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.

On 6/15/2023 3:51 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> 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.
>

Ditto.

On Wednesday, June 14, 2023 at 4:49:39 AM UTC+2, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 5:46 AM, 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.
> Check this out:
>
> https://i.ibb.co/C14qksJ/image.png
>
> Can be any size. It just keeps building it self.

It's also a bit like a Hilbert curve.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/kwjxdcao2m

Check out:

groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.usa/c/qXrRXcBqrdY

⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀👼⠀⠀⠀⠀