Using s=0.417 instead of s=0.42 in the code of the last post I got a quasiperiodic structure with fewer and smaller gaps than the one shown in “Projection method for 5fold rotational symmetry“. Further decreasing s results in somehow chaotic structures. Note that the gaps seem to have all the same shape. Do we have a tiling with a finite set of tiles ? Is this in some sense a best result ?

Recent Posts
Recent Comments
zenorogue on Straight lines in elliptic and… Peter Stampfli on Curves Peter Stampfli on Elliptic kaleidoscopes Para Parasolian on Elliptic kaleidoscopes Para Parasolian on Curves Archives
 March 2018
 February 2018
 January 2018
 December 2017
 November 2017
 September 2017
 August 2017
 July 2017
 June 2017
 May 2017
 February 2017
 January 2017
 November 2016
 February 2014
 January 2014
 December 2013
 November 2013
 October 2013
 September 2013
 August 2013
 May 2013
 April 2013
 March 2013
 February 2013
 January 2013
 December 2012
 November 2012
 October 2012
 September 2012
 August 2012
 July 2012
 June 2012
 May 2012
 April 2012
Categories
Meta
A possible complication: changing the first line of code from size(600,600) to size(700,600) reveals diamond shaped gaps (thick rhombs), just like the gaps that showed up here:https://geometricolor.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/aquasiperiodictilingwithpentagrams/
Changing the size agin to (1500, 600), and being patient while the pattern bakes in the oven for awhile, reveals a gap that’s kiteshaped (next to two diamonds).
Whoops, I was about to post this comment, but then I changed the value of s to 4.178, and that seems to fix the problem. Maybe the value of s just has to be refined a bit more.
Thanks Eric, for your great results. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to find the best value for s other than refining as you did. And I have no idea what the optimum looks like and what it means.
I am now working on the dualization method, which will produce tilings without any gaps. But this method is extremely difficult to work out and to present. Be patient.
That’s great news. I’m very much looking forward to seeing the dualization method, particularly given your earlier blog entries showing the dualization method in action.
For the above comment, I see I have a typo – I meant to write s=0.4178, and in fact, s=0.41785 works even better. But it is interesting that 4.178 does produce great results! Before noticing my typo, I tried values of s between 0.8 and 0.81 and saw quite similar results to 4.178 — for example, try 0.805.
Other results: For 9 fold symmetry, values of s around 0.333 are interesting.