Now, the fourth dimension and the entirety of those mathematical speculations touching upon the question of hyperspace, dimensionality, space-curvature and the manifoldness of space are purely conventional and arbitrary contrivances and do not meet with any agreement or authority in the native geometrism which we find inhering in space and which the intellect recognizes there. This conclusion seems to be obvious for the reason that, in the first place, the non-Euclidean geometries have been constructed upon the basis of a negation of the latent geometrism of space and intellectuality; and if so, is it reasonable to expect that either they or any of their conclusions should accord with the nature of that form of geometry so admirably delineated by EUCLID? Obviously not. It is a matter of historical knowledge that the whole of the artificial non-Euclidean geometries consists of those purely conventional results which investigators arrived at when they denied or controverted the norms supplied by the natural geometry. When metageometricians found that they could neither prove nor disprove the Euclidean parallel-postulate they then set upon the examination of idealized constructions which negatived the postulate. The results, thus obtained, although self-consistent enough, were compiled into systems of geometry which naturally were at variance with each other and with this inherent geometrism which is found in spatiality and answered to by the intellect both normally and logically.