a * b gives us c

c gives us d

c - dd gives us e

2d + 1 - e gives us f

f .. and e .. gives us g?

f .. and .. g gives us h?

>>9183

or is h = 8?

Ie we divide by 8 because there are only h families. h being the 8th letter in the alphabet, we divide by 8, 8 different triangular patterns?

If there is supposed to be a pattern amongst the triangles in (x+n) then is it supposed to exist in (d+n)? In which case, how would that look when viewed from the perspective of d^2?

>>9185

Imagine the square (x+n) with it's 8 triangles spread out over d^2 when you complete the square. How would that look and would it fit in with other patterns in (d+n)^2?

>>9186

Not trying to come across as Chris here, just thinking out loud about some questions I've had. Maybe it will give you guys some other ideas that I haven't though of.

When we compute qc is the goal to gain enough information to compute a v that we will multiply with qc (becoming vqc) so that we've aligned f and e (and d?) so that the triangles and their patterns are more obvious / just right there?

No mind me, since the threads are dying a bit I'll just post some more thoughts.

I've been thinking more about tiling and triangles. I figured that might be the point, something like the sphinx tiling where we need to figure out what kind of tiling is needed (depending on the h?) and then figure out what we got from f (and e?).