THE HISTORY OF RELATIVE 1/4 PI

This section will conclude an overview of the history of relative 1/4 pi through the French Revolution. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in understanding pi is coming to grips with the hardcore consequences that resulted from Simon Laplace’s concealment of relative 1/4 pi.

We, the entire human race, have lived that consequence ever since. The entire world’s systems of science and education and commerce have been blindly following Simon Laplace’s representation that random quadrature holds the truth of randomness.

CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM necessarily gives a negative assessment of Laplace in regards to his inexcusable conduct.

Eleven years before the Terror, Jacques Brissot wrote an entire book that gave a similar assessment of Laplace in regards to his conduct and the negative consequences to science and education!

Brissot and others were shocked by Laplace’s outrageous conduct during both the Boskovic debate and the Brissot interview. Brissot's deepest concern was that the Academy was endorsing Laplace and his apparent malice and incompetence.

Though no one was discussing it, Marat’s work with light deductively supported the original Needle. Therefore, it ultimately supported “action at a distance!” Although the Boskovic debate had concluded two years earlier, Marat’s experiment with light nevertheless supported Boskovic’s side of the debate ...and did it with a conclusion that supported the Needle!

Brissot appears dead on with his assessment of Laplace in 1782. He would have been doubly saddened had he lived to enjoy seeing his dire analysis and prediction come true. However, Laplace had Brissot guillotined with the Girondins in 1793.

Brissot and his book were effectively swept out of significance in the torrent of the Terror. However, before the Terror, its significance cannot be overstated. Laplace had been a central target for Brissot in 1782. In return, Brissot was a central target for Laplace in 1793. These matters of pi cannot be understood without a background review of the circumstances.

When Boskovic complained of Laplace’s conduct in the great debate, Condorcet appointed a committee to investigate. Bezout was on the committee. It concluded that Laplace was technically correct and slapped him on the wrist for his manners. It suggested the parties return to the public arena.

That, of course, was exactly what Laplace's supporters wanted ...whether Laplace wanted it or not.

For Laplace, there was the enjoyment that (at least in his own eyes) the public waas perceiving him as "winning" since Boskovic could not adequately respond (on religious grounds as discussed above).

The committee found a fine point of technicality in favor of Laplace. That is, using Laplace’s quadrature on a set of Cartesian co-ordinates, the four polar co-ordinates of quadrature are fundamentally identical with the four polar co-ordinates of Cartesian co-ordinates. They are commonly called: “North, South, East, West.” With Cartesian co-ordinates, the horizontal axis is usually referenced as "x" and the vertical axis is represented by "y."

Laplace rudely claimed his method of quadrature was better than Boskovic’s methodology. Laplace accused of using “action at a distance.”

The pivotal and controversial academic point was the inherent relativity that is associated with “action at a distance.”

Another digression may be help the reader through the web of deceit and politics.

Random quadrature is just another way of measuring something and/or describing or “graphing” it. The statistical problem with random quadrature is that it assumes two dimensions are being randomly measured. The original Needle separated the two dimensions mathematicaly ...but the seperate parts are not equal. They only appear that way. That is why the original Needle contains such genius. It does not just start by creating two equal crossed axes and four Cardinal poles. The original Needle's equalty came wrapped in relative 1/4 pi, relative to the pi-angle created by gravity's pull. The original Needle did not just seperate the axes we see into two dimensions and four Cardinal poles. It seperated them into the dimension of perception and the dimension of gravity!

The deductions and inferences of the original Needle are that gravity only recognizes the single geometric dimension of gravity's own straight line pull. In gravitational fact, relative to randomness and gravity, in all series of random measurements, only one dimension is being randomly measured.

What of the other dimension that we perceive? What of the cross dimension that we can randomly and statistically prove to exist?

The answer has already been discussed. It has to do with relativity.The relativity only appears with the finesse methodology of "action at a distance."

If "action at a distance" is not used, then the statistics we randomly get will match what we see and what we expect from traditional random theory.

If "action at a distance" is used, the geometric finesse eliminates the cross dimension from consideration.

If "action at a distance" is used, there is a natural question that sooner or later must be asked. This was part of Einstein's EPR challenge: "what about everything else?"

What about everything else that is not a geometric probability? What about the "stuff" that is finessed through?

The original Needle answers that too. Relative to gravity, everything else is just relative 1/4 pi ...just an average ...just a mathematical perception.

The “dimensional” differences between random quadrature and “action at a distance” are why modern science, which is based on random quadrature and four poles, does not, except for the Quantum sciences, contain random relativity.

