On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:40:55 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M.. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > > > Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > > > hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > > paper.
> > > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > > .
> > I'm going back to view that again before turning in.
> I slept on this and if the coder fully understands what is going on and how to code it, including
> myself on how to code it, this could be continuous frames of larger and larger lattices.
> All would start with the smallest lattice in slow-motion and then end. Showing the first lattice until the
> user hit the right arrow key (>) in the window. Then the next window would repeat the first lattice all over
> again but this time not closing the hole in the last lattice but continuing to now produce the second
> lattice and complete that. This would require another hit of the right arrow key (>) by the user to continue
> to the next larger lattice showing all previous lattices combined add --->oo.
> In the real world there can be no more (>) after a certain sized lattice because the viewing screen has
> reached the full capacity of no more discernable shape of this lattice, the borders are now off screen.
> That's when the presentation can end or the user can review this whole process again by hitting the
> left arrow(<) key to view it all over again.
> This would make a fantastic presentation on what is going on.
> What do you think Chris?
> I will try to explain it more if you have any questions on what I just wrote on how it could be done.
> Thanks Chris.

The above is just what you would have to go through, but do to my gathering data that is no longer necessary.
Just use each new window with larger and larger lattices as I explained above.
You already have 4 larger and larger lattices to work with for at least 3 more (>) window displays.
If you need more displays to fill a window and end the presentation I can get that.
So, at least some of the work in coding for the final presentation is done.
I am really curious on what you can do with it and I bet you are too.
The name of this thing can be "--->INFINITY LATTICE 2". We already have "--->INFINITY LATTICE 1"
You noticed I added the approaching sign (--->).
Chris, thanks again for your time and effort on this interesting project.
So far it's looking great.

,

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:48:38 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:40:55 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M.. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > > > > Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > > > > hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > > > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > > > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > > > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > > > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > > > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > > > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > > > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > > > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > > > paper.
> > > > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > > > .
> > > I'm going back to view that again before turning in.
> > I slept on this and if the coder fully understands what is going on and how to code it, including
> > myself on how to code it, this could be continuous frames of larger and larger lattices.
> > All would start with the smallest lattice in slow-motion and then end. Showing the first lattice until the
> > user hit the right arrow key (>) in the window. Then the next window would repeat the first lattice all over
> > again but this time not closing the hole in the last lattice but continuing to now produce the second
> > lattice and complete that. This would require another hit of the right arrow key (>) by the user to continue
> > to the next larger lattice showing all previous lattices combined add --->oo.
> > In the real world there can be no more (>) after a certain sized lattice because the viewing screen has
> > reached the full capacity of no more discernable shape of this lattice, the borders are now off screen.
> > That's when the presentation can end or the user can review this whole process again by hitting the
> > left arrow(<) key to view it all over again.
> > This would make a fantastic presentation on what is going on.
> > What do you think Chris?
> > I will try to explain it more if you have any questions on what I just wrote on how it could be done.
> > Thanks Chris.
> The above is just what you would have to go through, but do to my gathering data that is no longer necessary.
> Just use each new window with larger and larger lattices as I explained above.
> You already have 4 larger and larger lattices to work with for at least 3 more (>) window displays.
> If you need more displays to fill a window and end the presentation I can get that.
> So, at least some of the work in coding for the final presentation is done.
> I am really curious on what you can do with it and I bet you are too.
> The name of this thing can be "--->INFINITY LATTICE 2". We already have "--->INFINITY LATTICE 1"
> You noticed I added the approaching sign (--->).
> Chris, thanks again for your time and effort on this interesting project.
> So far it's looking great.
>
> ,
I have been analyzing your 1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 offset by one which means the left half drops by one.
concluded It goes through 2 previous fazes of symmetry ---
1,2,1
1,2,4,2,1
1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 = present one. The next 3 fazes are--
1,3,5,7,9,9,7,5,3,1
1,3,5,7,9,11,11,9,7,5,3,1
1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1
I did this by slowing it down with the traverse button on the bottom of the screen.
Otherwise I would not have spotted two previous symmetry's.
You can see that this symmetry or above pattern can go on forever.
I'm not sure if is called a symmetry because it is offset by 1.
Meaning one left vertical row is one lower then the one to it's right starting from the center
and going left creating a rectangular .lattice.

