I guess you mean Wolfgang Pauli.
Of course, my bad. So the advancement of the insufficint logical basis of mathematics being in doubt is sustained.
On Your note, the irrational relates to the square, and the transcendent to the circle. Correct me on that, not that the irrational and the transcendent are in any way related. At least that is what i can understand from what i saw, and what i deduced from what You paraphrased.
I touched on that many years ago in studying why Pi could not be represented in digital form. All irrational numbers and calculus are about converting a “natural unknown into an unnatural known” or “perfectly describing nature”. At that time, I considered creating a number system based on Pi such that the number “1” represented our current number “Pi”. All measurements would be in the form of Pi-units. And although there would be a few advantages of that, I didn’t see it as resolving the more serious problems at hand.
I haven’t verified that it is impossible to square a circle and these days, it would probably be a waste of time to try. But seeing where I am now, I suspect that I should have looked into the squaring of the circle issue more seriously long ago. These days, I am far, far past being tired of resolving issues that no one really cares about. If I proved that it really is possible to square the circle and posted that, nothing would change. Society is past the point of no return from its musings.
But if a particular number isn’t exactly known, such as Pi, no portion or exponent of it can be known. And since the “squaring of the circle” requires a square with exactly the square root of Pi as its dimensions, to resolve the issue would probably mean resolving Pi perfectly, which cannot be done in digital form. Although perhaps some exponential of Pi can be digitally represented.
The transcendentals are a subset of the irrationals. A “square” refers to an exactly knowable entity, always unnatural or conceptual, not existing in the physical universe. The “curve”, or “circle” in this case, refers to a natural entity that might actually physically exist. The effort was to find a way to exactly describe the physical universe. Calculus is as close as they got. RM:AO explains all of the actual ontological issues (“what is there”) but current mathematics can’t deal with all that RM:AO presents (“how much is there”). RM:AO presents an infinite matrix of infinite series wherein no one variable can be calculated without simultaneously resolving all the others. I have a program that approximates that effort so as to emulate space and the formation of sub-atomic particles, but really needs better programming and a bigger computer.
Might not synchronous events coincide with this idea? And James, how big a computer would be needed for this kind of verification? Supercomputers are becoming smaller, heard great progress is made with Craig types. Could a day arrive, when, such devices may be available on the market for commercial use, for about the price a lap top costs today? Of course by that time, perhaps, everyone may loose interest.
The “verification”, I have already done. That wasn’t the issue, although extremely complex to first resolve. The issue now is merely one of properly emulating such as to yield usable measurements in practical physics, economics, psychology, and sociology. The size of the computer required for such a thing depends upon the programming method. I could create a hard-wire programmed computer that would do the job very, very quickly, but it wouldn’t be very small. Semiconductor Valley could probably then reduce that into your wrist watch.
And interestingly, such a hard-wire computer actually forms the metaphysical into the physical. If a person was programmed into the metaphysical emulation, an actual real person would be in that watch, just as real as you.
And the world has already “lost interest” in any truth, as you have demonstrated.
Which can perhaps “be digitally represented”?
The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example “π” [“Pi”] or “e” [“Euler’s number”]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):
I don’t understand the question. Which what?
And giving the squaring of the circle a little thought this morning, I realize that I can describe both circles and squares in terms of angles. And if I can get a rational relationship between those angle measurements, I could “square the circle”. But I haven’t gone that far yet.
Exponential of Pi.
You “could ‘square the circle’”?
I don’t know what exponential. I said that perhaps there might be one. It would have to be a pretty complicated one, but I think that I might have found a better approach.
And realize that “squaring the circle” has nothing to do with a “square-circle”.
Just because someone, as brilliant as he was, said that something couldn’t be done, it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. But a “square-circle” is impossible by definition of “square” and “circle” - obviously impossible, although you could have a “squarish-circle” or a “circlish-square”.
If you will “square the circle” someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably shange the definition of “circle” and the definition of “square”. 
But “someday never comes”, said John Fogerty:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ7Rnu8MVYo[/youtube]
“Someday Never Comes” by Creedence Clearwater Revival (John Fogerty, Tom Fogerty, Stu Cook, Doug Clifford), 1972.
Impossible?
Yes, that is what they tend to do, but in this case, more likely to find a women and give her credit for proving all of those white men to be inferior.
There is a square out there, whose intention it is to become a circle, with the exact area, of that particular circle. Those squares out there all competing to get into that particular circle, would have to have the intention, to reach the limit, an enduring limit, to fit
that particular circle. That circle may be exact to .000000000000000001 % to fit, so that the square that hazards to try, to fit in, may really be quite
unique in the universe. But, in all probability
extending to the limit of infinity,the certainty IS, that there is, such a square. Perhaps only one.
Could You blame them after being caged into a hermanutic circle for oh so long, only to be delivered by one worthy to awaken her? This may be the real reason N broke with Wagner, the femininity of Christianity (turn the other cheek) , not the matter over redemption. The Ring, the Rheingold are basically feminine. It is only the female who has the power to redeem mankind.
The feminine only has the power to mother the savior, not be the savior.
'Feminine’used as a metaphor for the animus/anima distinction within every one of us, some more, some less.
Einstein didn’t believe in the gravitational force either. He tried to explain gravitational attraction as the result of space being bent. It is actually due to an uneven reconstituting of sub-atomic particles causing a migration of the mass centers toward each other, no “forces” at all, nor “bent space”.
The very idea of a gravitational force was merely an idea, a postulate. That idea seemed to be true. It seemed to even be measurable. It was certainly useful to think in such terms. But then all superstitions usually are to a degree. Things acted as if there were forces between them. The fact of the matter is that it was an incorrect idea.
I just read the first page of this thread, and it’s very obvious James is stating that this is an electromagnetic force. It seems perfectly obvious that gravity does not warp space so as to place something in orbit because it’s also repelling it (perhaps with dark matter). It makes more sense that there are electromagnetic forces IMO.
The question of this thread is whether “forces” are “farces” or not, and I think we should not speak of “forces” but of “interactions”. And if we do that, it will soon become obvious that gravity is not the “queen of the universe” but merely one of the natural interactions.
Remember me telling you that they change their wording from time to time in order to disguise their faults? They used to speak of the four fundamental forces of the universe (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). Now it is being stated as:
They decided to combine electric potential, magnetics, and electromotive all into “electromagnetic” and strong plus weak into “nuclear” and, due to relativity, left out gravitation, reducing the prior four into three. And they eventually stopped calling them “forces”, now referring to them as “interactions”.
They are growing up and one day will reveal that gravitation can be combined into the other interactions and all be merely the one field of Affectance and its many interactive aberrant properties, “such as gravitation, electromagnetics, and nuclear bindings”.
[size=150]Science is lagging behind.[/size]