The problem for the Quantum sciences is that they are still using random quadrature to evaluate the results they get from using "action at a distance." This is why the Quantum results are spookily disjointed from traditional random theory.

Random quadrature automatically delivers the statistics of four quadrant poles and two dimensions. They are without meaningful relativity. Each quadrant or Cardinal pole is already an obvious part of the circle to which it might be considered “relative.”

Each quadrant or Cardinal pole is an end pole of one of the two dimensions that comprise a circle. The connection is obvious. A circle is already made up of quadrants representing two dimensions. This is traditional random theory. The statement that a quadrant is “relative” to a circle is first grade obvious and gravitationally meaningless. Circles and “games” are only algebra in the first instance.

Traditional random theory cannot be reconciled with the geometry of “action at a distance.” It is only with "action at a distance" that relativity becomes meaningful. The finesse methodology simultaneously relates two apparently separate events: algebra on a circle and geometry on a diameter. Every random measurement holds an algebraic value around the circumference of the field (any pocket on a roulette wheel) ...and a geometric value along the field or wheel's pi-angle.

Action at a distance proves that a circle of four quadrants is just an illusion. Action at a distance statistically proves only three poles are rotating. The proof comes through the relativity of matters that otherwise have no apparent connection.

Understanding relativity is not difficult. It is just not obvious.

The proof of relativity --the geometric relativity that eluded Einstein-- only appears as a statistical matter of geometric probability. It can only be mathematically found and resolved with the geometric finesse inherent in “action at a distance.”

The relativity is between the algebra of the perception of a circle (or “game”) …and the geometry that gravity is randomly delivering on a pi-angle. The relativity only appears statistically as a geometric probability. Apparently, randomly and mathematically, only the original Needle can geometrically satisfy this.

Relative to gravity and randomness, only the original Needle’s relative length is both algebraic as 1/4 C …and geometric as relative 1/4 pi. It is only proven with “action at a distance.” It then only makes mathematical sense in a world comprised entirely of pi.

In that world of pi, it is pi itself that is paradoxically eliminated from the equation by the geometric finesse. This leaves a world of relative geometric probabilities between the geometric divisions of pi.

The term “relativity” is also meaningless when applied to 1/2 C. Like a quadrant of 1/4 C, a semi circle of 1/2 C is already an obvious integral part of the circle.

The term "relativity" becomes meaningful when 1/2 C is valued as 1/2 pi. The end poles of 1/2 pi are already a natural part of the pi-angle (or "diameter”). When 1/2 pi is reached with "action at a distance," the random values change. The Cardinal poles on the semi-circle are the same size when they are not measured with "action at a distance." The Cardinal poles on the semi-circle are not the same size when they are measured with "action at a distance." As discussed within, the difference is thirty degrees of arc. With traditional random theory, a random event is expected to land in 90 degrees of arc. With "action at a distance," the same random event is predictable in 60 degrees of arc.

The term “relativity” has double significance when 1/2 C is considered as relative 1/2 pi. Here, with “action at a distance,” relative 1/2 pi is relative to relative 1/4 pi over three random measurements. This is so since the unit of measure is relative 1/4 pi. This is the length of the original Needle. It is also relative to the diameter through 1/2 pi’s relativity with 1/6 pi. That is: the relativity of a Cardinal pole (as the end pole of a semi-circle of 1/2 pi) to a relative pi-angle pole (as a geometric probability of 1/6 pi).

In every series of random measurements, relative 1/2 pi is also the relative length of the relative cross radius. This was the deductive proof of the original Needle. That randomly values the cross diameter as: pi.

This is evidenced by dividing a quadrant (the universal random average of relative 1/4 pi) of a roulette wheel by its radius. The quotient is always the length of the relative cross radius: 1/2 pi.

The term “relativity” does not need to be applied to 1/6 pi when it is relative to life’s perceptions. This value of a relative pi-angle pole is already integral, as a matter of geometric probability, to both the pi-angle that randomness and gravity are delivering and the circle of algebraic possibilities that comprise the “game.”

However, relative to gravity’s pi-angle over three random events or measurements, relative 1/6 pi is relative to the pi-angle base or “diameter base.” Here again, the spookiness appears. The value of the pi-angle base may be inferred by its value with “action at a distance” in a world of relative pi.

Here, the spookiness continues.

