed to construct anything in Euclid. This Steiner work not only provides a useful introduction to synthetic geometry, it is a rigorously Socratic work. One finds that when passing completely through his “cookbook” style of apparently simple constructions, all with just a straightedge, one will know far less than before one began this process. And it gets worse upon each working through. Steiner is a true master of Learned Ignorance. Upon reflection, the true intent of Steiner becomes very clear. Steiner has rigorously proved that Euclid is a total fraud. Steiner has no postulates or axioms in his work. And in fact Euclid is a total fraudulent concoction and an evil one as Philo demonstrates. Euclid has taken the work of synthetic physical geometry of millenia and extracted all of the little miracles that reside there so no trace of creativity remains and God is quite dead. They were able to burn and otherwise dispose of all of the written works that indicated that this was the case. But one problem they had was they were unable to obliterate the Great Pyramid at Giza. So we can take that and stick it you know where and turn it sideways in the process with Euclid and his devotees. Intellectually, this represents a true non-synthetic construction. Returning to LaRouche's construction, we find that folding our projected Celestial circle generates a diameter. The second fold generates the circle center and the division of the diameter by two and the pole and polar. We have also divided the circle by four—a square inscribed in the projected Celestial circle. Today we call each of the four circle arcs of this inscribed square, 90 degree arcs. We also see if we take note of the other astrophysical singularity in the construction, the pole star which does not move, that we have generated four other 90 degree arcs. Today we know this pyramid that

we have generated as the top half of the eight faced octahedra. We have not yet begun to measure anything. We know from the later work of Kepler that nevertheless the Golden Section is lurking in our harmonic net of the celestial sphere. That is the physical action seen in changes or “cycles” of these heavenly bodies conforms to Golden Section harmonics. So, implicitly, from a physical synthetic geometric perspective the Golden Section is lurking even at this stage. We next proceed to see if we can construct anything of use from our ninety degree arcs. The four arcs cannot be readily put into the upper half of the celestial sphere, they are bounded to the celestial equator. But it is possible to construct a triangle from ninety degree arcs in this upper portion of the sphere. This can be done by utilizing our second length, the radius of the circle. If we place this along the circle perimeter we find that it divides the circle into six equal arcs, that is, 60 degree arcs. It also generates three 120 degree arcs. Utilizing this division by three and the division by four we can locate within our spherical bowl the three vertices of this triangle containing three ninety degree arcs and that is centered on the axis determined by the pole star.

we have generated as the top half of the eight faced octahedra. We have not yet

We next discover that if we connect up these three vertices with arcs to the six points determined by our six-fold division of the Celestial Equator. These

are each 45 degree arcs which we could have already generated by folding the celestial circle a third time. This third degree of circular action has also generated the Golden Section!

are each 45 degree arcs which we could have already generated by folding the celestial circle

With a number of leaps of discovery in between we discover that these six 45 degree arcs are really half portions of what are really 90 degree arcs of six other 90 degree sided triangles. In other words we have reproduced the original octahedron we generated with two folds of the circle.

are each 45 degree arcs which we could have already generated by folding the celestial circle

Our reproduction of the octahedron is also a triangular anti-prism.

Our reproduction of the octahedron is also a triangular anti-prism. Besides the chain of six triangles

Besides the chain of six triangles divided in half by the celestial equator, we discover that the triangle face directly above is part of another six triangle chain. And this chain is split in two by a half fold of the Celestial Equator. In other words by a specific great circle through the pole star which divides this chain in two. If we project our first 90 degree arc together with line representing its division into two we find something very interesting. The triangle is not divided into two equal parts but two of its 90 degree arc sides are divided into equal parts, as previously noted. If we circumscribe this triangle face with a circle we find that this dividing line, the Celestial cut so to speak, has generated a Golden Section cut with respect to the two intersections it makes with the two triangle side midpoints and the two intersections it makes with circumscribing circle.

D

B E H F C G
B
E
H
F
C
G

A

While we can know that this is the Golden Section explicitly, it is still implicit in the set of constructions we are unfolding. Nothing has been measured. Large heaps of counting numbers do not yet exist. Nevertheless the construction has generated the Golden Section. The fact is that the Golden Section was already lurking in our triply connected circular action process. In any case if my vicarious hypothetical series of constructions are anywhere near the mark, it would be demonstrated that taking any numerical valuation of the Golden Section as being primary or fundamentally determining would be absurd. And so much for the contention that the Ancient Egyptians could not know the Golden Section because they did not have an expression for the square root of five. (In passing, it should be noted that God did not invent the integers, man did, most emphatically. And like all man-made entities they are imperfect as a fixed configuration. The Golden Section on the other hand is a tranfinite transvarient. See Cusa on unity below.)

Pacioli-Leonardo Construction

At this point it is useful to introduce one possible construction to elucidate that which Fra Luca Pacioli is carrying out in his famous Barbari portrait. This construction develops Leonardo-Pacioli approach to perspectivo and their more general pentagon-pentagram method which led me directly to the rediscovery of the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum which embodies that pentagon-pentagram method of Leonardo and Pacioli. The construction is actually a projection down of a more thorough and rigorous spherical one, which we will develop later. To start with here are some views of the final spherical construction.

At this point it is useful to introduce one possible construction to elucidate that which Fra

Here are some more wire frame views of this spherical construction with just the edges:

Here are some more wire frame views of this spherical construction with just the edges:
Here are some more wire frame views of this spherical construction with just the edges:
This spherical irregular pentagramma anti-prism consists of five squares made with 90 degree arcs. As will

This spherical irregular pentagramma anti-prism consists of five squares made with 90 degree arcs. As will be developed in detail at a later point, this construction only becomes dynamically stable when each square is utilized to generate a regular octahedron, as we generated the first octahedron through a double circle fold. This compound of five octahedra is the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum and is implicit in the Pacioli construction.