On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
>
> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.

For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.

Humm...

> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> paper.
> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> .
>

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> >> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> >> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> >
> > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
>
> Humm...
> > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > paper.
> > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > .
> >
Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
like or even reverse the rendering.

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 4:14:35 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > >>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > >> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > >> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > >
> > > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
> > it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time..
> >
> > Humm...
> > > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > > paper.
> > > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > > .
> > >
> Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
> like or even reverse the rendering.
If you have read all my post today, What do you think of the new naming of these two different
lattices?

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:48:38 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:40:55 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > > > > > Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > > > > > hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > > > > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > > > > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > > > > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > > > > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > > > > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > > > > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > > > > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > > > > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > > > > paper.
> > > > > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > > > > .
> > > > I'm going back to view that again before turning in.
> > > I slept on this and if the coder fully understands what is going on and how to code it, including
> > > myself on how to code it, this could be continuous frames of larger and larger lattices.
> > > All would start with the smallest lattice in slow-motion and then end.. Showing the first lattice until the
> > > user hit the right arrow key (>) in the window. Then the next window would repeat the first lattice all over
> > > again but this time not closing the hole in the last lattice but continuing to now produce the second
> > > lattice and complete that. This would require another hit of the right arrow key (>) by the user to continue
> > > to the next larger lattice showing all previous lattices combined add --->oo.
> > > In the real world there can be no more (>) after a certain sized lattice because the viewing screen has
> > > reached the full capacity of no more discernable shape of this lattice, the borders are now off screen.
> > > That's when the presentation can end or the user can review this whole process again by hitting the
> > > left arrow(<) key to view it all over again.
> > > This would make a fantastic presentation on what is going on.
> > > What do you think Chris?
> > > I will try to explain it more if you have any questions on what I just wrote on how it could be done.
> > > Thanks Chris.
> > The above is just what you would have to go through, but do to my gathering data that is no longer necessary.
> > Just use each new window with larger and larger lattices as I explained above.
> > You already have 4 larger and larger lattices to work with for at least 3 more (>) window displays.
> > If you need more displays to fill a window and end the presentation I can get that.
> > So, at least some of the work in coding for the final presentation is done.
> > I am really curious on what you can do with it and I bet you are too.
> > The name of this thing can be "--->INFINITY LATTICE 2". We already have "--->INFINITY LATTICE 1"
> > You noticed I added the approaching sign (--->).
> > Chris, thanks again for your time and effort on this interesting project.
> > So far it's looking great.
> >
> > ,
> I have been analyzing your 1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 offset by one which means the left half drops by one.
> concluded It goes through 2 previous fazes of symmetry ---
> 1,2,1
> 1,2,4,2,1
> 1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 = present one. The next 3 fazes are--
> 1,3,5,7,9,9,7,5,3,1
> 1,3,5,7,9,11,11,9,7,5,3,1
> 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1
> I did this by slowing it down with the traverse button on the bottom of the screen.
> Otherwise I would not have spotted two previous symmetry's.
> You can see that this symmetry or above pattern can go on forever.
> I'm not sure if is called a symmetry because it is offset by 1.
> Meaning one left vertical row is one lower then the one to it's right starting from the center
> and going left creating a rectangular .lattice.

I missed one 1,3,5,3,1

Is Fred Jeffries replacing Andrew Wiles Oxford Uni math failure?? For at least Jeffries can ask the question which is slant cut of cone -- oval or ellipse, Run Wiles Hide Wiles.

Dan Joyce cannot replace Wiles for Dan is in the same boat-- blind in geometry-- refuses to admit slant cut of cone is Oval,... not his stupid ellipse..

> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > > *
> > > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > > >
> > > > earle
> > > > *
> > > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > > >
> > > > http ----------
> > > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
>

More of Fred Jeffries-- and his failure to follow through---

On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 5:59:58 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2022 at 1:49:50 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 7:00:38 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > > *
> > > Several of you have questioned: Is the ellipse a conic section? The answer depends.
> > > If you are Archimedes Plutonium, the answer is no. If you are one of the other 398,726 mahematicians living today, the answer is yes.
> > >
> > > earle
> > > *
> > The failed meathead Earle Jones, looks like you have 398,726 subtract 1, as it appears Fred Jeffries below in this thread is starting to question the second axis of symmetry in the slant cut of cone.
> > On Friday, December 16, 2022 at 5:41:05 PM UTC-6, FredJeffries wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 15, 2022 at 6:23:18 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Disney did a nice animation on it:
> > > >
> > > > https://.....
> > > But it also fails to show how to find the second axis of symmetry
> > But this does not change the scene by much for every math professor across the globe fails simple geometry with their memorized answer-- ellipse a conic section when it never was, for most math professors are lazy couch potatoes unwilling to experiment with paper cone and drop a coin inside and see that it is impossible to have a 2nd axis of symmetry as Fred Jeffries points out.

> He 'points out' no such thing. He does NOT point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a second axis of symmetry. He only points out that the particular video does not find that second axis of symmetry.
>
> And while he has read very few of the messages on that subject, he will point out that none of the detractors have shown how to find the second axis of symmetry, or even understood that it is a problem.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 8:29:19 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
>"Drag Queen of Math"
> fails at math and science:

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:22:37 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:48:38 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:40:55 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 12:36:04 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > > > > > Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > > > > > hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > > > > That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > > > > If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > > > > offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > > > > Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > > > > It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > > > > the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > > > > so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > > > > this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > > > > paper.
> > > > > Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > > > > .
> > > > I'm going back to view that again before turning in.
> > > I slept on this and if the coder fully understands what is going on and how to code it, including
> > > myself on how to code it, this could be continuous frames of larger and larger lattices.
> > > All would start with the smallest lattice in slow-motion and then end.. Showing the first lattice until the
> > > user hit the right arrow key (>) in the window. Then the next window would repeat the first lattice all over
> > > again but this time not closing the hole in the last lattice but continuing to now produce the second
> > > lattice and complete that. This would require another hit of the right arrow key (>) by the user to continue
> > > to the next larger lattice showing all previous lattices combined add --->oo.
> > > In the real world there can be no more (>) after a certain sized lattice because the viewing screen has
> > > reached the full capacity of no more discernable shape of this lattice, the borders are now off screen.
> > > That's when the presentation can end or the user can review this whole process again by hitting the
> > > left arrow(<) key to view it all over again.
> > > This would make a fantastic presentation on what is going on.
> > > What do you think Chris?
> > > I will try to explain it more if you have any questions on what I just wrote on how it could be done.
> > > Thanks Chris.
> > The above is just what you would have to go through, but do to my gathering data that is no longer necessary.
> > Just use each new window with larger and larger lattices as I explained above.
> > You already have 4 larger and larger lattices to work with for at least 3 more (>) window displays.
> > If you need more displays to fill a window and end the presentation I can get that.
> > So, at least some of the work in coding for the final presentation is done.
> > I am really curious on what you can do with it and I bet you are too.
> > The name of this thing can be "--->INFINITY LATTICE 2". We already have "--->INFINITY LATTICE 1"
> > You noticed I added the approaching sign (--->).
> > Chris, thanks again for your time and effort on this interesting project.
> > So far it's looking great.
> >
> > ,
> I have been analyzing your 1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 offset by one which means the left half drops by one.
> concluded It goes through 2 previous fazes of symmetry ---
Seeing I missed one, 1,3,5,3,1 so it actually goes through 3 fazes of symmetry before the present one
> 1,2,1
> 1,2,4,2,1
1,3,5,3,1
> 1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1 = present one. The next 3 fazes are--
> 1,3,5,7,9,9,7,5,3,1
> 1,3,5,7,9,11,11,9,7,5,3,1
> 1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1
> I did this by slowing it down with the traverse button on the bottom of the screen.
> Otherwise I would not have spotted two previous symmetry's.
> You can see that this symmetry or above pattern can go on forever.
> I'm not sure if is called a symmetry because it is offset by 1.
> Meaning one left vertical row is one lower then the one to it's right starting from the center
> and going left creating a rectangular .lattice.