The value of a pi-angle base, as one end of a pi-angle, would theoretically appear at first blush to equally match the value of its relative pi-angle pole or at least a Cardinal pole. An example is that to all appearances on a circle, North equals South. If South is a Cardinal pole, then it would appear North is a Cardinal pole. If, with "action at a distance," relative North is the geometric probability of a relative pi-angle pole that holds a flat bet .16666 advantage, then it would appear South should be of similar size. Such, however, is not the random case.

The necessary lack of relativity (since it is only the first in a series of three) in a pi-angle base places its value as precisely one half of that of a relative pi-angle pole of 1/6 pi. That is: a pi-angle base is a 1/3 probability on the natural pi-angle of 3 poles and, since its not yet relative, it is still a 1/4 possibility on a circle, relative to the “game.” That is: 1/12 pi. This is discussed within.

The flat bet advantage “payoff” is the relative difference between 1/6 pi and relative 1/4 pi (or between 1/6 pi and  relative 1/2 pi: the answer and flat bet advantage is the same) factored by two possible directions.

Does this sound complicated? It is not! It is only a matter of admitting that, relative to randomness, we and our random measurements are just a perception of so much relative pi. Perhaps this is why, in modern science, the .08333 flat bet success of Quantum Mechanics is ascribed to “hidden variables.” In gravitational geometric fact, nothing is “hidden.” It is just a matter of perception. The real problem is that “perception” introduces too much information into the attempt to understand the simplicity of randomness and gravity.

The original Needle mathematically proves that, relative to the randomness of gravity, life's perceptios are pi. It proves pi is the Center of Rotation. The geometric finesse eliminates the Center of Rotation from a series of random measurements …and therefore pi and the mathematical involvement of life’s perceptions is also eliminated.

The original Needle, and its extension with the geometric finesse of “action at a distance,” reduces a field of two dimensions and four poles to a field of one dimension and three poles. This reveals the hidden variables.

It is we and our perceptions who are the hidden variables. The geometric finesse eliminates us and our perceptions from the equation.

Spookier and spookier!

Relative to gravity, by the proof of the original Needle, perception is pi. Gravity doesn’t recognize life or perceptions. Relative to gravity, we and our perceptions and games ...are the pi!

Action at a distance eliminates pi and ourselves and our perceptions and “games” from equations of randomness. It replaces everything with a stream of events of relative 1/4 pi each. What remains are the relative geometric probabilities of pi’s geometric divisions. These hold the geometric truths of randomness. This is what Laplace knew and concealed.

By incessantly using quadrature to measure randomness, the relative geometry of the random gravitational truth is a mathematical impossibility. We are the pi. With our random measurements, we (pi) and our algebra (pi) and our measurements (pi) are forever measuring and receiving what we perceive (pi) and what quadrature (pi) and our traditional random game theory (pi) incestuously deliver: the algebra of pi.

It requires a mental jump out of the circle of pi to accept the relative geometry that gravity is randomly and paradoxically delivering through three measurements of relative 1/4 pi when using "action at a distance."

The random geometric truth that contains relativity is only statistically apparent with “action at a distance.”

It only makes sense with relative 1/4 pi as the unit of measure. With it, gravity delivers the random geometric relativity that defines itself by the random proof of the original Needle.

The proof is found in the relative geometric relationships between the geometric divisions of pi. Paradoxically, it is only found after pi and the experimenter (and/or observer) are eliminated from the equation.

The elimination comes through the geometric finesse of “action at a distance.”

The original Needle deductively proves the COR is pi. Action at a distance finesses through the field or game or object’s COR. That is: the geometric finesse eliminates the COR and pi –and our perceptions– from the event. This allows relativity to emerge with the randomness of geometric probability.

We can only “see” the geometric probability through statistics.

Such statistics spooked Einstein. Over three random events, it changes 1/4 pi (or 1/2 pi or pi depending on perception) to the relative flat bet advantage of relative 1/6 pi!

When we measure randomness with quadrature, we only get our perceptions of two (or three or more) dimensions handed back to us in a statistical perception that tends to automatically display four Cardinal poles in every series of random measurements. This is the basis of traditional random theory. The algebraic structure of quadrature algebraically delivers the structure of what we perceive: an algebraic circle of 4 algebraic Cardinal poles. Any unit of measure may be used: “microns” or inches or meters or light years or pockets or card values, etc..

However, in traditional random theory, the unit of measure is algebraic (anything you want) and can only be made relative to itself through more algebra. That is: the algebra of 1/4 of a circle, algebraically multiplied by four, only completes the algebra of a circle. That makes any perceived mathematical relativity meaningless as just a perception of algebra. That is: random quadrature does not directly address the geometric nature of that which is being randomly measured.