Here are two views of the Gauss Golden Pentagramma Mirificum:

In Barbari's famous portrait Pacioli is apparently instructing Durer on the general method of perspectivo. Here is an analysis written up by the late Dr. Steven Pepper in collaboration with me in 1992 before the rediscovery of the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum.

In Barbari's famous portrait Pacioli is apparently instructing Durer on the general method of perspectivo. Here

The famous painting by Barbari in the Naples Museum shows Pacioli in the course of delivering a lecture. He is in the process of drawing on the slate the side of a pentagon whose apex is coincident with an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle. This construction is the pentagram in which the pentagon is constructed from triangles and the subdivision of the which generates the golden section (Euclid, Elements, Bk. 4). In fact at a primitive level the lecture can be identified as the geometric method to generate the golden section. But on the right there appears the polyhedron known as the dodecahedron whose facets are pentagons. The dodecahedron occupies a special place among the five platonic solids because all of the other solids can be constructed geometrically from the dodecahedron. There appears that there is a progression from the open page of the book (Euclid's Elements recently retranslated by Pacioli) in which the triangle inscribed in the circle appears, to the construction on the slate in which the side of the pentagon is added, to the actual model of the dodecahedron.

Therefore this progression includes dimensionality. Can the progression be extended to include the suspended solid identified as one of the irregular bodies known as the small rhomba cube octahedron? How can this polyhedron be incorporated into the progression? If you consider the triangle inscribed in the circle to the pentagon to the dodecahedron to the irregular solid you have established a topological sequence susceptible to the following analysis situs (to apply a modern term). How would you establish the spatial coordinates for the polyhedra? In fact this could be done by projecting from both their poles stereometrically) and from their centers (gnomonically) on to the surface of the plane, and that the pentagram

is the fundamental construction that would be generated by such projections. Therefore by reversing the process it would be possible to establish the location of, say all coordinates of the vertices for a icosahedron, and so forth.

If we were to apply a similar analysis to any of the prior stages of the constructive process it would yield interesting but limited results: the golden section, which in turn establishes the method for constructing the icosahedron, and in turn all the rest of the regular solids. Finally the irregular polyhedron shows that the same constructive method can be extended to the so-called Archimedian solids.

But only when all the steps are considered as a progressive series does the analysis yield a method, that of the suprecession of one class of species of construction by a more comprehensive one, such that one can arrive at the solution of how can the coordinates of all solids and their rotations be established by a single pentagram.

To add a further point, the first two stages of this discussion are encompassed in Euclid, particularly books XI-XIII. This is so identified because the slate on which Pacioli draws the pentagram is inscribed Euclides. But the later stages of this development in which the unique characteristic of the golden section is identified with the construction of the platonic solids, and then extended to comprehend all the solids, transcends Euclid, and is a discovery of Pacioli's. This is so identified because the model of the dodecahedron sits on top of Pacioli's own book, the {Summa Mathematica}, and as his name on its binding demonstrates.

There is yet another dimension to this representation that can only be introduced here. The progression of constructions discussed above also includes progressive change in the physical materials of their construction. The triangle inscribed is on the page of the book, the pentagram on the slate, the dodecahedron model is constructed in wood, and finally the rhomba cube octahedron in crystal (glass). This progression suggests a value in physical terms attributed to the constructions, and it may identify the cube octahedron with crystalography where this body occupies a distinct place as a "mean" in the series of close-packed bodies. The whole question of the relationship between abstract or idealized geometry, and the development of synthetic geometry as the basis for mathematical physics is raised by this painting. The method of painting is largely that of the painter and mathematician Piero della Francesca, Luca's first teacher, who interpreted Cusano's work as leading to a idealized universe above the plane of the physical universe. Soon after this painting was executed (ca. 1494) Pacioli was to collaborate with Leonardo da Vinci who changed the entire course of philosophical speculation, using Cusa's language of geometry to lay the basis for the investigation of the physical universe. This change can be best measured by comparing the approach to the investigation of light. In the Barbari portrait it is a local phenomenon beautifully reflected as local patches off the crystal surface. Thus in the Piero-Barbari universe, the physical world is composed of rigid bodies who are captured within the straight lines of linear perspective by instantaneous rays of light. Leonardo's universe is composed fundamentally of wave phenomena, such that light is not a local or instantaneous action but a lawful reflection of a universal one. What he has lacked until his encounter with Pacioli is a non-reductive geometry in which to comprehend wave action

and the transfinitely determined the finite velocity of light. With Leonardo the emphasis shifts from the contemplation of the perfect form of the circle to the generation of the circle in the process of creation. We are privileged in this painting to bear witness to one of the singular moments in the birth of mathematical physics.

Pacioli Construction

The Pacioli construction begins with an equilateral triangle inscribed within a circle, which as we discussed above actually derives from the octahedron:

B C
B
C

A

The Golden Section is generated by the Celestial cut through the edge midpoints of the equilateral triangle. Today this is called the Odom construction, though, Christine Tuveson developed it independently.

There is a Golden Section cut at B and AB/BC is in Golden Section proportion. In

There is a Golden Section cut at B and AB/BC is in Golden Section proportion.

In the Pacioli construction two singularities of the pentagon are focused on.

B
B

Here is a pentagon with one of its diagonals inscribed in a circle. A circle diameter at pentagon vertex B bisects the diagonal and one edge of the pentagon. These two bisection points will provide the singularities for generating the pentagon from the equilateral triangle. (W is the center of the circle.)

B T W M U
B
T
W
M
U

The following two proportions of the pentagon will be utilized in the Pacioli

construction: WM/MU is the same as the Golden Section cubed to one; and TM/BT is the Golden Section to one. The WM/MU cubic cut permits us to find M. Once we have M we can then find T from TM/BT. Once we have T and M we can construct the perpendiculars to BU that will cut the circle at four of the pentagon's vertices. B is also a pentagon vertice.

