Wk 4, W

7:20am-9 -- typed paper
9-10 -- meeting
10-11:30 -- surfed and slept
11:30-12 -- configured
2-3 -- i think i was working on categorizing the properties?

i was up at 6 this morning! how have i only worked 4 hours?!

Wk 3, F

8:30-9:30--"finished" proof, i.e., wrote up angle problem solution
9:30-10:30--meeting w/berman
10:30... added more pictures to paper

Wk 3, Th

9-12 -- wrote half a page; other half of page: picture
12-3:30 -- lunch, talk, tutored
3:30-5:30 -- papered
6-7-- papered futile-y

i hate papers.

Wk 3, Tu

9:30-11 -- tried to fix "101 error(s)" in Latex in my tables (i was missing some dollar signs)
i was wondering about formatting. how do my tables look? (i was also thinking they could be equation lists, like to show the middle step, and forget about having columns.
1-2:30 -- worked on showing (and typing up) that the angles must be the same. got half way there.
i think this also leads to some interesting questions about configurations... i wonder if anyone's done any research on the placement of vertices? (especially with the pairing that occurs with trivial configurations). for instance, when are the symmetry classes of points collinear?
2:30-3:30 -- outlined proof, for organizational purposes; blogged.
11-12 -- reviewed proof for tomorrow

today, like yesterday, was very much a writing day.

Wk 2, F

8:30-9 -- worked on paper
9 -- meeting
9-12:15 -- worked on writing down exactly what i was proving; chose better forms for the complements (b,c,a,d,... instead of a,d,c,b,...); made a table of spans for the three cfgs; hashed out branko's explanation of how to calculate where the next point goes. hopefully, this will be enlightening for why there must be the third (fifth and sixth 2PI rings) set of intersections.

2-2:30 -- blogged
2:30-5 -- conjectured that the innermost radius of the L_i intersections was determined by t_(i-1); further modified to hold only for pattern 1 (first look at pattern 2 yielded a counterexample). looked at more examples. figured out why the s_i weren't mapping to the predicted color: it's s_i and t_(i-1) dependent, not just s_i dependent. Fun.

Wk 2, Th

9-10 -- meeting
10-11 -- made final decisions about the colors:
Lines: Blue, Red, (Dark)Green, (Dark)Magenta
Points: Cyan, Orange, Green, Magenta, Yellow, Purple
Additionally, mathematica is STILL like, NO, go figure out spans and colors and whatnot yourself. :P see notebook.
11:30-12:30 -- fiddled with
4:30-5:30 -- wasted. like duh. obviously you can't preserve the line labels: take your initial 2PIs, BdG & RdM. They become your new points. Your new 2PIs, however, are still BdG and RdM, which are supposed to be in locations that were points in the initial cfg. But they couldn't be points in the initial cfg because they were 2PIs!

Wk 2, M

More evidence of the BG, RM pairings:
Their orbits are always cyclically adjacent! It even applies when you include the missing 2PIs.