For example, roulette is a “game” that properly has four natural quadrants (as per the original Needle). On a 38 pocket wheel, a ball lands in a pocket that is approximately one inch wide, on a wheel that is approximately three feet around, that is made with so many different materials, each of such and such a particular size and weight and resiliency, etc.. Each of the foregoing elements, including the “game” and the “odds” is determined with quadrature. In modern science to date, each additional factor will also inevitably be measured with quadrature. Most importantly, the "game" will also be a game of quadature played on a wheel of quadrature. The problem with quadrature is that it only measures more quadrature. Random quadrature confirms our perceptions ...but relative to gravity, random quadrature only measures whatever it is perceived as measuring ...and all of it is just a perception.

When randomness is measured with “action at a distance,” the dimensions we perceive --that are only algebraic perceptions of random quadrature in the first place-- are eliminated by the geometric finesse. This leaves the measurement geometrically structured to match the structure of gravity’s pull on the single dimension of a pi-angle. However, to make mathematical sense, the original Needle’s length of relative 1/4 pi must be used as the unit of measure. When it is made relative through 1/2 pi over a series of three random events, the magic appears in the random transformation of 1/4 pi into 1/6 pi.

Using quadrature, the underlying, gravitational, geometric nature of randomness must be inferred with a psychological leap. It cannot be deduced. The problem with random quadrature is that there is nothing to be deduced that isn’t also measured with quadrature. This is mathematically incestuous. There is no random geometry with quadrature. It is just algebra describing more algebra to the algebraic “geometry” of our perceptions.

Only we see shapes and blobs and circles and games. Gravity doesn’t.

Relative to gravity, we and our shapes and blobs and circles and games are all ...just so much pi!

The closest the algebra of random quadrature comes to geometric randomness is the original Needle. That is: the algebraic possibility of 1/4 C equals the geometric probability of the algebra of relative 1/4 pi, relative to the diameter.

This is where “action at a distance” enters.

Mathematically, with “action at a distance,” relative to randomness, the underlying premise of a geometric finesse automatically and geometrically matches the geometric structure of gravity’s straight line pull along the pi-angle or “diameter” of the object or game or field being randomly measured (algebraically factored as may be necessary by any Bayesian adjustments and/or relative 1/2 pi as described herein relative to a sphere). If mathematical sense is to be geometrically made of randomness and/or “action at a distance,” it is only possible if the unit of measure is relative 1/4 pi.

Returning to this history of pi ...therein was the taunt of Laplace to Boskovic.

Laplace knew Boskovic could not admit that his random unit of measure was relative 1/4 pi. The reason….?….

….For Boskovic, trying to claim a flat bet random .08333 advantage would mean risking blasphemy by necessarily admitting the ultimate natural conclusion that, relative to randomness and gravity …everything else is just some version of pi ...that is randomly and gravitationally proven with "action at a distance!"

Perhaps just as significantly, it would appear from the historical timing that Boskovic may have usurped the original Needle between 1733 and 1734, exactly like Laplace had usurped the original Needle between 1770 and 1772!

There were some differences between their apparent respective usurpations. Boskovic apparently took the original Needle’s geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi and its inherent .08333 advantage and plugged it into Newton’s theory of comet prediction, presumably for scientific reasons. However, he couldn’t tell anyone for religious and/or political reasons.

Laplace usurped the original Needle’s algebraic truth of 1/4 C and its inherent quadrature (the basis of traditional random theory) and used it to further his career. He concealed the original Needle and it proof of relative 1/4 pi so that close examination of its then recent development would not expose him as a front man instead of the "greatest mathematician in France."

Random quadrature matches life’s perceptions …but automatically does not mathematically allow for the geometry of random measurements relative to the underlying gravitational nature of that which is being measured.

The problem concerns the random value: “1.”. If Quadrature is used, the radius of a field is necessarily valued as “1.”. From there, everything is valued in any manner, shape or form in which traditional random theory and values apply, which is virtually everywhere and with everything. Even the values of a radius may be changed.

However, with the original Needle and “action at a distance,” the only possible random value of a radius is: “.50″ …and that fundamentally changes the random measurements of everything.

Action at a distance does not match life’s perceptions of randomness. However, the geometric finesse of “action at a distance” does mathematically find the random geometric nature of gravity! This automatically delivers a .08333 flat bet advantage over quadrature!