The first step of the Pacioli construction is to construct the three edge midpoints of the equilateral triangle by simply constructing diameters through each of the three vertices A, B, C of the triangle.

B E H F C
B
E
H
F
C

A

E, F and H are triangle edge midpoints.

We now construct the intersections of line EF with the circle at D and G and this also generates Golden Section cuts at E and F such that EF/DE = EF/FG = the Golden Section.

D

B E H F C G
B
E
H
F
C
G

A

We then proceed to utilize the golden cut F of EG to generate a golden cut of HB at GP1. We first construct EH and then GB and utilizing the cross point of EH and GM we generate GP1.

D

B GP1 E H F GP2 C G
B
GP1
E
H
F
GP2
C
G

A

H-GP1 to GP1-B equals the Golden Section. This can be readily demonstrated by similar triangles. Taking X as the cross point of HE and GB, we have triangle XGF is similar to XB-GP1 and XEF similar to XH-GP1.

The same type of construction leads to generating the golden cut at GP2.

D

B E H F C G
B
E
H
F
C
G

A

We first construct FH and then DC and use the cross point of FH and DC to generate GP2. In this case H-GP2 to GP2-C is the Golden Section.

If we take B-GP1 as equal to one, then H-GP1=H-GP2 = Golden Section. And C-GP2 = one. Taking g as the Golden Section we have the following relationships

g^2 = 1 + g

g^3

= 1 + 2g

g^4

= 2 + 3g

g^5

= 3 + 5g

and so on. (These relationships between the powers of the

Golden Section and Fibonacci sums derive from the fact that the Golden

Section is both the extreme and mean.)

By g^3 = 1 + 2g we see that if B-GP1 is taken as being one, C-GP1 is equal to the cube of g. That is, C-GP1 to B-GP1 equals g^3 to one.

We now construct a perpendicular line segment to CA at C

B F C
B
F
C

A

This new perpendicular line segment is constructed so that it forms a right triangle with BC being its hypotenuse. And by a series of right triangles we can transfer the proportions of G-GP1-H-GP2-C to it. This new perpendicular is parallel to the diameter through BF.

We now project the proportion of g^3 to one to the diameter through BF.

B C
B
C

A

We first construct the line segment between C and the circle center. Then the line segment between the opposite ends of the diameter and the perpendicular line segment as shown above. The cross point at the green point then allows

B C
B
C

A

The line through this cross point gives us the large green point on the diameter through BF and divides the diameter in the proportion g^3 to one. It is thus the midpoint (M) of an edge of the pentagon as discussed above. A line parallel to AC through this point would generate two vertices of a pentagon edge at its intersections with the circle. (Again these relative proportions can be readily demonstrated with similar triangles.)

B T W M U
B
T
W
M
U

We now construct the singularity at T by utilizing the simple proportion one to g by the golden cut of BM

B C
B
C

A

We therefore have B C
We therefore have
B
C

A

Suggested Exercise in Native Creative Mentation

In the early 1990s I developed primarily with Zeke Boyd, a long time collaborator, and in consultation with many others, a pedagogy based on the construction of the compound of five cubes with sticks and rubber bands for introducing grade school and middle school students into the world of polyhedra and scientific discovery. (Zeke was the more insightful one on this. And he had always been sort of my science director and got me to organize the Fusion Energy Foundation in 1974. In 1969 when Zeke was a leader in the Black Panther Party, we gave classes to young people in East Baltimore with the use of an expropriated Livermore film on the building of the Baseball Magnet for Post's mirror machine. John E. Brandenburg, who is in the film and with whom I later had the happy experience of working with on an attempt to revive Dan Well's trisops experiment for magnetic target fusion, forgave us for the expropriation. So did Post, himself.)

While I have since given scores of classes, among the first series was at the Children of Mine Center :

At the time my math tutor, Stanley Tennenbaum, also consulted on working with Hannah Hawkins at this special center. (Stanley was among the

leading mathematicians of the 20 th century and a close collaborator of Kurt Godel. http://www.nd.edu/~cfranks/frankstennenbaum.pdf). Hannah's center was located in the worst section of South East DC. Most of the children who came to the center after school and all day during the summer, had at least one parent who was in jail or was a drug addict or both.

I had found that a large number of very complicated polyhedra could quickly be assembled with four foot long, quarter inch diameter dowels with rubber bands: the compound of five cubes, the small stellated dodecahedron, the great stellated dodecahedron, compound of five octahedra, compound of ten tetrahedra, etc. Zeke had brought up the idea that Kepler was showing how to investigate the formation and evolution of the solar system by exploring the five cubes and putting a roof on the cube to generate a total of 6 vertices of the dodecahedron. I noticed the spherical generation of the golden section when finding out how to construct the ten tetrahedron with sticks—barbacue skewers and rubber bands work quite well too.

As Stanley noted, Hannah was and is the key. The kids all listened to her like “the living word of God,” but not out of fear, out respect and love that went both ways. Stanley noted this relationship. We also had other programs on music and staging plays. (In fact the video of one play we put on, Through the Years by Amelia Boynton Robinson, has only this recently been cleaned up somewhat and put on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwoPlqv_qtE

You can see me and the kids. I play a rather villainous role as a slave a.)

The first class was a real shocker. The kids had produced a major new theorem into the construction of the 59 stellations of the icosahedron. I did not know it at the time. Vince Matsko http://staff.imsa.edu/math/?x=matsko pointed it out months later when I described what the kids had done. (Vince is a collaborator of Father Magnus Wenninger.)

