Engineering a Visual Field

Of the branches of mathematics, geometry has, from the earliest Hellenic period, been given a curiOZlS position that straddles empirical and exact scien;e. Its standing Os an empirical and approximate science stems from the practical ]1U1'SJlits of artistic drafting. land surveying and measuring in general. From the prominence of vi.sua/ applicatiom, such as figures and constructions in the twentieth century Einstein'.s General 1beory of RelotMty holds that the geometry of space-time is dependent upon physical quantities. On the other hanJ. earlier on in history, the.symmetry and perfect regularity of certain geometric figures were taken as representative of a higher order knowledge than that afforded by .sense experience. Concerns wi/hfigures and constructions, instead of with number.s and computaIions, rendered geometry amenable 10 ariomatic formulation and syllogistic deduction, establi.shing a paradigm of demonstrative visual and intuitive knowledge that has spanned tiro millennia. Ia geo:netry and as followed in geometrical art there remains a coonectioo that distinguishes between the Wlboundedness of spaces as a property of its extent, and special cases ofinfinite measure over whicb distanc:e would be taken is dependent upoo particular curvature of lines and spaces. The curwture of a surface could be defined in terms ooly of properties dependent solely OIl the sur&ce itself as being intrinsic. On the empirical side, Euclidean and non-Euclidean gec:metries particularly Riemann's approach efti:cted the IDlderstanding of the relatimsbip ~ geometry and space, in that it stated the questim wether space is curved or not. Gauss never published his revolutiooary ideas OIl noo-Euclidean geometry, and Bolyai and Lobacbevsky are usually aedited fer their independent discoveryofhypezbolic geometry. II)perboIic geometry is often called Lobachewkian geometry, perhaps because Lobu:bevsky's work went deeper than BoIyai's. However, in the decades that followed these discoveries Lobacbevsky's work met with rather vicious attacks. The decisive figure in the aCCqAalice of nClll-Eudidean geometry was Beltrami. In 1868, he discovered that ~ic geometry could be given a cmaete interpretation, via differential geometry. For most purposes, differential geometry is the study of curved surfaces by way of ideas from calculus. Geometries had thus pia)'ed a part in the emergence and articulation of relativity tbemy, espedaJIy differential geometry. WIthin the range of mathematical pl"q)erties these principles could be exp cssed. Philosophically, geometries stress the hypothetical nature ofaxiomatizing, cmtrasting a usual view of mathematical theories as true in some unclear sense. Steadily «m:r the last htmdred years the honor of visual reasming in mathematics has been dishonored. Although the great mathematicians have been oblivious to these fushions the geaneter in art has picked up the gauntlet m behalf of geometry. So, metageometry is intended to be in line with the hypothetical character of metaphysics. Geonletric axioms are neither synthetic a priori nor empirical They are more properly tmdcrstood as definitions. Thus when one set of axioms is preferred over another the se1ection is a matter of conventim. Poincare's philosophy of science Was fmned by his approach to mathematics which was broadly geometric. It is governed by the criteria of simplicity of expressim rather than by which geometry is ultimately corred.. A sIcetch of Kant's theory of knowledge that defined the existence ofmatbematical truths a central pillar to his philosophy. In particular, he rests support on the truths of Euclidean geometry. His inability to realize at that time the existence of any other geometry convinced him that it was the only one. Thereby, the truths demonstrated by Euclidean systems and the existence of a priori synthetic propositions were a guarantee. The dismvery of nOll-Euclidean geometry opened other variables for Kant's argwnents. That Euclidean geanetry is used to descnee the motion of bodies in space, it makes no sense to ask if physical space is really Euclidean. Discovery in mathematics is similar to the discovery in the physical sciences whereas the former is a coostruction of the human mind The latter must be considered as an order of nature that is independent of mind Newton became disenchanted with his original version of calculus and that of Leimiz and arOlDld 1680 had proceeded to develop a third version of calrulus based on geometry. This geometric calculus is the mathematical engine behind Newton's Principia. Conventionalism as geometrical and mathematical truths are created by our choices, not dictated by or imposed 011 us by scientific theory. The idea that geometrical truth is truth we aeate by the understanding of certain conventions in the discovery of nm-Euclidean geometries. Subsequent to this discovery, Euclidean geometries bad been considered as a paradigm of a prim knowledge. The further discovery of alternative systems of geometry arc consistent with making Euclidean geonetry seem dismissed without interfering with rationality. Whether we ublize the Eud.idean system or non-Euclidean system seems to be a matter of choice founded 00 pragmati~ oonsideratioos such as simplicity and cmvenience. The Euclidean, Lobachevsky-BoIyai-Gauss, and Reimannian geometries are united in the same space, by the SmoraniJache Geometries, 1969. These geanetries are, therefore partiaIJy Euclidean and partiaIJy Non-Euclidean. The geometries in their importauc.e unite and gcueralize all together and separate them as well. Hilbert's relations of incidence, betweenness, and CDlgruence are made clearer through the negations of Smarandache's Anti-Oeometry. Florentin Smarandache's geometries fall under the foIlowing categories: Paradoxist Geametry, Nm-Geondry, Counter-Projective Geometry, and Anti-