1007.10 Omnitopology Compared with Eulers Topology

1007.11 While Euler discovered and developed topology and went on to develop the structural analysis now employed by engineers, he did not integrate in full potential his structural concepts with his topological concepts. This is not surprising as his contributions were as multitudinous as they were magnificent, and each human’s work must terminate. As we find more of Euler’s fields staked out but as yet unworked, we are ever increasingly inspired by his genius.

1007.12 In the topological past, we have been considering domains only as surface areas and not as uniquely contained volumes. Speaking in strict concern for always omnidirectionally conformed experience, however, we come upon the primacy of topological domains of systems. Apparently, this significance was not considered by Euler. Euler treated with the surface aspects of forms rather than with their structural integrities, which would have required his triangular subdividing of all polygonal facets other than triangles in order to qualify the polyhedra for generalized consideration as structurally eternal. Euler would have eventually discovered this had he brought to bear upon topology the same structural prescience with which he apprehended and isolated the generalized principles governing structural analysis of all symmetric and asymmetric structural components.

1007.13 Euler did not treat with the inherent and noninherent nuclear system concept, nor did he treat with total-system angle inventory equating, either on the surfaces or internally, which latter have provided powerful insights for further scientific exploration by synergetical analysis. These are some of the differences between synergetics and Euler’s generalizations.

1007.14 Euler did formulate the precepts of structural analysis for engineering and the concept of neutral axes and their relation to axial rotation. He failed, however, to identify the structural axes of his engineering formulations with the “excess twoness” of his generalized identification of the inventory of visual aspects of all experience as the polyhedral vertex, face, and line equating: V + F = L + 2. Synergetics identifies the twoness of the poles of the axis of rotation of all systems and differentiates between polar and nonpolar vertexes. Euler’s work, however, provided many of the clues to synergetics’ exploration and discovery.

1007.15 In contradistinction to, and in complementation of, Eulerian topology, omnitopology deals with the generalized equatabilities of a priori generalized omnidirectional domains of vectorially articulated linear interrelationships, their vertexial interference loci, and consequent uniquely differentiated areal and volumetric domains, angles, frequencies, symmetries, asymmetries, polarizations, structural-pattern integrities, associative interbondabilities, intertransformabilities, and transformative-system limits, simplexes, complexes, nucleations, exportabilities, and omni-interaccommodations.

1007.16 While the counting logic of topology has provided mathematicians with great historical expansion, it has altogether failed to elucidate the findings of physics in a conceptual manner. Many mathematicians were content to let topology descend to the level of a fascinating gamedealing with such Moebius-strip nonsense as pretending that strips of paper have no edges. The constancy of topological interrelationshipsthe formula of relative interabundance of vertexes, edges, and faceswas reliable and had a great potential for a conceptual mathematical strategy, but it was not identified operationally with the intertransformabilities and gaseous, liquid, and solid interbondings of chemistry and physics as described in Gibbs’ phase rule. Now, with the advent of vectorial geometry, the congruence of synergetic accounting and vectorial accounting may be brought into elegant agreement.