Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #602147 > unrolled thread

For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here.

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 05:46 -0700
    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 06:05 -0700
    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-13 14:44 +0100
      Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 07:56 -0700
        Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-13 16:21 +0100
          Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 08:47 -0700
            Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 09:14 -0700
            Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-13 17:18 +0100
              Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 09:47 -0700
                Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 10:02 -0700
                Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 02:02 +0100
                  Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 18:27 -0700
                    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 19:03 -0700
                    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-14 14:00 +0100
                      Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 07:09 -0700
                        Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-15 17:29 +0100
                          Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 11:34 -0700
                            Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-15 23:51 +0100
                              Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 16:07 -0700
                                Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-16 00:12 +0100
                              Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 16:23 -0700
        Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 08:29 -0700
    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2023-06-13 16:40 +0100
      Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 09:09 -0700
    Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 19:49 -0700
      Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 19:59 -0700
        Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-06-13 20:19 -0700
      Re: For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here. sobriquet <dohduhdah@yahoo.com> - 2023-06-15 17:41 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#602147 — For all you doubters about my lattice --->oo , just draw a finite one here.

You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen.
I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is
the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
my layout of directions are a little different starting out.
Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument.  
James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting with ---
(RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1)
After the initial square is drawn in the center of the lattice then the pattern begins for the path outward. Going counterclockwise ---
RU=3,LU=2,LD=4,RD=3
RU=5,LU=4,LD=6,RD=5
RU=7,LU=6,LD=8,RD=7
RU=9,LU=8,LD=9 then starts down the path created above on the left side in a reverse direction for the cell creation and a new pattern below going 
clockwise---
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RU=8,RD=8,LD=7,LU=7
RU=6,RD=6,LD=5,LU=5
RU=4,RD=4,LD=3,LU=3
RU=2,RD=2,LD=1,Lu=1
A simple pattern for a square lattice for both going out and coming back in.
My first order rectangular lattice will follow. (smallest ratio between between
the two sides) 
Many more different rectangular lattices are possible.
Just take a few minutes and try the above instructions in that order.
 Never lift the pen or pencil from the paper while drawing this out.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#602148

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting with --- 
> (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
> After the initial square is drawn in the center of the lattice then the pattern begins for the path outward. Going counterclockwise --- 
> RU=3,LU=2,LD=4,RD=3 
> RU=5,LU=4,LD=6,RD=5 
> RU=7,LU=6,LD=8,RD=7 
> RU=9,LU=8,LD=9 then starts down the path created above on the left side in a reverse direction for the cell creation and a new pattern below going 
> clockwise--- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> RU=8,RD=8,LD=7,LU=7 
> RU=6,RD=6,LD=5,LU=5 
> RU=4,RD=4,LD=3,LU=3 
> RU=2,RD=2,LD=1,Lu=1 
> A simple pattern for a square lattice for both going out and coming back in. 
> My first order rectangular lattice will follow. (smallest ratio between between 
> the two sides) 
> Many more different rectangular lattices are possible. 
> Just take a few minutes and try the above instructions in that order. 
> Never lift the pen or pencil from the paper while drawing this out.
There are so many different ways these can be constructed, it is mind boggling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602152

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen.
> I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is
> the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> my layout of directions are a little different starting out.
> Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument.  
> James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting
> with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1)

I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about
drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not
just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols).  Instead, I see
pairs of letters, and = sign and a number.  What do these mean?

I know there have been lots of posts in other threads, but I stopped
reading those.  This is a fresh top-level post starting a new thread, so
it should be self-contained with enough detail for anyone to be able to
follow.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602155

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1)
> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
Ben,
As an example --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long followed 
by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right or left in this case left) Then LD=2 
just means left down twice, a line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then repeat that for LD=2 always connecting each line and always at a right or left 90 degree turn depending 
on the command. The third command RD= 1. is just two lines added where the last command
LD left off. Each connecting line is always a 90 degree connection to the last line drawn.
I hope this helps.
My ascii art sucks in order to explain it better.
Sorry, I should have explained it better..
. 
> I know there have been lots of posts in other threads, but I stopped 
> reading those. This is a fresh top-level post starting a new thread, so 
> it should be self-contained with enough detail for anyone to be able to 
> follow. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602156

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
>> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
>> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
>> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
>> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
>> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
>> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
>> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1)
>> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
>> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
>> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
>> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
> Ben,
> As an example ---

In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give
examples.  But I think I have only one question left (see below).

> (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long
> followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right
> or left in this case left)

I'd write "ru".

> Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a
> line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then
> repeat that for LD=2

So I'd write "ldld" for that.