Freeman Dyson had suggested that I look into constructing the 59 icosahedron stellations when I discussed Dr. Moon's new shell model of the

nucleus with him. We were looking into possible paths to extend the model to the electron shells. Dyson knew that Moon had played a major role in Maria Goeppert-Mayer's original shell model work and that I was engaged in extended discussions with Eugene Wigner on the Moon model. Moon never liked to get any public credit. (It can be readily established, from his early 1930s dissertation on electron diffraction, through later papers and even the construction of the first machine, that Moon was primarily responsible for the catscan.) Dyson suggested utilizing computer graphics, since the first set built by the geometric genius Petrie working with Coxerter took many months to build and it had taken us days to put together an MIT model for just the final stellation of the icosahedron. A friend had just gotten a copy of Mathematica and in two months I had generated the 59 stellations as specified by Coxeter and some entirely new polyhedra which were suggested by E. Hess. (It was Professor H. Coxeter who recommended contacting Father Magnus Wenninger.)

The first thing we did in the class was to explore how to construct pentagrams. For this purpose I had brought along popsicle sticks. Very quickly it was discovered that you can easily configure four sticks into a stable self-supporting structure. But if you drop the configuration on the floor, it will explode. Once this was found out we naturally had lots of near pentagram explosions going on all over the place. I mention this not only because it generates the skills needed to rapidly assemble pentagrams for the polyhedron constructions, but because the topology in pentagram assembly has recently entered into more advanced considerations for the initial construction of the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum.

I then showed pictures of my 59 icosahedra constructions and other polyhedra to the kids. We then proceeded through the five cubes, the small and great dodecahedron, five octahedra and ten tetrahedra and a wide range of others. The kids were able to also make smaller versions with colored drinking straws with connectors to hold them together. (You can usually get the connectors at the super market where the free clear plastic bags are dispensed for packing up fruits and greens. Use of a low temperature wax glue gun can make them more permanent.) After the formal end of the class, the kids began to play with the large stick models and put some inside the

others. In particular, I noticed that they had nested five of them in a certain sequence. When I showed this to Vince, he pointed out that by simply extending the edges of the four star ployhedra you would get the full cell structure for stellations of the icosahedron. That is you have a model of all 473 cells in 3-space and therefore all two to the 473 rd power possible stellations of the icosahedron. That is what I and Freeman believed to be virtually impossible, the kids had done in principle in a couple of hours, in their first class. In the next class, which I prepared for by spending hours working through the even and odd permutations of 1,2,3,4,5, from my college algebra book and thus making a map for constructing a stick model of five cubes in color, we began the class by putting together the five cubes in color. In thirty minutes after that the students and I, working together, figured out a much easier way to do it. We also discovered that there are only two different ways of putting the five colored cubes together.

59 Icosahedra Cell Construction

The relative lengths of the 180 sticks for construction are length of 30 great stellated dodecahedron sticks = 1, length of 60 sticks of five octahedra = Sqrt[2], lengtho f 30 small stellated dodecahedron = g Sqrt 5, length of ten tetrahedra 60 sticks = g^2 Sqrt[2] t

First we construct the five cubes with 60 sticks. The 60 vertices of the inner pentagons of the pentagrams are the 60 vertices of the final icosahedron stellation.

You can extend the edges of the small stellated dodecahedron until they pass through the 60

You can extend the edges of the small stellated dodecahedron until they pass through the 60 inner pentagon vertices of the five cube pentagrams.

Inside the small dodecahedron there are 20 vertices of a dodecahedron. Using these vertices, we construct

Inside the small dodecahedron there are 20 vertices of a dodecahedron. Using these vertices, we construct a great stellated dodecahedron with 30 sticks. Utilizing the same vertices we construct a compound of 10 tetrahedra. We extend the ten tetrahedra 60 edges till they intersect the 60 vertices of the inner pentagrons which are also the vertices of the final icosahedron stellation.

The edges of the 10 tetrahedra make x's in the square faces of five cubes. These x points, cube face centers, are the thirty vertices of a compound of five octahedra. We extend the octahedra edges until they either intersect the vertices of the small stellated dodecahedron or the vertice of the great stellated dodecahedron.

The central content here is not any fixed construction. The primary content is the demonstration of self-conscious creative mentation on the part of the children. We can also begin to get a hint at how the evolution of the divine proportion and the process of differentiation (dissymmetry) are selfsame. In this case, the five cubes acts like a metaphor for discovery in the same way that the Riemann shock wave paper is the metaphor for discovery in inertial fusion and hypersonic aircraft design. In the case of the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum, we can begin to see how a similar process could lead to the Riemann Zeta.

Here is a non-numeric, spherical construction for the Golden Section. The construction I presented with the stella octangula with two moving triangles is a non-numeric, spherical construction of the golden section—extreme and mean.

.

The central content here is not any fixed construction. The primary content is the demonstration of

I derived it from Kepler's constructions Epitome of Copernican Astronomy (“For so the cube roofs over the tetrahedron, so this increased solid figure, which are investigating roofs over the cube.”) and Harmonices Mundi over two decades ago. I may have mentioned it in an article since that time, but only now in the context of the back and forth on chirality do I begin to see a deeper side to it.

Actually, such an exercise in “native” creativity must be approached as a voyage of discovery and we have bumped into a rather big one. Columbus was actually searching for the New World; that was the objective. Yet it only began to come to fruition with the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the new Attica. Like Columbus, it does not matter how we got there, what errors we make along the way, we found it. (In fact, that is the key facet of Kepler's vicarious hypotheses method of discovery.)

The only fact one needs know is that the only thing of substance in the universe is creative action, noetic mentation. This is both objective and subjective. Everything else as Plato paints the picture are shadows. And as Johannes Kepler suggests, the five cubes uniquely demonstrates this reality. Not as a fixed construction, but rather as an object and subject of discovery, which was not even touched upon in what I sent you, so far. The process of differentiation (dissymmetry) and Kepler's extreme and mean (the divine proportion) are selfsame. To be more precise, let's look at Kepler's construction of the house in which his and the Universe is born and grows. In his Harmonies, Kepler begins with a cube, and then constructs a roof on that. As shown, we begin with Kepler's stella octangula inside the cube. Two faces rotate to mark the roof posts. They can arrive either as bookends or a single convergence. In any case they provide the Delian division of the cube in two, or maybe the other way round.

