User blog comment:Ynought/A new function idea?/@comment-37233444-20191119195901

"let G(a,b) be defined as the graph of an regular a-agon,with nodes at the corners conected via lines, that is a smallest valid monster that cant fit inside a square of b×b units"

Yes, but what ive seen so far shows that it doesn't really mean anything.

The above statement is correct, but is misleading.

As an example, consider that, when drawing a line on a line with a vertex (x,y) that intersects a line segment (x+1,y+1), the graph of this line segment has a vertex (x+1,y+1) in the line and a vertex (x,y) in the segment. The line segment and its vertex (x,y) are two different monsters.

Now, if you draw a line that intersects all of these lines, it's not a monster. But if you draw a triangle with one vertex at one point and another vertex at the other point, then this triangle is a monster.

This is a classic definition of polygon. The line segment and its vertex (x,y) are two different monsters. Now, if you draw a line that intersects all of these lines, it's not a monster. But if you draw a triangle with one vertex at one point and another vertex at the other point, then this triangle is a monster.

This is a classic definition of polygon. The line segment and its vertex (x,y) are two different monsters.

Now, a triangle is a polygon that has at least two triangles at all points in the triangulation.

"2.Apply {NA⇐{N⇒NA}}"

"2.Apply {NA⇐{N⇒NA}}"

I know, but what about 𝒄𝒀? We can apply the above as well:


 * 2.Apply {(N⇒NA)⇒NN}{(NP⇐N)⇒NN}

This is just a generalization of 𝒄𝒀, where the letters have different meanings:


 * 2.Apply {N⇒NP}{N⇒NP}

So now that we know that the letters can be applied to different things, let's see how this applies to this example:


 * 3.Apply {(N⇒NA)⇒NP}{(NP⇐N)⇒NN}

Now this will look the same as before, but be right.