But between Becoming and any part whatsoever of mathematics there is not the slightest contact. Newton indeed was profoundly convinced (and he was no mean philosopher) that in the principles of his Calculus of Fluxions[114] he had grasped the problem of Becoming, and therefore of Time—in a far subtler form, by the way, than Kant’s. But even Newton’s view could not be upheld, even though it may find advocates to this day. Since Weierstrass proved that continuous functions exist which either cannot be differentiated at all or are capable only of partial differentiation, this most deep-searching of all efforts to close with the Time-problem mathematically has been abandoned. ----- Footnote 102: The sensuous life and the intellectual life too are Time; it is only sensuous _experience_ and intellectual _experience_, the “world,” that is spatial nature. (As to the nearer affinity of the Feminine to Time, see Vol. II, pp. 403 et seq.) Footnote 103: The expression “space of time” (Zeitraum) which is common to many languages, is evidence of our inability to represent direction otherwise than by extension. Footnote 104: I.e., the translated Bible.—_Tr._ Footnote 105: See Vol. II, pp. 19 et seq. Footnote 106: See p. 80 of this volume, and Vol. II, pp. 166, 328. Footnote 107: See Vol. II, p. 137. Footnote 108: The nearest English equivalent is perhaps the word “fear.” “Fearful” would correspond exactly but for the fact that in the second sense the word is objective instead of subjective. The word “shy” itself bears the second meaning in such trivial words as gun-shy, work-shy.—_Tr._ Footnote 109: The Relativity theory, a working hypothesis which is on the way to overthrowing Newton’s mechanics—which means at bottom his view of the problem of motion—admits cases in which the words “earlier” and “later” may be inverted. The mathematical foundation of this theory by Minkowski uses _imaginary_ time units for measurement. Footnote 110: The dimensions are _x_, _y_, _z_ (in respect of space) and _t_ (in respect of time), and all four appear to be regarded as perfectly equivalent in transformations. [The English reader may be referred to A. Einstein, “Theory of Relativity,” Ch. XI and appendices I, II.— _Tr._] Footnote 111: Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicari velim, nescio. (_Conf._ XI, 14.) Footnote 112: Save in elementary mathematics. (It may be remarked that most philosophers since Schopenhauer have approached these questions with the prepossessions of elementary mathematics.) Footnote 113: The “inverse circular functions” of English text-books.—_Tr._ Footnote 114: