Shape

23 Answer Number Two—Three More Ways to Look at It That Tell a Story
The consistency is nice—the lowest-level constituents are lines of two different
lengths—and I can find the triangle according to its standard definition—it’s a polygon
with three sides—and move it around. I’m also lucky. There are A’s
and bits of hexagons
if I want rules to move them around, too. But what happened to the X’s? I can’t make
them out with the lines I’ve got. Should I go back and segment the triangle in another
way, so that it’s cut up into angles? That’s not a bad idea. Now I really have a triangle
(Or should I say trilateral? Words work in funny ways, too.) The whole shape is a
kind of two-dimensional string of angle brackets. This is neatly consistent again—
constituents are all the same angles. And I can find X’s
not as intersecting lines, but as touching angles. That’s a novel result. I hadn’t thought
of X’s that way. Only now the A’s and the bits of hexagons have disappeared. I need to
reconcile the alternative ways I’ve segmented the shape
The divisions in