I forget which is male and female here, but the tetrahedron is definitely a hermaphrodite. Kepler

I forget which is male and female here, but the tetrahedron is definitely a hermaphrodite. Kepler certainly knew. In any case if we are a bit prolific, or as Stanley would say, recursive to the end, we would not find five cubes, but rather twenty, and lots of other interesting stuff.

Going from one to two is not so simple a matter as the case of Bertrand Russell's Principia Mathematica demonstrates, a rigorously constructed, though unlogical work. The object of the work is to proceed logically from one to two. But Kurt Goedel shows that the very large work loses its logic on page 12.

If you engage of a group of children from age 4 to 12, you will always find entirely new possibilities cropping up. Only Harvard Deans or Oxford Dons could stop the raising tide of discovery. (Julliard music professors too.)

The substance here is best seen in Ancient Roman Sculpture. What my good friend, the late Steve Pepper, termed “The Third (or turd) Leg of Classical Roman Sculpture.” The classic Romans were great copyists, far better than their Byzantine descendents. And they assiduously studied the Classic Greeks in every detail. Yet when they completed their work, it would be unbalanced and prone to falling over. So, a “third leg” would be added. (Julliard accomplishes the same feat with their students. The students will listen to recordings of their teachers playing and copy every note to perfection. But the result is not a single note the student plays are musical.) The reason is that the Classic Greek artist is generating a creative action, not what is seen in the visual domain. The art is in the ambiguities which the artist puts into the mind of the viewer to force them to recreate and forecast this creative action in their minds. The Ancient Romans were generally mindless creatures of the colosseum. (And as Dr. Robert J. Moon showed, even the lowest of physical actions, like throwing a discus, is ultimately “caused” by the “unseen” spacetime lattice which interconnects everything in the universe. A universal intention, so to speak, or as usefully represented, the Bohm-de Broglie quantum potential, which acts both within and without the photon, or elementary particle, to guide them through the double slit. (De Broglie literally describes this physical action as being identical the creative action of a string quartet presenting a great composition.) After all, least action and least time are all intentional laws.

(To put the discovery in a nutshell—in general, mathematicians are completely nuts—you cannot proceed from one to two without passing through the square root of five; a minor point, though, nevertheless an essential one, raised by Pythagoras.)

The Eudoxus Method

As the great Max Planck discovered and reported, the true content of great discoveries are not contained, or substantially depicted by any series of formulas or formal presentations and constructions. (Just as the notes on a score do not capture the actual musical ideas of a great composition. It takes a most insightful, creative performance to do that.) As Planck details, the key is to grasp the “Gestalt” of the discovery. So even though the original work may have been destroyed and buried, its gestalt lives on, like an intellectual shadow on the historical mind of humanity. To find this gestalt in the reflected intellectual shadows and then resurrect the essential features of the original discovery takes a lot of insightful and hard work. So far as I know the first to do this with respect to Eudoxus was Paul, who presents his findings in Athens as described in Acts 17. (These findings by Paul greatly informed the work of Cusa. This is seen explicitly in Cusa's work on “negative theology.”) The other great mind to do this was Stanley Tennenbaum, my math tutor from 1989 through 1993. And while Stanley's chief focus was on education, he did work in a substantial number of mathematical fields. For example, if you look him up in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics, you will find he has one of the last references in the article on Axiomatic Set Theory. Actually, Stanley informed me, he was not much enamored by this work on Suslin's problem. He really only carried it out in order to give an invited talk to the American Mathematical Society in order to denounce the still living Bertrand Russell. A major area of Stanley's research was that of non-Archimedean fields and methods of exhaustion. In the case of exhaustion Stanley had obtained what ancient material was available in the original Greek manuscript. He reported to me that he spent many, many months working through these originals. Only recently did I discover that Cusa's chief working tool for refuting Archimedes measurement of the circle, horn angles, provided the basis historically for the development of non-Archimedean fields and involves the same chief issue of the “greater or lessor and equal” seen in Cusa's case against Archimedes and developed in greater detail by Leibniz's 1676 dialogue on motion (transcreation). I quote here extensively from Will Wertz's Nicolaus of Cusa’s ‘On the Quadrature of the Circle’ on these questions of horn angles and the “greater or lessor, and equal”:

As Cusanus stresses, Archimedes’ proposition assumes that “Where one can give a larger and a smaller, one can also give an equal. But, as Cusanus continues, there are those “who deny the possibility of the quadrature of the circle,” and they assert that “in mathematics, the conclusion does not hold, that where one can give a larger and a smaller, there one can also give an equal.”

Then, Cusanus goes to the crux of the matter. He writes: “There can namely be given an incidental angle that is greater than a rectilinear, and another incidental angle smaller than the rectilinear, and nevertheless never one equal to the rectilinear. Therefore with incommensurable magnitudes this conclusion does not hold.” [See Figure 8] [in figure caption 3 should be c]

As Cusanus stresses, Archimedes’ proposition assumes that “Where one can give a larger and a smaller,

Cusanus is raising an issue which has historically divided the scientific community. What he is pointing to, is the existence of a type of angle other than a rectilinear angle: the incidental angle of a segment, i.e., the angle inside a circle between the circumference and the line which cuts it off. This is referred to in Euclid in only one location, Book III, Proposition 16, as the “angle of the semicircle.” The other angle which Cusanus will refer to in “On the Quadrature of the Circle” is the contingent or cornicular (horn-like) angle

[See Figure 9]. This is the angle between the circumference of a circle and the tangent. It is referred to in the same location in Euclid as “the remaining angle.”

[See Figure 9]. This is the angle between the circumference of a circle and the tangent.

