Shape

116 I What Makes It Visual?
looks like this
Added complication—above, it’s preserving symmetry with finer and finer divisions—is
bound to be a chance to make a lot of silly mistakes. But I guess it’s good to
have more to think about to keep busy. It may feel great to fix things that don’t work.
The effort is pointless, though, if your eyes are always right. Calculating shouldn’t be
this hard. Why not look instead? Dividing shapes into lowest-level constituents isn’t a
prerequisite for rules to work. It’s always enough to draw shapes—in any way you
choose—in order to define rules to calculate by seeing. There’s no reason to do anything
more. Embedding lets me trace out parts that aren’t given beforehand and then
replace them. There’s sagacity and learning. That’s all I need for both calculating and
reasoning.
It’s usually wise to have more than one example so you can be confident that
what you’re worried about isn’t a rare phenomenon of no general consequence. It’s
easy to imagine the star
linking other shapes