The same advantage is .16666 if the measure is couched in gaming circumstances. However, the only random geometric condition that mathematically satisfies “action at a distance” and explains the flat bet random geometric advantage …is when the random unit of measure is: relative 1/4 pi.

The religious and philosophical problems attending relative 1/4 pi ultimately lead to the conclusion that everything random is just random pi! To many people, that spooky truth would be irreligious!

Yet, relative 1/4 pi --and all the mathematical and philosophical consequences that flow from it-- must be the universal random unit of measurement if “action at a distance” is to make mathematical sense and if randomness is to be understood relative to gravity and random measurements.

In the 18th century, proposing “action at a distance” as a legitimate methodology could have been a career ending proposition for any scientist to hold, especially a priest, ex Jesuit and diplomat, such as Boskovic. It could be equally career ending for prominent officers of the Paris Academy of Sciences, such as Buffon and Condorcet. They may have held "Permanent" titles, but it was the king's Academy and he could pretty much do or pressure what he wanted.

Relative 1/4 pi was the real unspoken issue between Laplace and Boskovic in 1776. They both apparently knew it and neither could openly admit the deeper truth.

Laplace was wrong in his analytical conclusion. Boskovic would have pointed this out. Boskovic would have certainly made his point with more vigor and depth in a back room a few minutes later. There, Boskovic may well have also pointed out that Laplace had usurped the Needle to obtain his quadrature.

Simply looking at who was academically right and who was wrong, Boskovic “won” the debate. He especially won it in the back room. Nevertheless, from the back room, there was no one, especially Boskovic, who was going to publicly argue the true validity of “action at a distance” at the expense of life’s perceptions and their career. Boskovic was also not going to admit any usurpation of the original Needle’s length of relative 1/4 pi.

Boskovic could only admit his methodology was just a different way of measuring something.

As for the public…. Methodology? Orbits of comets? Action at a distance? Acceleration? Vectors? Angles? Geometry? Who knew what they were talking about …but wasn’t it fun to watch them go at it and see the old man squirm?!

Laplace continued his taunts and attack from approximately June, 1776, to September, 1777. Boskovic then left France. To the public, that left a muddled appearance that Boskovic might have somehow “lost” and Laplace might have somehow “won.”

Doctor Jean Paul Marat entered the scene months before the debate ended and became friends with Ben Franklin. Marat contrived to have Franklin lead an Academy commission to review Marat’s initial experiments with heat. It was a good review.

Marat’s subsequent experiments with light were tacitly and deductively coherent with the original Needle …and therefore sympathetic to Boskovic’s side of the recent debate! These were basic matters of mechanics and gravity. Unfortunately, they were also matters of politics.

Marat claimed light was a perception that occurs at a tangent relative to the object it touches.

By the proof of the original Needle, that relativity sets up the tangent event as relative 1/4 pi and the relative cross radius as 1/2 pi. This agrees with the original Needle as a perception (mathematical average) that occurs at a tangent (relative 1/4 pi) relative (through 1/2 pi) to the Center of Rotation or Center of Mass of the pi-angle of the object it touches.

Marat also correctly understood the seriousness of the mathematical consequences of his work. He wrote his belief that the Academy was rejecting his work since otherwise they would have to recalculate every calculation ever made!

Laplace’s biographers disagree as to whether he actually received an academic degree, but after his outrageous interview with Brissot, Laplace’s reputation was effectively a time bomb that could reduce the “greatest mathematician in France” to little more than a corrupt night bookkeeper in a border brothel.

Laplace’s first published paper contained an error he "blamed on the printer" ...and at which many winked. One of his earliest papers to the Academy contained material and ideas lifted from two other mathematicians, one of whom was sitting on the very committee reviewing his work (noting that Condorcet was the other committee member).

Laplace’s major paper in 1776, which he claimed as part of his work from 1774, and claimed was based on work he did in 1772, and on which he based his life’s work, was effectively shot down in the Boskovic debate. Laplace’s work clearly grew from the original Needle. It now appears it was never his work in the first place.

Laplace claimed the random possibilities of gaming may be applied to the random mechanics of the universe.

Laplace’s usurpation of the works of others and adapting them to quadrature became part of Laplace’s signature contribution. His most significant positive contribution is considered the “Laplace Transform.” It changes linear measurements (let the reader plug in the original Needle and Boskovic’s finesse methodology) to quadrature. It also appears to have been developed by Buffon and quietly handed to Laplace upon Laplace's manipulated admission to the Academy.