On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
>>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
>>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
>>>
>>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
>> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
>> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
>>
>> Humm...
>>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
>>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
>>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
>>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
>>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
>>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
>>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
>>> paper.
>>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
>>> .
>>>
> Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
> like or even reverse the rendering.

Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
well:

https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:28:21 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> >>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> >>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> >>>
> >>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> >> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
> >> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
> >>
> >> Humm...
> >>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> >>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> >>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> >>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> >>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> >>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> >>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> >>> paper.
> >>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> >>> .
> >>>
> > Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
> > like or even reverse the rendering.
> Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
> well:
>
> https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png
Finite width and --->oo height. How could it be both -->oo?

On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:53:56 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:28:21 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M.. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > >>>> [...]
> > >>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> > >>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> > >>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> > >>>
> > >>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> > >> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
> > >> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
> > >>
> > >> Humm...
> > >>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> > >>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> > >>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> > >>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> > >>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> > >>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> > >>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> > >>> paper.
> > >>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> > >>> .
> > >>>
> > > Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
> > > like or even reverse the rendering.
> > Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
> > well:
> >
> > https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png
> Finite width and --->oo height. How could it be both -->oo?

A new and corrected updated list of larger and larger lattices.
5 lattices so far.
The next 4 are just a continuation of the first one.
Each leaving a longer and longer path to fill at the end of
each lattice,

The first lattice below where the pencil
never leaves the paper.
Chris has already done a slow-motion rendering of this lattice. Nice!
(1,3,5,7,7,5,3,1) vertical cells.
1st lattice
R,U,L,D,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,U,L,U,R,D,R,U,L,U

The 2nd lattice.
(1,3,5,7,9,9,7,5,3,1) vertical cells.
R,U,L,D,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,U,L,D,R,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D
R,D,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U

The 3rd lattice
(1,3,5,7,9,11,11,9,7,5,3,1) vertical cells.
R,U,L,D,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,U,L,D,R,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D
R,D,L,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D
R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U

The 4th lattice
(1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1)
vertical cells.
R,U,L,D,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,U,L,D,R,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D
R,D,L,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D
R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,R,D,R,D,R,D.R.D,R,D,R,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,D
R,U,L,U

5th lattice
1,3,5,7,9,11,13,15,15,13,11,9,7,5,3,1
vertical cells
R,U,L,D,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U,L,U,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,U,L,D,R,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,R,D
R,D,L,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D
R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,L,U,L,U
L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,R,D,R,D,R,D.R.D,R,D,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U,L,U
L,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,U,R,D,R,D
R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,R,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D,L,D
L,D,L,D,L,D,L,U,L,U,R,U,L,U,L,U,R,U,R,D,R,U
L,U
Lattices --->oo
Is there a pattern that can be computer generated for each lattice?

On 6/18/2023 8:53 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:28:21 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
>>>>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
>>>>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
>>>> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
>>>> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
>>>>
>>>> Humm...
>>>>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
>>>>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
>>>>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
>>>>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
>>>>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
>>>>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
>>>>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
>>>>> paper.
>>>>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
>>> like or even reverse the rendering.
>> Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
>> well:
>>
>> https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png
> Finite width and --->oo height. How could it be both -->oo?

