[AntonioLao]

Prime numbers between 1 and 20 are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, and 19. If the unit is represented by □ then 2 is □□ and 3 is □□□ and 5 is □□□□□ and 7 is □□□□□□□ and 11 is □□□□□□□□□□□ and 13 is □□□□□□□□□□□□□ and 17 is □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ and 19 is □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□. All these indicate geometric lines and simply imply that geometric primes could not be used to represent geometric areas although these could only be represented by composite numbers starting with the perfect square 2 × 2 = 4 or 2 × 3 = 6 or 3 × 2 = 6 and furthermore the simplest geometric volume by 2 × 2 × 2 = 8.
Attachment 255

[harmonygirl]

Antonio, what are the implications for the 5 Platonic solids (Cube, Octahedron, Tetrahedron, Icosahedron, and Dodecahedron) which seem to be based on pyramid structures?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl what are the implications for the 5 Platonic solids

Could they be related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci discoveries?

[harmonygirl]

I don't know a lot about his work in this area. The site only gave a single example of geometric work and it seemed to be related more to the 'golden ratio'. I guess my query was more to the effect that when creating symbols for prime numbers, perhaps a more appropriate icon might be a pyramid? I am trying to put geometry in context of TOE, and this way makes sense to me. Tell me what you think.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by harmonygirl I am trying to put geometry in context

I am still trying to understand the significance of the vertex of the pyramid. It seems to signify an origin of something, say from zero dimension to one dimension then to two and three dimension.

[harmonygirl]

I like that interpretation Antonio, I think you're on to something!

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Attachment 255

Is there a physical manifestation in relation or analogy to these mathematical objects?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Guille Is there a physical manifestation in relation or analogy to these mathematical objects?

Related to physical dimensionality, I supposed.