VOL. IV (XXI) 2009 - Departamentul de Filosofie si Stiinte ale ...

VIRGIL LAURENŢIU SPĂTARU 79
it belongs to), in the mathematics, especially that, as I said before, there are
too many consequences of this proposed aporia; and regarding the multiple
comparisons that I made appropriate, I am trying not to reduce anything to
anything, but to notice accidentally , some relative parallels.
Before re-interpreting Wittgenstein´s sayings, quoted at the beginning
of this paper, concerning the connection ( still a bit disjunctive) between faith
and √–1, I want to integrate “trinomial geodesy”, of the “stone”: Chipha –
Hermenaios – Calculus, meaning the “Stone Jewish faith” – “the stone of
sighting roads (interpretation)” of the Greeks – and the “calculation stone” of
the Romans, because all of these are likely to coincide with Wittgenstein’s
remarks, at least in part.
Therefore, if and only if we review Wittgenstein´s quote, from the
beginning of this work, correlating it with the things said so far about this
various approach of √–1, logically, we will treat the sentence (expression) in
the following way:
“I belive it’s going to rain” ≈ “It’s going to rain”
and
“I belived then that it was going to rain” ≠ “It did rain then”
Which, shows us that a present possibility, is opened for a future
necessity (because in the future anything is possible, it is not given as
necessity), but a possibility in the past, has no longer a relevance, as long as
the fact has already happened as a necessary given from a further past, this
being said, at least in logical terms of Ockhamist origin, we can notice a
remarkable coincidence with the “and-asymmetry” of √–1, from the following
logical-mathematical expressions:
(√1) ≈ (1);
but
(√–1) ≠ (–1);
In conclusion: (√–1), is not either –i, or +i, but it is only [(– + 1)(√–1)],
according to this new perspective, still quite problematic, in order to generate
numerous, even endless inquires ... And this, I doubt, it might means
nothing at all !!! ...