tl;dr: stop just focusing on cell transforms and try to apply the change in variables to the triangle bases or something. The solution probably involves using multiple concepts at once.

Here’s a broader perspective: it’s been said that some of the concepts we’ve been going over can be used with each other, and that some are just one of several ways to see the “recursive nature” of the grid. I feel like we’re all falling into the trap of pretty much only focusing on VQC’s latest crumbs again and not thinking of the bigger picture. Why would we learn about all of these concepts if they weren’t going to be intertwined?

These are the concepts we’ve learned about over the last 7 months:

>the big list of rules that we can use to increment the values of several of the variables in a given cell (i.e. the a[t] = na or whatever it is thing)

>the big list of cells related to our cell (i.e. (a,b)=(1,c), (e,1), (-f,1), (e+2n,n), etc)

>the factor tree for d and e values

>odd (x+n)(x+n) being represented as a visual square made up of eight triangle numbers with a one-unit hole in the middle

>odd (x+n)(x+n) being represented as a visual square made up of nn + 2d(n-1) + f – 1

>a couple of other variables being represented as squares, such as dd=(a+x)(a+x)

We’re not just going to use one of those things, like just using cell transforms. Surely. Surely it would be a combination of several of these things working together. I would think the solution would involve something like (this isn’t an explicit suggestion but hopefully you’ll all get my point of using multiple concepts in the calculation) using our c’s d and e values to find an (e,1) cell, constructing the triangles from that cell, finding a cell with the same d but with new (x+n)(x+n) = nn, then incrementing that cell’s a value e times? Obviously that sounds pretty complicated to figure out but it would make a great deal of sense, and I'm probably overcomplicating it with that specific example.