There is nothing wrong with quadrature, but it must be understood as only representing what is perceived. Other than being the "pay off" in gaming, quadrature becomes meaningless when understood geometrically in terms of the original Needle’s relativity to the randomness of gravity. Through the geometric finesse in "action at a distance," quadrature is jumped and eliminated. Therein is the flat bet advantage …and Laplace (and/or his backers) knew it!

Laplace’s concealment of his usurpation and burial of the original Needle was a major part of his terrible legacy to the world. The system of education we enjoy today was forged in the smithy of that hell called the Terror. Now, as then, its interior is rotten with a stain of academic prejudice that is as strong now as when established by Laplace two centuries ago.

Laplace’s contamination of science and education was well discussed in De La Verite. In 1782, Laplace’s charlatan approach become a blueprint for the next two centuries. Amazingly, that was twenty years before Laplace got serious and committed mass murder to make his point. Laplace’s prejudice and mediocrity were described in Brissot's 360 page book. It was effectively dedicated to that specific subject: Laplace’s bad faith mediocrity and the evil consequences that the Paris Academy of Sciences inexplicably were allowing to occur.

Brissot’s deepest concern was that the Academy appeared to actually be adopting Laplace’s lack of academic integrity and his malicious dismissals of anything new that might threaten his (and/or the Academy’s) status quo.

The roots of De La Verite came from the Brissot/Laplace interview regarding Marat. However, the seeds of the interview and the book were sown in the Laplace/Boskovic debate.

Laplace's rude behavior surely shocked many. As well, the fact that he was reading from notes and still being conclusionary ...was surely a puzzlement as well. So too, the appearance that he was somehow "winning" the debate.

The roots of the “debate” were sown with Laplace’s usurpation of the Needle in 1772.

Here, another digression is necessary.

The year 1770, was in an age of mathematical discovery. However, "action at a distance" was banned by the Catholic Church. So too were the works of Buffon.

France was a Catholic country and all the officers and leaders of the Academy were Catholic. For political and career reasons, they could not be seen working with “action at a distance” or delving into pi through the Needle. Yet, these were serious matters with serious consequences, perhaps military consequences as well.

The evidence points to two possibilities concerning Laplace’s usurpation of the original Needle. First, that Laplace was a generally competent but mediocre mathematician who independently stumbled across the Needle but said nothing.

The second possibility makes more sense and has more evidentiary support. That is, Laplace was a mildly competent mediocre mathematician with but a useful and singular outstanding asset. He was an ambitious hard working atheist without morals who was willing to be a front for the works of others ...and who was apparently willing to wear a cleric's robe to establish credibility ...and was willling to quietly work with banned materials ...and take any heat that came down.

For political and/or religious and/or military reasons, it appears Laplace was quietly handed the Needle by Buffon and Condorcet. Laplace would have understood he was to quietly answer special mathematical questions from time to time. He would have been told that if he used it well …without ever mentioning the Needle or discussing its random geometric probability of relative 1/4 pi …he could be the greatest mathematician in France.

In this regard, there may have been one or more people behind Buffon and Condorcet, at least during the Boskovic debate. A short list would include Lavoisier, Bailly and Bezout. Monge may also have been tangentially involved, but probably no others.

It may be noted these men were all were Catholics. It appears they quietly handed the Needle to Laplace because they found a mathematician willing to snub religion and take it on. In this regard, Laplace had another valuable asset: he was without integrity. Although apparently an atheist, he was willing to wear a cleric's garb to establish his credibility!

Bezout and Monge may have been included in this small cadre because the subject of geometric probability appears to touch (and may have been touched off by) a military secret.

Bailly may have been included because he was arguably the Academy’s foremost astronomer and the ostensible subject of the debate was predicting the orbits of comets.

Lavoisier may have been included for several reasons. He was the scientific powerhouse in the Academy. He would soon enjoy fame as the “father” of modern chemistry. He was also France's leading tax collector and there was a considerable amount of money perceived to be at stake in the form of trade agreements ...if Boskovic didn't persuade Ben Franklin to make peace with England.

Buffon had obvious reasons. Buffon is considered a non mathematician (although he now appears as a superior mathematician than Laplace). Buffon may or may not have understood the full consequences of his Needle. However, if Buffon did not understand the depth of his Needle, Buffon was fully aware of the debate issues and its depth of relative 1/4 pi. Even in this scenario, Buffon would have known that neither Laplace nor Boskovic could introduce relative 1/4 pi as the real subject of the debate.