Humm... Perhaps try to offset it where each row gained an extra cell per
iteration? That should do it.

On 6/19/2023 10:11 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:53:56 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:28:21 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
>>>>>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
>>>>>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
>>>>> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
>>>>> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Humm...
>>>>>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
>>>>>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
>>>>>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
>>>>>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
>>>>>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
>>>>>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
>>>>>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
>>>>>> paper.
>>>>>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
>>>> like or even reverse the rendering.
>>> Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
>>> well:
>>>
>>> https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png
>> Finite width and --->oo height. How could it be both -->oo?
>
> A new and corrected updated list of larger and larger lattices.
> 5 lattices so far.
> The next 4 are just a continuation of the first one.
> Each leaving a longer and longer path to fill at the end of
> each lattice,
>
> The first lattice below where the pencil
> never leaves the paper.
> Chris has already done a slow-motion rendering of this lattice. Nice!
[...]
> Is there a pattern that can be computer generated for each lattice?

I believe so, but I need to examine it further.

On Monday, June 19, 2023 at 3:04:03 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 6/19/2023 10:11 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:53:56 PM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 11:28:21 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>> On 6/18/2023 1:14 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 3:41:26 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/17/2023 9:36 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 10:09:53 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 3:46 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 4:01:23 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2023 10:54 AM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 17, 2023 at 1:04:24 AM UTC-4, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, June 16, 2023 at 11:36:13 PM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2023 8:31 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2023 7:49 PM, Dan joyce wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>>> Two heads are better then one when mulling over ideas.
> >>>>>>> Did you get my emails? The animation is too fast, but I still have not
> >>>>>>> hooked up proper FPS to the final animation, yet... ;^)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That is fantastic! Double that fantastic slowed down and with a larger lattice.
> >>>>> For some reason I just thought of doing it in javascript in order to put
> >>>>> it up on a webpage such that the user can interact with it in real time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Humm...
> >>>>>> If you could slow it down a lot more and use the last largest lattice directions with ----
> >>>>>> offset by 1----1,3,5,7,9,11,13,13,11,9,7,5,3,1 vertical and horizontal cells it would be very impressive.
> >>>>>> Each progressive one of these lattices are all connected so to speak.
> >>>>>> It is hard to explain but each progressive's sized lattice leaves a hole (unfinished cells) if you add on
> >>>>>> the next sized lattice to it leaving out a small increasing number of cells from the previous lattice and
> >>>>>> so on to create the tail end of the next draw to complete the latest lattice. It all sounds confusing but
> >>>>>> this is the way I can continue theoretically --->oo in the number of lattices that the pencil never leaves the
> >>>>>> paper.
> >>>>>> Clear as mud I know but very hard to explain.
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Yeah, it worked great using the advance button where you can slow it down as slow as you
> >>>> like or even reverse the rendering.
> >>> Got a little test bed, not ready to upload to my website, but its going
> >>> well:
> >>>
> >>> https://i.ibb.co/kh6sTyV/image.png
> >> Finite width and --->oo height. How could it be both -->oo?
> >
> > A new and corrected updated list of larger and larger lattices.
> > 5 lattices so far.
> > The next 4 are just a continuation of the first one.
> > Each leaving a longer and longer path to fill at the end of
> > each lattice,
> >
> > The first lattice below where the pencil
> > never leaves the paper.
> > Chris has already done a slow-motion rendering of this lattice. Nice!
> [...]
> > Is there a pattern that can be computer generated for each lattice?
> I believe so, but I need to examine it further.

With all the stuff you are doing along with my stuff as in the pencil never
leaving the paper scenario. You should organize a montage of
renderings on the subject with all presentations in color and in slow motion showing one after the other with the option page(>) to see the next rendering.
Now that would be be interesting.
Montage is an interesting word. I believe it fits to a tea here.