Man, I'm getting really sick of almost never getting any replies to my posts. It makes me wonder why I post at all.
I figured out the confusion myself, and since nobody told me otherwise, and I can't see anyone else mentioning it in any other posts, this should be useful information. In VQC's post when he said
>at the same t but in cell (-f,1)
when he said (-f,1) he more specifically meant { (the version of f calculated from e-2d+1, which is already negative (so not that * -1)) , (n-1 (so in this case 0, even though he explicitly said 1)}. So whether it was just weirdly worded or not, if you pick a cell in row 1 with a positive e, you'll find the same a and b values at the same [t] in (f,0) (meaning you'll need to make xMin a negative number etc). Then when he says
>The value of a[t] at -f and e in the first row have the same factor.
This is now accurate. As an example, we find {2:1:5:2:3:9:2} in row 1, where a=3 and t=2. f=-9, so if we take (-9,0,2), we get {-9:0:6:3:3:9:2}, which has the same a, b and t values (and an f value of 2 (equal to the positive counterpart's e), meaning we could do this transformation whether we started positive or negative). However, when he says
>the value at a[t] = a(n-1) and a[t+n-1] = b(n-1)
This isn't accurate if the above is accurate. a[t] = 3 in these mirrored cells. In the positive space, as he already said, a[t] = n*a and a[t+n (or t+1 in this case)] is the current b * n (or 1 in this case). This is all observably true. However, in the negative space, a[t] = a(n-1) and a[t+n-1] = b(n-1) don't seem to be the case, at the very least if you're using the 0th row that contains the mirrored cell. a[1] for example =/= 3(0-1), because then it would be negative. a[2+0-1] =/= b(0-1) either, because that would also be negative. VQC, if you read this at some point, you might want to clarify.