Euclid’s Book III, Proposition 16 reads as follows:

The straight line drawn at right angles to the diameter of a circle from its extremity will fall outside the circle, and into the space between the straight line and the circumference another straight line cannot be interposed; further the angle of the semicircle is greater, and the remaining angle less, than any acute rectilineal angle.

According to this proposition, if a straight line touches a circle at one point only, i.e., is tangent, then any other straight line which one attempted to interpose between that tangent and the circumference, would necessarily cut the circumference in two points, and thus fall within it [See Figure 10].

If one wished to argue that the circle can be squared—that is, that it is possible
If one wished to argue that the circle can be squared—that is, that it is possible

If one wished to argue that the circle can be squared—that is, that it is possible to construct a square whose area is equal to that of a given circle— one would have to insist that the incidental angle is not a true angle, and the contingent angle does not exist at all. The battle over this issue is fascinating, because it goes to the heart of the battle between Platonic science and Aristotelian anti-science. One of the most critical comments on Euclid’s

Book III, Proposition 16 was made by Johannes Campanus, who edited Euclid’s Elements in the Thirteenth century. He inferred from III.16 that there was a flaw in the principle that the transition from the less to the greater, or vice versa, takes place through all intermediate quantities, and therefore through the equal. If a diameter of a circle, he says, be moved about its extremity until it takes the position of the tangent to that circle, then, as long as it cuts the circle, it makes an acute angle less than the “angle of a semicircle”; but the moment it ceases to cut, it makes a right angle greater than the same “angle of a semicircle.” The rectilineal angle is never, during the transition, equal to the “angle of a semi-circle.” There is therefore an apparent inconsistency with Book X, Proposition 1, and Campanus could only observe in explanation of the paradox, that “these are not angles in the same sense, for the curved and the straight are not things of the same kind without qualification.”

There is every reason to believe that Cusanus had access to Campanus’s edition of Euclid. Moreover, this is the same issue that Cusanus refers to in the passage in Book III, chapter I of On Learned Ignorance cited at the beginning of this article. Cusanus refers to this logical paradox as a “certain singularity.”

In 1557, the French geometer Peletier, argued that the “angle of contact” was not an angle at all. He claimed that the “contact of a straight line with a circle” is not a quantity, and that angles contained by a diameter and a circumference are all right angles and equal to rectilineal right angles. For Peletier, there was no difficulty with Euclid’s Book X, Proposition 1, because all angles of contact are not-angles, not quantities, and therefore nothings.

Vieta (1540-1603) agreed with Peletier that the angle of contact is no angle. His pseudo-proof was that the circle may be regarded as a plane figure with an infinite number of sides and angles; but a straight line touching a straight line, however short it may be, will coincide with the straight line and will not make an angle. In other words, if the circle is a straight line in the infinitely small, then there is no angle at the point of contact with the tangent. Not surprisingly, this was also the view of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). This issue is in no way esoteric or academic; rather, it is one of the most

profound issues confronting man. The cornicular angle is either equal to null, as the Aristotelians maintain, or it is virtually null, but nonetheless exists, and in fact has greater being and reality than the polygon which is derived from it. If the former is true, then the same argument can be made (and in fact has been made) theologically, that neither God nor the human soul exists. If the circle is no more than a polygon with an infinite number of sides, then God is equal to His creation (which is the basis of pantheism), and the soul is not immortal, but rather dies with the body.

This is the same issue as that which later divided Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) and Leonhard Euler (1707-83). Leibniz insisted that monads, or simple substances, are indestructible and indivisible. Euler, on the other hand, had lyingly argued that all magnitude is divisible to infinity.

To return to Nicolaus of Cusa’s argument: If one recognizes the existence of incidental angles, and understands that an incidental angle is not commensurable with a rectilinear angle, then it is clear that there can be no rational proportion between the area of a circle, and a rectilinearly enclosed area. As Cusanus writes:

If a circle can be transformed into a square, then it necessarily follows, that its segments can be transformed into rectilinearly enclosed figures. And since the latter is impossible, the former, from which it was deduced, must also be impossible. Obviously, then, the semicircle cannot be transformed into a rectilinearly enclosed figure, and consequently also not the circle or one of its parts.

Similarly, Cusanus writes in respect to contingent or cornicular angles that, although they cannot be divided by another straight line, they are nonetheless divisible by another curved line: “The contingent angle is a divisible magnitude only in its species, since to every contingent angle there is a larger and a smaller contingent angle.”

Species Difference

Through this discussion of the incommensurability of incidental and contingent angles to rectilinear ones, Cusanus proves that the circle cannot be squared, because “polygonal figures are not magnitudes of the same species

as the circular figure”:

In respect to things which admit of a larger and smaller, one does not come to an absolute maximum in existence and potentiality. Namely, in comparison to the polygons, which admit of a larger and smaller, and thereby do not attain to the circle’s area, the area of a circle is the absolute maximum, just as numerals do not attain the power of comprehension of unity and multiplicities do not attain the power of the simple.

What is significant about this statement is, that Cusanus has identified the fact that the circle is of a higher power, or cardinality, than the polygon. The circle is a true infinite. As such, it does not admit of greater or less, as does the polygon. The area of the circle is thus simultaneously maximal and minimal. Moreover, it is in actuality all that it is potentially. The circle transcends the polygon in the same way that unity transcends numerals, and the simple transcends multiplicities. The latter cannot attain to the former; nonetheless, the former are present in the latter, as the cause is present in its effect.

END OF EXCERPTS FROM WERTZ ARTICLE

(It should be noted that if one wishes to see a combination of furious hand-waving and smoke and mirrors on open display, just look up how points of contact, contingency, contingent angle are described in modern books on differential geometry. Even mathematicians smoke and fume. And just the mention of horn angles will do that.) For our purposes here the Wikipedia entry on the Archimedean Property is quite sufficient: “Roughly speaking, it is the property of

having no infinitely large or infinitely small elements

The Archimedean

.... property appears in Book V of Euclid's Elements as Definition 4:

'Magnitudes are said to a ratio to one another which can, when multiplied, exceed one another.' Because Archimedes credited it to Eudoxus of Cnidus it is also known as the “Theorem of Eudoxus” or the Eudoxus axiom.”