Neither Laplace or Boskovic could argue the geometric validity of relative 1/4 pi (from Laplace) or 1/6 pi (from Boskovic) without inferentially or directly supporting “action at a distance.” Action at a distance left the point of the Needle dangling over their heads like a blade.

In this scenario, Buffon and Condorcet, alone or with friends, were not only clued in when Laplace attacked Boskovic, but may even have designed the attack.

Then came Marat!

Marat was forever an unexpected ingredient. His work supported the original Needle. That work, if followed to its ultimate conclusion, threatened to expose the geometric truth of relative 1/4 pi. In that case, there was a good chance Laplace’s facade would crumble.

After the Marat/Academy confrontation exploded into the Revolution, it was not just Marat’s work that threatened Laplace. It was Marat himself. Throughout the Revolution, until his death, Marat’s influence grew steadily. He was calling for heads and his wish was on the verge of coming true. Marat also had a good track record of violence stretching back four years earlier (with involvement in a massacre or two in between) when he banged the tocsin to call citizens to the Bastille!

Within this mix were the motives for Laplace’s conduct in the Revolution. If there was ever incriminating paperwork supporting this analysis, such pages are long gone. In this regard, it must be noted again that during the Terror, the papers and records of the Academy, and the slaughtered scientists (most especially including their memoirs) were immediately seized and delivered to Laplace. As well, Laplace was Chief Examiner of Artillery. Military records were also in his control. Any incriminating paperwork against Laplace would have been long destroyed.

The circumstance of precious few documents, due to their intentional destruction in a cover up of judicial murder, concealed within a larger crime (mass murder through the Terror) necessarily leads to a scanty legal analysis such as this ...wherein wispy circumstantial evidence must sifted.

Laplace’s statements of his work and the history of his times no longer hold credibility. So too, all traditional histories of the cause of the Terror are now put to the test.

By historical agreement, there is sufficient history as to what appeared to happen. The blame is generally put on Robespierre. However, there is precious little history as to the root cause that motivated Robespierre or who, if anyone, was really behind him.

Georges Couthon was Robespierre’s most intimate right hand man. It is inconceivable that Couthon would speak to the issue of executing the Girondins, using the evidence he used, without receiving it from or through Robespierre. A clear picture of who was behind the evidence starts with the question: which mathematician told Robespierre (or Couthon) he had mathematical proof of a connection between the Girondins and Charlotte Corday?!

Whoever gave that “mathematical demonstration” delivered a knowing death knell for the Girondins, especially to Jacques Brissot and Jean Condorcet!

What mathematician could or would do that? In 1793?!

There were apparently only two leading probability experts working with social statistics in Paris in 1793: Condorcet and Laplace.

Such a mathematician would have to be nimble with probability ...like Laplace. Such a mathematician would have to be nimble with social statistics ...like Laplace. Such a mathematician would have to be knowledgeable about the parties and the area ...like Laplace. Most of the Girondin’s were actually from the Caen area ...like Laplace. More specifically, Corday bragged she was from Calvados ...like Laplace. Nor would Couthon use the mathematics of just any old mathematician who might be knowledgeable about probability and social statistics and had an ax to grind. In advocating mass murder of elected government representatives, Couthon (and/or Robespierre) would want the mathematical figures to come with credibility ...from at least one of the great mathematicians in France, if not the greatest ...like Laplace.

Condorcet, with the alleged help of Laplace, is considered the father of the merger of probability and social statistics. Condorcet is credited, with the alleged help of Laplace, with using probability theory to stabilize and analyze the stock market and actuary statistics. Prior to Condorcet (and Laplace) the stock market was chaotic with mathematically unwarranted speculation. Condorcet --with the alleged help of Laplace-- is very much the “father” of the introduction of probability and social statistics, including the stock market and actuarial tables.

We may be certain that Condorcet did not send a note to Couthon to explain that there was a mathematical connection between Corday and himself (Condorcet) and therefor he (Condorcet) should be executed!

Brissot was deeply concerned with social matters and was familiar with social statistics. He knew Condorcet. Both men worked to end slavery in France. Both fought and argued for woman’s rights. Brissot was intimately part of the “Girondins.” They were even originally named after him: the “Brissotins.” Brissot certainly did not give Couthon or Robespierre his mathematical assessment that he and the Girondins were in a conspiracy and therefore should be executed!

There is an incomplete historical picture of the French Revolution and the involvement of the academic masters. The involvement of academia did not stop with the Terror. This is expanded in CRACKING PI CRACKING RANDOM. What happened in the rapid evolution of modern science and education after 1793, was strangely understood and predicted in “De La Verite.” It was apparently written by Brissot while imprisoned in the Bastille on a libel/slander charge.

