# Does relating objects implies in the search of a common unity?

In mathematics, it seems that when we try to find relations about objects we are forced to set a unique object as a basis for the construction of each other object. For example: take one rectangle and define It's area as b•h, now if you take a line through Its center, it will allow you to cut the rectangle in two having its area divided in two pieces (b•h/2). Now if you rotate the line in a way that it passes through two vertices of the rectangle, then you have a triangle and it has the same area: (b•h/2).

Now for the area of the circle, we need to make a comparison between what we made and we can do that by inscribing a regular polygon and taking the limit of its sides to infinity, that is: it's measure will depend on the sum of a infinity of triangles. Even in integral calculus, the area under the curves is defined as the sum of an infinity of rectangles, consequently: An infinity of triangles. And hence, the triangle seems to be the most basic object found when building these relations.

Does this effect have a name? Has someone written about it? If yes, who?

• Which effect? The construction using geometry, the use of limits as a number of sides approaches infinity, or the fact that triangles "seem to be most basic"? I presume the middle one is the focus of the question, but I wanted to ask. Nov 18 '15 at 20:43
• It's the last one. Nov 19 '15 at 1:40