>>797

I believe X is linear for all cells.

The only problem working with c^2 in N0 is that c^2 is gonna be massive. Unless E reveals a search method for N0, this is not good.

>>813

X is what I've been plotting by, instead of T. It shows you can move on a 3D linear path through cells.

>>548

>>554

What happens when you substitute X for T.

Render of E0 with X for T.

While the diagonal lines are what pops out, the pattern stems from the E0,N1 column. X increases by 2 each T, and extends down N. It would probably fill in each N with a deep render.

>>828

From what I can tell, for any (E,N) X has an initial value, and a fixed growth value. X will start at the initial value, and += the growth value for every T.

Nope, I lied. Whatever X starts as is how it increments in the cell. This is true for the entire grid (please confirm) and why I initially began using X as T.

Here's a picture for Topolanon. Tree of life!

>>838

>>838

What I'm suggesting is that T=T*X, for all cells. There is something special about these lines.

>>842

Horizontal lines are actually fixed N,D,X, and A, and are the incrementing of B. The 3D lines the incrementing of A.