> always connecting each line and always at a right
> or left 90 degree turn depending on the command.

Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd
and uu excluded?

rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule
which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs.  This
might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation.

> The third command RD=1. is just...

If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd".

So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"?

Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to
draw the attention of "all you doubters"?  I.e. I don't know what people
have been doubting that you are now demonstrating.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602160

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> >> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> >> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> >> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> >> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> >> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> >> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
> >> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
> >> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
> >> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
> >> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
> >> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
> > Ben, 
> > As an example ---
> In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give 
> examples. But I think I have only one question left (see below).
> > (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long 
> > followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right 
> > or left in this case left)
> I'd write "ru".
> > Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a 
> > line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then 
> > repeat that for LD=2
> So I'd write "ldld" for that.
> > always connecting each line and always at a right 
> > or left 90 degree turn depending on the command.
> Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd 
> and uu excluded? 
> 
> rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule 
> which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs. This 
> might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation. 
> 
> > The third command RD=1. is just... 
> 
> If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd". 
In this case 2 equal length lines at always 90 degrees at their connecting point.
Neve two connecting lines forming a longer straight line.
  > 
> So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"? 
> 
> Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to 
> draw the attention of "all you doubters"? I.e. I don't know what people 
> have been doubting that you are now demonstrating. 
Many reply's in  my original post thought it was impossible but now I am not 
sure if they are still doubters.
One even referred to a video on UTube where it showed a guy doing impossible things
such as walking on water and other impossible stunts.
Maybe I am not justified in reposting this but there is a lot to learn yet, including myself.
As you will gather if you read my last post. 

Thanks for your input Ben.  
> -- 
> Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602163

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:47:17 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > >> 
> > >> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> > >> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> > >> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> > >> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> > >> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> > >> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> > >> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
> > >> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
> > >> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
> > >> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
> > >> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
> > >> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
> > > Ben, 
> > > As an example --- 
> > In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give 
> > examples. But I think I have only one question left (see below). 
> > > (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long 
> > > followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right 
> > > or left in this case left) 
> > I'd write "ru". 
> > > Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a 
> > > line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then 
> > > repeat that for LD=2 
> > So I'd write "ldld" for that. 
> > > always connecting each line and always at a right 
> > > or left 90 degree turn depending on the command. 
> > Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd 
> > and uu excluded? 
> > 
> > rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule 
> > which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs. This 
> > might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation. 
> > 
> > > The third command RD=1. is just... 
> > 
> > If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd".
> In this case 2 equal length lines at always 90 degrees at their connecting point. 
> Neve two connecting lines forming a longer straight line.
> > 
> > So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"? 
> > 
> > Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to 
> > draw the attention of "all you doubters"? I.e. I don't know what people 
> > have been doubting that you are now demonstrating.
> Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now I am not 
> sure if they are still doubters. 
> One even referred to a video on UTube where it showed a guy doing impossible things 
> such as walking on water and other impossible stunts. 
> Maybe I am not justified in reposting this but there is a lot to learn yet, including myself. 
> As you will gather if you read my last post. 
> 
> Thanks for your input Ben. 
> > -- 
> > Ben.
That should be (never) two connecting lines forming a longer line.
A proof reading idiot, that's me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602164

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
>> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> >> 
>> >> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
>> >> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
>> >> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
>> >> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
>> >> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
>> >> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
>> >> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
>> >> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
>> >> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
>> >> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
>> >> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
>> >> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
>> > Ben, 
>> > As an example ---
>> In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give 
>> examples. But I think I have only one question left (see below).
>> > (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long 
>> > followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right 
>> > or left in this case left)
>> I'd write "ru".
>> > Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a 
>> > line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then 
>> > repeat that for LD=2
>> So I'd write "ldld" for that.
>> > always connecting each line and always at a right 
>> > or left 90 degree turn depending on the command.
>> Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd 
>> and uu excluded? 
>> 
>> rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule 
>> which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs. This 
>> might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation. 
>> 
>> > The third command RD=1. is just... 
>> 
>> If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd". 

> In this case 2 equal length lines at always 90 degrees at their
> connecting point.  Neve two connecting lines forming a longer straight
> line.

Yes, I can see that from your example, but the example does not answer
my question.  Do the "rules of the game" prohibit a solution that has
rr, ll, uu or dd in it?

>> So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"? 
>> 
>> Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to 
>> draw the attention of "all you doubters"? I.e. I don't know what people 
>> have been doubting that you are now demonstrating. 
> Many reply's in  my original post thought it was impossible but now I am not 
> sure if they are still doubters.

