“The geometric point is an invisible thing. Therefore, it must be defined as an incorporeal thing. Considered in terms of substance, it equals zero... Thus we look upon the geometric point as the ultimate and most singular union of silence and speech.”

The geometric point has, therefore, been given its material form, in the first instance, in writing. It belongs to language and signifies silence.
1920 - 1930, Point and line to plane, 1926

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "The geometric point is an invisible thing. Therefore, it must be defined as an incorporeal thing. Considered in terms o…" by Wassily Kandinsky?
Wassily Kandinsky photo
Wassily Kandinsky 68
Russian painter 1866–1944

Related quotes

Wassily Kandinsky photo
Wassily Kandinsky photo
Albrecht Dürer photo

“Whoever … proves his point and demonstrates the prime truth geometrically should be believed by all the world, for there we are captured.”

Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) German painter, printmaker, mathematician, and theorist

Vier Bücher von menschlicher Proportion (1528).

Willem de Sitter photo
Terry Pratchett photo
John Napier photo

“Whence a geometrically moving point approaching a fixed one has its velocities proportionate to its distances from the fixed one.”

John Napier (1550–1617) Scottish mathematician

The Construction of the Wonderful Canon of Logarithms (1889)

Roger Joseph Boscovich photo

“Boscovich said these particles had no size; that is, they were geometrical points … a point is just a place; it has no dimensions. And here's Boscovich putting forth the proposition that matter is composed of particles that have no dimensions!”

Roger Joseph Boscovich (1711–1787) Croat-Italian physicist

Leon M. Lederman, p.103 The God Particle: If the Universe is the Answer, what is the Question? (1993) https://books.google.hr/books?id=-v84Bp-LNNIC
Context: The phrase "ahead of his time" is overused. I'm going to use it anyway. I'm not referring to Galileo or Newton. Both were definitely right on time, neither late or early. Gravity, experimentation, measurement, mathematical proofs … all these things were in the air. Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, and Newton were accepted - heralded! - in their own time, because they came up with ideas that scientific community was ready to accept. Not everyone is so fortunate. Roger Jospeh Boscovich … speculated that this classical law must break down altogether at the atomic scale, where the forces of attraction are replaced by an oscillation between attractive and repulsive forces. An amazing thought for a scientist in the eighteenth century. Boscovich also struggled with the old action-at-a-distance problem. Being a geometer more than anything else, he came up with the idea of "fields of force" to explain how forces exert control over objects at a distance. But wait, there's more! Boscovich had this other idea, one that was real crazy for the eighteenth century (or perhaps any century). Matter is composed of invisible, indivisible a-toms, he said. Nothing particularly new there. Leucippus, Democritus, Galileo, Newton, and other would have agreed with him. Here's the good part: Boscovich said these particles had no size; that is, they were geometrical points … a point is just a place; it has no dimensions. And here's Boscovich putting forth the proposition that matter is composed of particles that have no dimensions! We found a particle just a couple of decades ago that fits a description. It's called a quark.

Herman Melville photo
Isaac Newton photo

“In Constructions that are equally Geometrical, the most simple are always to be preferr'd. This Law is so universal as to be without Exception. But Algebraick Expressions add nothing to the Simplicity of the Construction”

Arithmetica Universalis (1707)
Context: In Constructions that are equally Geometrical, the most simple are always to be preferr'd. This Law is so universal as to be without Exception. But Algebraick Expressions add nothing to the Simplicity of the Construction; the bare Descriptions of the Lines only are here to be consider'd and these alone were consider'd by those Geometricians who joyn'd a Circle with a right Line. And as these are easy or hard, the Construction becomes easy or hard: And therefore it is foreign to the Nature of the Thing, from any Thing else to establish Laws about Constructions. Either therefore let us, with the Antients, exclude all Lines besides the Circle, and perhaps the Conick Sections, out of Geometry, or admit all, according to the Simplicity of the Description. If the Trochoid were admitted into Geometry, we might, by its Means, divide an Angle in any given Ratio. Would you therefore blame those who should make Use of this Line... and contend that this Line was not defin'd by an Æquition, but that you must make use of such Lines as are defin'd by Æquations? <!--pp.228-229

Mark Sanford photo

“There wasn’t a lot of substance, and I think at some point we got to get to substance in the most significant political position in the world.”

Mark Sanford (1960) 115th Governor of South Carolina

Source: Talking about Trump’s lack of knowledge of how many articles exist according to" Trump Manages To Give Some House GOPers More Heartburn In Hill Meeting http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-changes-few-minds-with-meeting-on-the-hill" (July 7, 2016)

Related topics