In the case of ordered fields Wikipedia says: “an ordered field K is Archimedean precisely when the following statement, called the axiom of

Archimedes, holds: Let x be any element of K. Then there exists a natural number n such that n>x.

Alternatively one can use the following characterization: For any positive e in K, there exists a natural numbe n, such that 1/n<e.”

The Eudoxian Method Exhaustion

I have only most recently discovered the fact that much of the work of my tutor, Stanley Tennenbaum was centered on this Eudoxian method of exhaustion. I just now realize that when Stanley arrived in Leesburg for the first time in the mid-1980s as a participant in the Fusion Energy Foundation Seminar Series, he presented us with an extremely sharp horn angle for our consideration. In particular he wrote down the function as 1- 1/e to the x squared power and even drew a few graphs of it. As x approaches zero, the function becomes extremely fat. As Stanley said, “flatter than a straight line.” And he noted that mathematicians generally avoid things like this, though it tends to crop up in physics, chemistry and biology all the time.

The Eudoxian Method Exhaustion I have only most recently discovered the fact that much of the

Here is a construction by Stanley Tennenbaum addressing a problem which Eudoxus famously worked on: Namely, the failure to find any ratio of two integers which could represent the square root of two. I suggest this provides the essential gestalt of Stanley's discoveries concerning Eudoxus and his method of exhaustion as opposed to that of Archimedes.

We show by contradiction that the square root of two cannot be represented as a single ratio of two ordinary integers. Geometrically, assuming that such an integer ratio exists means there exists a square with an area equal to the sum of areas of two equal, smaller squares. That is

Here is a construction by Stanley Tennenbaum addressing a problem which Eudoxus famously worked on: Namely,

We begin by assuming that x, is the positive integer representing the length of the side of white square, and is the smallest such integer, and y is the positive integer representing the side length of each of the two blue squares. In other words, given that the area is generated by the square of the length of a side of a square, x squared equals two times y squared, and then, therefore, x/y equals the square root of two.

The key idea that Stanley Tennenbaum proposes at this point is put everything in the same box and to superimpose all three squares, placing the first smaller blue square in the upper right corner of the white square, and the second blue square in the lower left corner.

The two light blue squares must overlap inside the white square. If they do not overlap,

The two light blue squares must overlap inside the white square. If they do not overlap, the smaller squares would have to have sides less than x/2. In this case each would have at most an area one quarter the area of the white square and would together at most have an area equal to one half the area of the white square.

The overlap is shown as the dark blue area at the center of the white square. It can be shown that the dark blue area of overlap must be a square. Furthermore, the two remaining white areas not covered must also be equal squares and for x/y to exist, they must equal the area of the dark blue overlap square, and therefore representing a smaller integer ratio equal to the square root of two. This contradicts our initial assumption that x/y is the smallest such integer ratio.

But now drop the assumption that x/y is the smallest such ratio equal to the square root of two. By recursion our construction generates an infinite sequence of x/y ratios equal to the square root of two and each of the x's and y's are less then the first x and y. If x and y are not infinitely large integers, the integers less than x or y must be finite and therefore the infinite sequence we recursively generate cannot exist. On the other hand if we hypothesize that there does exist some type of integral and infinite and positive set of

numbers with no lower bound, then the sequence can exist. (The repeating infinite continued fraction.)

Here is list of such rational ratios, growing closer and closer to the exact value of the square root of 2.

Actually this list can be extended infinitely in a rather simple manner

numbers with no lower bound, then the sequence can exist. (The repeating infinite continued fraction.) Here

Let's notice what Eudoxus, in the frame of Stanley Tennenbaum's construction, is doing: Eudoxus has demonstrated a large hole in the continuum of rational ratios. A rational ratio is simply the ratio of two integers. And such rational ratios appear to generate a dense continuum since between any two rational ratios we can construct an infinite series of smaller and smaller rational divisions. (Ironically Zeno utilizes precisely this property to demonstrate that there is no rational continuum, which Leibniz takes up in his 1676 dialogue.) Nevertheless there exists something there which can never be captured by rational divisions, the square root of two, for example. Ah, the birth of a new entity, a “new” number, a new species brought about by the creative leap of the Socratic midwife Eudoxus. In fact all linear measures are only approximations, so what does a little

difference make? If you are actually building something, the difference is crucial and shows up in the harmonics of the construction. If we simply examine the great cathedrals of Europe we find that they were rigorously based on such harmonic considerations and not “finite-element” stress analysis. It is well known that these early architects and builders took materials to their virtual breaking point, far beyond what safety limits would allow today. Yet, they remain standing. It is this qualitative difference between the square root of 2 and the rationals that becomes most pronounced in the construction harmonics. This is not unlike what Nicholas of Cusa did when he demonstrated that the Archimedes construction for the measurement of the circle was false and that Pi is a new number beyond both the rational ratios and square roots. The failure to generally acknowledge this great advance by Cusa is not dissimilar to the intent revealed in the more recent treatment of Gauss and his science.