But what are you claiming?  I thought that you had accepted that the
original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square)
was not possible.  So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt
that you claim they should not doubt?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602166

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> >> 
> >> >> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> >> >> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> >> >> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> >> >> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> >> >> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> >> >> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> >> >> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
> >> >> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
> >> >> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
> >> >> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
> >> >> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
> >> >> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
> >> > Ben, 
> >> > As an example --- 
> >> In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give 
> >> examples. But I think I have only one question left (see below). 
> >> > (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long 
> >> > followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right 
> >> > or left in this case left) 
> >> I'd write "ru". 
> >> > Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a 
> >> > line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then 
> >> > repeat that for LD=2 
> >> So I'd write "ldld" for that. 
> >> > always connecting each line and always at a right 
> >> > or left 90 degree turn depending on the command. 
> >> Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd 
> >> and uu excluded? 
> >> 
> >> rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule 
> >> which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs. This 
> >> might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation. 
> >> 
> >> > The third command RD=1. is just... 
> >> 
> >> If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd". 
> 
> > In this case 2 equal length lines at always 90 degrees at their 
> > connecting point. Neve two connecting lines forming a longer straight 
> > line.
> Yes, I can see that from your example, but the example does not answer 
> my question. Do the "rules of the game" prohibit a solution that has 
> rr, ll, uu or dd in it?
> >> So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"? 
> >> 
> >> Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to 
> >> draw the attention of "all you doubters"? I.e. I don't know what people 
> >> have been doubting that you are now demonstrating. 
> > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now I am not 
> > sure if they are still doubters.
> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
> that you claim they should not doubt? 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.
I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that  was a proven 
fact that it is possible,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602169

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:47:55 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 11:21:15 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > >> 
> > >> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> > >> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> > >> >> 
> > >> >> > You just need a piece of graph paper and a dark pencil or pen. 
> > >> >> > I am using James's sequence instead of mine because his is 
> > >> >> > the true lattice where mine is a rectangle. 
> > >> >> > Strange enough, our sequence is the same sequence but 
> > >> >> > my layout of directions are a little different starting out. 
> > >> >> > Do all these steps in order with your choice of writing instrument. 
> > >> >> > James's out going sequence of events for a square lattice is, starting 
> > >> >> > with --- (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) 
> > >> >> I don't know exactly what you are doing here, but since it seems to be about 
> > >> >> drawing edges on a square lattice I don't know why the sequence is not 
> > >> >> just a list of R, L, U, D (or any other four symbols). Instead, I see 
> > >> >> pairs of letters, and = sign and a number. What do these mean? 
> > >> > Ben, 
> > >> > As an example --- 
> > >> In maths, it usually better to define notation rather than give 
> > >> examples. But I think I have only one question left (see below). 
> > >> > (RU=1,LD=2,RD= 1) RU=1 just means a right line of one unit long 
> > >> > followed by an up line of 1 unit long (always a 90 degree turn right 
> > >> > or left in this case left) 
> > >> I'd write "ru". 
> > >> > Then LD=2 just means left down twice, a 
> > >> > line of 1unit long going left and then another line going down then 
> > >> > repeat that for LD=2 
> > >> So I'd write "ldld" for that. 
> > >> > always connecting each line and always at a right 
> > >> > or left 90 degree turn depending on the command. 
> > >> Do the rules of the game really prohibit no turn, i.e. are rr, ll, dd 
> > >> and uu excluded? 
> > >> 
> > >> rl, lr, ud and du are excluded by the "only use each edge once" rule 
> > >> which, if a turn /is/ required, will leave only eight valid pairs. This 
> > >> might be why you prefer a "pair and count" notation. 
> > >> 
> > >> > The third command RD=1. is just... 
> > >> 
> > >> If I've understood, that is what I'd write with just "rd". 
> > 
> > > In this case 2 equal length lines at always 90 degrees at their 
> > > connecting point. Neve two connecting lines forming a longer straight 
> > > line. 
> > Yes, I can see that from your example, but the example does not answer 
> > my question. Do the "rules of the game" prohibit a solution that has 
> > rr, ll, uu or dd in it? 
> > >> So your RU=1,LD=2,RD=1 is my "ruldldrd"? 
> > >> 
> > >> Can you also state the claim about your sequence to which you want to 
> > >> draw the attention of "all you doubters"? I.e. I don't know what people 
> > >> have been doubting that you are now demonstrating. 
> > > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now I am not 
> > > sure if they are still doubters. 
> > But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
> > original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
> > was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
> > that you claim they should not doubt? 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ben.
> I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a proven 
> fact that it is possible,
Ben,
If you are referring to the naming convention of an infinite lattice, yes I was wrong there
but as far as a  construct --->oo and back to the origin to complete the lattice then it is 
already proven. Even then it is putting a value on --->oo which is wrong.
Just say you could put a value on --->oo then the way I explained it, it  would only be a  
--->oo lattice on completion back to the origin.
Please enlighten me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602208

