Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 18:57:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan-AT-umich.edu> Subject: Re: Anexact Geometry This might return us to Spinoza; see Curley's SPINOZA'S GEOMETRICAL METHOD. Bryan Alexander Department of English University of Michigan ********************** On Fri, 19 Jan 1996, Friedman, Howard J. wrote: > > > I would like to expand on this topic please. how geometry excludes the > > subject and then we can talk about anexact geometry in deleuzeoguattari. > > > > s.perrella > > architect > > You'll have to excuse me here. I only studied Euclidean geometry, and that > was in high school (some 20 years ago). I've since read a little of > Mandlebrot(?) but not very much. And a book of Rene Thom on catastrophe > theory. > > So the reason i suggested that (Euclidean) geometry excludes the "subject" > is simply because it relates to structures: lines, planes, triangles, > squares, rhombi, etc. I don't see any room here for a "subject". (Points are > also Euclidean, i think, but they don't seem to represent the main thrust of > traditional geometry) > > Other mathematical notions do seem to apply, however. I'm not sure, at this > point, if i'd like to class the subject as an "unreal number" (such as the > square root of a negative number) or as a real number with an infinite > decimal. > > I'm throwing this back to you because, as you can see, my ignorance is > great. Please enlighten, if you can. Thanks. > > Howie > ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005