Taking the Measure of Heaven

In our construction series we began with the square inscribed in the celestial equator, which actually gave us three squares of the octahedra and later the octahedron hexagon which also actually generates an explicit Golden Section. We have gone 3, 4, 6. I was once giving a class on the Pell equation, based on a project that Stanley Tennenbaum had suggested to me. In this class I was utilizing the simple cyclic polyhedra to make a point. And I was making actual physical models utilizing steel rings for knitting. First you have the three rings for the three squares of the octahedron. Next you have the four rings for the four hexagons of cuboctahedron. And when you succeed in putting six steel rings together, which is somewhat difficult, you can generate the 10 decagons of the icosidodecahedron. But to get to 6 rings you have to pass through the 5 ring configuration. At the time I interrupted the class to examine the five rings in great detail. Right off, you have 4 sided squares with 3 rings, 6 sided hexagons with 4 rings, 10 sided decagons with 6 rings. There must be something 8, with 5 rings. This turns out to be the Gauss Pentagramma Mirificum which contains five octagrams within five rings or great circles. The question that stands out is whether it is possible to make anything with five 90 degree arcs. Again we begin with our double fold starting point

suggested by Lyndon LaRouche. We notice that the resulting octahedron consists of twelve 90 degree arcs. Could five of these provide the desired closed five 90 degree arc configuration. And in fact if you take three of the four 90 degree arcs circumscribed by the Celestial Equator you could connect the open ends to the Pole star with two of the four 90 degree arcs which connect to it. Thus we have a closed spherical configuration consisting of five 90 degree arcs. Two problems with this five 90 degree arc configuration is that first it is irregular. Second it cannot be put in a plane like the octahedron triangle face, or the square circumscribed by the Celestial Equator. In this case we must think out of the box and introduce a little topological singularity. We take one connected 90 degree arc off the surface of the sphere, while still maintaining its connection to the other four, and twist it once. This is precisely the sort of operation that young students building the five cubes explored with their initial pentagram constructions. With a little experimental juggling we quickly find that a very regular and flat pentagram can be generated. This can be turned into a number of different configurations. And they should all be explored. But, reflecting back to how we ended up proceeding with the octahedron, an irregular pentagrammic anti-prism suggests itself:

suggested by Lyndon LaRouche. We notice that the resulting octahedron consists of twelve 90 degree arcs.

Rather than get confused by looking at the graphical representation, or some formal representation of it, it is required to actually build it with 20 sticks with rubber bands. It can be made quite stable by interweaving the pentagram in a certain manner. But if we utilize the pentagram obtained with one twist, it is found to be somewhat unstable. It consists of five squares. If we take each of these squares and add another 40 sticks we can generate five regular octahedra. In this case the structure remains quite dynamically stable even with flappy pentagrams. To get any real gestalt of what is going on here it is required to play with and explore this actual construction. We find that if we take two adjacent star points of one of pentagrams, they can be readily moved. The five octahedra remain stable and regular, but all the star points of both pentagrams move. The pentagrams move out of their planes and their star points determine several different planes. The first thing to note is that we have Napier's analog computer for navigation, a geometric rabdological version of his “bones.” If we imagine the configuration embedded in a globe of the earth, the great circle arc between two locations can be immediately determined and measured by INSPECTION from our Pentagramma Mirificum. No calculations, no constructions, no spherical trigonometry, everything can be derived by inspection, including the bearing we must proceed along to go from point A to point B. Even this rather simple-minded utilization of and exploration with the Pentagramma Mirificum can provide quite an education. (It should be noted that topological considerations with respect to the pentagrammic prism construction, such as the first “twist” to arrive at a pentagram come to fore when carrying out such navigation operations. The eight octagrams are no problem and function in a straight forward manner within the moving configuration.) Obviously, once we direct our Pentagramma Mirificum to the rotating stars, from which we derived it, we find that we can MEASURE. Simple mindedly you can record the relative positions of the stars at one time with sticks in the ground and then compare their relative angular distances at a later time. LaRouche suggests we would first run into the 25,600 year, approximately, cycle for the precession of the equinox. (In this regard one fact to note is the change in the relative length of the arctic night and arctic day with the precession of the equinox. This would immediately raise

existential questions, for example if the night is getting longer.) Tilak reports the determination of cycles lasting millions of years in the Vedic hymns. One thing I would note in passing, that in rather mundane matters Lyndon H. LaRouche is prone to error like anyone. But after working closely with him over four decades on scientific questions, when he presents a “wild” hypothesis, these are always found to be precisely on the mark when later developed and explored in detail. In passing, it should be emphasized that these type of star map constructions took place over many, many generations. The concern of those who generated could not have been with their own generation alone, but in future generations. Thus, the emphasis on very long cycles. Do we even think today in terms of decades ahead, let alone millions of years? The Pentagramma Mirificum analog computer is by no means limited in application to simple navigation and spherical trigonometry. In fact I first got a strong hint of its existence from Bernard Riemann's construction of his P- function as developed in limited fashion by Felix Klein in his Icosahedron and Solutions to Equations of the 7 th Degree and his Development of Mathematics in the 19 th Century. And while his presentation is disjointed and really designed to cover his tracks on his and Poincare's great fraud of automorphic functions, nevertheless, it provided enough clues, when viewed from the standpoint of Leonardo and Pacioli. The Riemann P-function derives from the Gauss Pentagramma Mirficum. On the other hand the P-function can be seen as a useful adjunct to the simple Napier navigation analog application. If you have a large number of obstructions and diverting winds and currents, it would be useful to generate a simple map that tells you when and how to turn to avoid them. This is what the Riemann P-function can do. To be more precise about that, the shadow of the Pentagramma Mirificum method in Leonardo was first raised by Dino DiPauli in an unpublished report on the perspectivo of Leonardo. The research of other colleagues on automorphic functions was also quite helpful. When I explored these questions with the help of Dr. Steve Pepper, I found that I could apply what I called the Leonardo-Pacioli pentagon-pentagramma method for providing the metaphor for determining and generating existing and new types of polyhedra. (This works in manner similar to the Riemann shock wave concept in advanced aeronautical design. The Riemann work does not show

up formally, but it provides the crucial synthetic physical geometric context for discovery. Riemann works backward from the shock wave to construct the process of formation of the shock front. This is how he derived his characteristics.) The Golden Section arises in quite a similar fashion to the Riemann shock wave in the operations of the general Pentagramma Mirificum.