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 

>> > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now
>> > I am not sure if they are still doubters.
>>
>> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
>> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
>> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
>> that you claim they should not doubt? 
>> 
> I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a
> proven fact that it is possible,

Can you state the claim?  What this proven fact?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602209

On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:02:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> >> > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now 
> >> > I am not sure if they are still doubters. 
> >> 
> >> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
> >> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
> >> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
> >> that you claim they should not doubt? 
> >>
> > I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a 
> > proven fact that it is possible,
> Can you state the claim? What this proven fact? 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.
Did you see James's finite lattice rendering that shows a path being built and then
getting filled back in with cells completing the lattice at the origin.
Good enough for a proof I'd say.
It's in one of James's post on the subject. There are 3 different post running on the subject
I am experimenting now with no pathways but building a rectangular lattice from
left to right 1,3,5,7,5,3,2,1 up and down cells. Giving 27 total connected cells drawn in a rectangular 
lattice without raising the pencil. I believe these can be built larger, like 1,3,5,7,9,7,5,3,1. total cells and 
larger. Maybe yes or may be no.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602211

On 6/13/2023 6:27 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:02:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>>> Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now
>>>>> I am not sure if they are still doubters.
>>>>
>>>> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the
>>>> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square)
>>>> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt
>>>> that you claim they should not doubt?
>>>>
>>> I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a
>>> proven fact that it is possible,
>> Can you state the claim? What this proven fact?
>>
>> -- 
>> Ben.
> Did you see James's finite lattice rendering that shows a path being built and then
> getting filled back in with cells completing the lattice at the origin.
> Good enough for a proof I'd say.
> It's in one of James's post on the subject. There are 3 different post running on the subject
> I am experimenting now with no pathways but building a rectangular lattice from
> left to right 1,3,5,7,5,3,2,1 up and down cells. Giving 27 total connected cells drawn in a rectangular
> lattice without raising the pencil. I believe these can be built larger, like 1,3,5,7,9,7,5,3,1. total cells and
> larger. Maybe yes or may be no.

Not sure what you mean. Are you ditching the other algorithms I and 
James have created? You mean something like this?

https://i.ibb.co/gJb1HHL/image.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602231

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:02:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
>> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> >> > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now 
>> >> > I am not sure if they are still doubters. 
>> >> 
>> >> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
>> >> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
>> >> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
>> >> that you claim they should not doubt? 
>> >>
>> > I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a 
>> > proven fact that it is possible,
>> Can you state the claim? What this proven fact? 
>> 
> Did you see James's finite lattice rendering that shows a path being
> built and then getting filled back in with cells completing the
> lattice at the origin.

Yes.  Finite paths, enclosing a finite set of squares, have been obvious
right form the start.  The spiral is prettier than the rectangle, I
grant you.

> Good enough for a proof I'd say.

So you won't state your claim -- the one you pretend is widely doubted?
I must conclude that you are simply claiming what this construction
demonstrates, must I?  OK.  So who doubts that for any n, there is a
path that encloses at least n squares?  I thought that was clear form
the very start.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602321

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 9:01:04 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 9:02:39 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > On Tuesday, June 13, 2023 at 12:18:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> >> > Many reply's in my original post thought it was impossible but now 
> >> >> > I am not sure if they are still doubters. 
> >> >> 
> >> >> But what are you claiming? I thought that you had accepted that the 
> >> >> original claim (an endless path that encloses, eventually, every square) 
> >> >> was not possible. So I am still wondering, what is it that people doubt 
> >> >> that you claim they should not doubt? 
> >> >> 
> >> > I never claimed it was impossible. I said just the opposite that was a 
> >> > proven fact that it is possible, 
> >> Can you state the claim? What this proven fact? 
> >>
> > Did you see James's finite lattice rendering that shows a path being 
> > built and then getting filled back in with cells completing the 
> > lattice at the origin.
> Yes. Finite paths, enclosing a finite set of squares, have been obvious 
> right form the start. The spiral is prettier than the rectangle, I 
> grant you.
> > Good enough for a proof I'd say.
> So you won't state your claim -- the one you pretend is widely doubted? 
> I must conclude that you are simply claiming what this construction 
> demonstrates, must I? OK. So who doubts that for any n, there is a 
> path that encloses at least n squares? I thought that was clear form 
> the very start. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.
I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying.
Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602339

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying.
> Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters.

