Mathematics, since Euclid, has been built on the point — a structureless, sizeless, invisible primitive. We argue that this choice is not logically obligatory but historically contingent and ultimately mistaken, as it introduces an artificial divide between the discrete and the continuous, algebra and geometry, the expressible and the inexpressible. The present work offers a new foundation: △-ontology, in which the primitive is the right isosceles triangle with legs 1 and hypotenuse √2 — the Infinium ℑ. This single object simultaneously contains the three fundamental oppositions of thought: discreteness (legs) and continuity (hypotenuse), symmetry (equal legs) and asymmetry (unique hypotenuse), and the expressible (integers) and the inexpressible (irrational √2). Using Gödel's incompleteness theorem as a compass, we show that the Infinium is the minimal geometric realisation of the process by which any bounded system transcends its limits: the hypotenuse, inexpressible in the basis of the legs, becomes a leg at the next hierarchical level, generating an infinite spectral sequence 1 → √2 → 2 → 2√2 → 4 → ... . This hierarchy is not accidental but energetically forced: a variational principle minimising the functional E(△) = (a + b) − c singles out the RIT as the unique optimal primitive, with the energy quantum 2 − √2 ≈ 0.586 serving as the universal "coin" paid for each level transition. We provide a motive-theoretic formalisation in which the Infinium is an elementary motive M(ℑ) = ℚ(0) ⊕ ℚ(1)1 ⊕ ℚ(1)√2, the measure is a Beilinson regulator, and self-similarity is a motivic isomorphism. Within this framework, the Riemann Hypothesis becomes geometrically evident (the critical line Re(s) = 1/2 mirrors the RIT's symmetry 1²/(√2)² = 1/2), the Hodge Conjecture dissolves as a tautology (since numbers are geometric mosaics from the outset), the mass gap in Yang-Mills and the smoothness of Navier-Stokes follow from the discrete spectrum of the Laplacian on △-mosaics, and the Continuum Hypothesis loses meaning because cardinality questions are replaced by measure questions with the invariant answer √2. The article is self-contained, presents 12 detailed logical consequences, and is accompanied by a complete index of 64 supporting works by the author available on Zenodo.
Petrov et al. (2026) studied this question.