Jacques Brissot was solidly part of the intelligentsia. He was a respected journalist whose focus was social conscience. He was popular and was early elected as a representative in the new government. When the Bastille fell, the keys were first handed to Brissot. He was soon leading a loose group of independently elected representatives who generally agreed with and supported him. They were loosely and generally known as the “Brissotins.”

Marat was a loose cannon. His attack on the Brissotins (soon to be called the “Girondins”) and the results it generated, brings this history of pi full circle as to Laplace’s motives and opportunity for instigating the Terror.

The key to Laplace’s opportunity appears to be Napoleon.

On June 2, 1793, it is inconceivable that Francois Hanriot would use National Guard artillery to force the Girondin’s from the Convention without the ultimate consent and direction of Robespierre and Laplace.

As previously discussed, Laplace’s intent was to ensure Condorcet, Bailly, Lavoisier, Brissot, the Duc d’Orleans and Buffonet were killed under the Law of Suspects. It now appears the Law of Suspects was enacted, through Ronespierre, by Laplace. Laplace’s intent was to have these six specific men killed under the Law. His motive was to silence the witnesses against him. To that end, their papers were also seized and delivered to him. Laplace needed to ensure silence concerning his entry into the Academy as well as the truth behind the 1776 debate. As well, to ensure silence from Brissot concerning the interview at the heart of De La Verite.

The Laplace/Brissot interview itself was fairly short. From it, Brissot accurately saw the big picture without necessarily having full grasp of the technical issues. He knew something was fundamentally wrong with Laplace’s conduct in science and education.

The real issue to Brissot was how and why the Academy was supporting Laplace. His book was an indictment of the Academy on two matters that Brissot saw as one and the same inasmuch as they each revolved around Laplace and occurred back to back. They were: the Laplace/Boskovic debate and the Laplace/Brissot interview concerning Marat.

In De La Verite, Brissot could not identify individuals for fear of prosecution for libel. He later identified himself and Laplace as the interviewer and interviewee. In publishing the interview, he refers to himself as "Skeptic" and Laplace as "Geometer."

Brissot starts his book by identifying the philosophical and educational problems confronting a generally illiterate society. He discusses, with patient logic, how it is necessary that science consider new ideas.

Brissot takes the Academy savants to task for ignoring and/or derailing any evidence that contradicts theirs. Throughout, he uses various examples (besides the case example of Marat) that repeatedly include a system for measuring comets. This, of course, was what the notorious Laplace/Boskovic debate was all about.

As he establishes his position with reason, Brissot considers the broader spectrum of social interest in science and public education. In his book, he was constrained about naming names but otherwise pulled no punches. He pointed to the savants of the Academy as wrongfully following Laplace’s path of ignorance and mediocrity.

Brissot generally describes the savants as despotic, ignorant, mediocre, and having unwarranted arrogance. He does not hesitate to use the word “charlatan.” He points out that in support of themselves (referring of course especially to Laplace) they use particular mathematical systems in particular pedantic ways to obscure the truth. He discusses how too many academics write quick papers for a quick buck. He discusses the importance of new ideas and how the powerful established savants don’t want to hear them. He expressly points out the danger of spreading such ignorance through mis-education.

Brissot repeatedly points to the absurdity of a Geometer savant (Laplace) deciding off the top of his head to declare the well thought out, detailed and documented, work of a physician scientist (Marat) to be imbecilic just because he, Laplace the Geometer, didn’t agree with its conclusion!

Brissot uses the interview as the case example of academic ignorance and prejudice. Iin this regard, it is worth noting that nothing has changed one iota in two and half centuries: the established academic community in 2011, appears as irrevocably committed to the identical ignorance and prejudice concerning these matters as Laplace.

De la Verite is wrapped around an interview between a Skeptic and a Geometer. Brissot later clarified that he (Brissot) was the “Skeptic” and Laplace was the “Geometer.”

“Le Sceptique: Vous ne l’avez ni vu, ni lu, ni entendu, & vous prononcez! & vous le traitez d’absurde & d’imbecillie!”

[You have not seen him or read or tried to understand him and you call him absurd and imbecilic]!

“Le Geometre: Grand dieu! Que deviendrions nous, s’il fallout tout examiner!"

[Good God! What will become of us if we must examine everything]!

With this summation of his intellectual philosophy, the greatest mathematician in France kicked off modern science and education.