Strange.  All I was asking is what was being doubted?  I still don't
know what you claiming that could be doubted.  If you can't state your
claim, at least say what was being doubted by the doubters.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602358

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying. 
> > Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters.
> Strange. All I was asking is what was being doubted? I still don't 
> know what you claiming that could be doubted. If you can't state your 
> claim, at least say what was being doubted by the doubters. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.
The Lattice that I proposed that could be drawn --->oo and back without lifting the pencil.
In other words without retracing  or crossing a line.  Simple as that.
That would be putting a value on --->oo which I said was wrong but making the point that
giving a very large value for it like the number of cells >10^600  or greater for the size of 
this square lattice then after it reverses and comes back down the path producing cells
on the way the >10^600 cells when reaching the origin are realized.
    

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602384

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying. 
>> > Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters.
>> Strange. All I was asking is what was being doubted? I still don't 
>> know what you claiming that could be doubted. If you can't state your 
>> claim, at least say what was being doubted by the doubters. 
>> 
> The Lattice that I proposed that could be drawn --->oo and back
> without lifting the pencil.
> In other words without retracing  or crossing a line.  Simple as that.
> That would be putting a value on --->oo which I said was wrong but
> making the point that giving a very large value for it like the number
> of cells >10^600 or greater for the size of this square lattice then
> after it reverses and comes back down the path producing cells on the
> way the >10^600 cells when reaching the origin are realized.

I don't think anyone ever doubted this fact.  Can you point to a
doubting post?  Every finite number of cells can be fully enclosed by a
suitable path (one that follows the "continuous with no retracing"
rules).  This can be done in many ways.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602387

On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:51:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> 
> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
> >> 
> >> > I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying. 
> >> > Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters. 
> >> Strange. All I was asking is what was being doubted? I still don't 
> >> know what you claiming that could be doubted. If you can't state your 
> >> claim, at least say what was being doubted by the doubters. 
> >>
> > The Lattice that I proposed that could be drawn --->oo and back 
> > without lifting the pencil. 
> > In other words without retracing or crossing a line. Simple as that. 
> > That would be putting a value on --->oo which I said was wrong but 
> > making the point that giving a very large value for it like the number 
> > of cells >10^600 or greater for the size of this square lattice then 
> > after it reverses and comes back down the path producing cells on the 
> > way the >10^600 cells when reaching the origin are realized.
> I don't think anyone ever doubted this fact. Can you point to a 
> doubting post? Every finite number of cells can be fully enclosed by a 
> suitable path (one that follows the "continuous with no retracing" 
> rules). This can be done in many ways. 
> 
> -- 
> Ben.
There were people that doubted it was possible.'
Just look at the one that sent the video for one.
There were others also if you read all the posts.
Where is it documented that what I found is not unique?
That I copied it somewhere?
Please enlighten me.
. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#602388

Dan joyce <danj4084@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 6:51:36 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> 
>> > On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: 
>> >> Dan joyce <danj...@gmail.com> writes: 
>> >> 
>> >> > I don't get what you are saying. I had doubters, that's all that I am saying. 
>> >> > Nothing more. I didn't make any accusations on who were the doubters. 
>> >> Strange. All I was asking is what was being doubted? I still don't 
>> >> know what you claiming that could be doubted. If you can't state your 
>> >> claim, at least say what was being doubted by the doubters. 
>> >>
>> > The Lattice that I proposed that could be drawn --->oo and back 
>> > without lifting the pencil. 
>> > In other words without retracing or crossing a line. Simple as that. 
>> > That would be putting a value on --->oo which I said was wrong but 
>> > making the point that giving a very large value for it like the number 
>> > of cells >10^600 or greater for the size of this square lattice then 
>> > after it reverses and comes back down the path producing cells on the 
>> > way the >10^600 cells when reaching the origin are realized.
>>
>> I don't think anyone ever doubted this fact. Can you point to a 
>> doubting post? Every finite number of cells can be fully enclosed by a 
>> suitable path (one that follows the "continuous with no retracing" 
>> rules). This can be done in many ways. 
>> 
> There were people that doubted it was possible.'

I was hoping you could link to one, because it seems so utterly
obvious I can't see how anyone could doubt it.

> Just look at the one that sent the video for one.

I can't use the to find a post.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web