Re: Non-linear full-2d writing (again)

On 1/30/06, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...> wrote:

>
> Do you mean by that, that you can throw in a finite, suitably sparse
> set of exceptional "tiles" with more than 6 neighbors?
> In fact, some bathroom floors are tiled with octagons and "diamonds"
> (tilted squares), the octagons having 4 octagonal neighbors
> horizontally and vertically, and 4 diamond neighbors diagonally;
> every diamond having 4 octagonal neighbors.
>
> This graph is not regular, however.
That's a good point, Tom; it makes me wonder... what's special about
regularity for this sort of project?  Do we gain anything from having
all our "tiles" the same size and shape and having (the possibility
of) the same number of neighbors?

After all, not every word is going to allow the same semantic
connections... it doesn't lose us anything if not every sort of word
allows us every possible connection.  What's the Agent of "cat"?
Having some tiles with eight neighbors and some with only four doesn't
seem to be a big problem, if for some reason we decide six isn't
enough for all cases.

One more question: the "game", as it's shaping up, seems to involve
adjacency being the marker for... whatever we're putting these "tiles"
together for.  Some sort of semantic connection therebetween.  Anyway,
how is purposeful adjacency distinguished from accidental adjacency,
since (in the hexagonal grid) a fully "saturated" center tile will
lead to six further adjacencies between its "arguments", not all of
which are going to make sense.  And what happens when, say, the north
hex is already in use and you need to place something there?

I figure drawing lines all over the place would solve all of this, but
once we start connecting things with lines we don't really *need*
adjacency any more.

Reply