I am getting to that - before that I will be approaching the topic of the word orthographic.
I am just taking care of a few things. Just a quick note.
Regarding angles . . . do you have some trick up your sleeve? When I consider what you said I find myself thinking about PtA does not move but rather passes itself on so rotation matrices, quaternions, Euler angles(and gimble lock) and what ever else I am missing here are the flip side of your statement: Let me know when you think that you have all of that straight because the next issue will throw you. 
. Alternatively I could be reading what you said wrong.
Look to his little “pink” koi avatar. lol
That is what it means to exist…movement.
Arcturus Descending
Huh . . . pink . . . boys don’t wear pink . . .
Actually I totally disagree with this complete nonsense 
I am totally joking . . . you are so close to the truth here Arcturus Descending.
Now I have to deal with an issue in the divine realm - involving the scaling of infinity . . .
. . . so that things can move in the physical totality of existence.
encode_decode wrote:
In a perfect ideal world, looking at life and seeing its reality objectively, would be a part of existence.
If by life you mean the universe, nature, and all that surrounds us, we can see some of it objectively, no - insofar as we know the facts, certain facts.
But can we see much of it objectively - since we don’t have all of the facts - and those that we do have - are capable of changing.
But does it mean that we do not exist if we more often than not see life subjectively? How can we not? We have egos and we all come from different perspectives because we come from different places in life which cause us to see with different eyes.
Yes, that to me is certainly part of what it means to exist.
Look at your avatar. It’s a beautiful example of what it means to be affected by surrounding existence and to affect the surrounding existence.
Both those koi are affecting and influencing one another.
I wonder what the one would do if the other stopped swimming and just turned around and looked at the one.
I think that you are reading it right. You began by expressing random levels of PtA distributed throughout a 2D matrix. We discussed the propagation from point to point within the matrix. But for the model to reflect reality, such propagation must travel at any angle, not merely the horizontal, vertical, or diagonal angles. And that becomes a serious challenge.
I spent some time investigating the issue of “filling space” so as to determine if there is a regular form that a matrix could represent and that would also allow for the required variety of angles. I eventually proved that no such polygon can exist. And that left me wondering what to do. How does one represent the propagation of millions of random PtA levels in random directions?
Actually, you already have my answer to that conundrum. I just thought it would be good for you to see why I suggested it in the first place.
James
I am pleased with this response - it shows me I am internalizing things - which is good because I am busy working on a virtual machine at the moment . . .
. . . obviously that is unrelated so I will get down to specifics.
Yes it does become a serious challenge, I totally agree - off the top of my head just from this quote alone - interpolation of angles into the matrix comes to mind.
I can see why . . . there is no scale for infinity. Again, just off the top of my head I would be doing some sort of averaging and interpolation. I guess there are a number of ways to make do but that is all I can think of without much effort.
OK . . . I will go and search for it. You are quite welcome to give me a hint - it might save time, however I will know what it is when I find it.
Tennis.
James
I nearly forgot . . .
I need you to elaborate. Are you talking about projection? I ask because I use this word in a number of domains including mapping and memory. Orthogonality also comes to mind. I also thought that you might have been referring to an orthogonal array. I agree to the simple and obvious comment - I also think that simple and obvious is a wonderful thing once I start compounding - that way I know what a complex system is about.
James
My goodness 
sorry.
James
If it is not too much trouble, I still require your thoughts on this post.
It is important to me that we are sharing the same terminology.
Thank you in advance.
Sorry, I merely meant it in the common sense of right angles, as in a Cartesian coordinate system (“ortho-” meaning “proper/right/straight/standard/authentic”).
James
Starting out simple and obvious . . . on the journey to n-dimensions. This post might not serve any purpose to you - but it will to me.
In that case I think you are speaking of orthogonality and the term orthogonal. Where -gon comes from Greek -gōnos ‘-angled’, and -al (forming adjectives) relating to; of the kind of. Orthogonal: of or involving right angles; at right angles.
I am not certain whether it can be called an orthogonal array because I think that is a combinatorial construct in mathematics. I call it a multidimensional array or more specifically a two dimensional array(shortened to 2D Array). In my 2D Array the foundation address is represented as the segment and the indices are the columns. This is not how it maps to random access memory - that is base address and offsets.
The way I set up my 2D Array was with the intention of being as you say, simple and obvious. We can put this matter to rest for now.
On Tennis: I might be able to come up with something more optimized - let me ponder Tennis and optimization for two or three days. In the meantime I do have some more questions for you, if you are up to answering them.
Let the angle and velocity (always velocity of 1 in this case) determine the xyz coordinance, not the other way around. After time t= t+1, x= x+dx, y= y+dy, z= z+dz. In that way, every conceivable angle is handled while the PtA remains the same, propagating. The arrays are no longer arrays concerning fixed locations with their associated PtA level. Instead, the arrays are array-lists of original PtAs and their consequent, double-decimal locations. Array1 is the last list of PtA xyz-locations, and array2 is the next list of PtA xyz-locations, and reversed as t increments - tennis ball (or very many) being tracked through spacetime. Orthogonality is no longer relevant.
So emmm… did you follow that?
James
Do you mean angle and speed? You are welcome to talk physics you know. I will take it that you mean speed - in which case that is not a problem.
Well okay, usually “velocity” is angle plus speed, so I misspoke a bit. Yes, “angle + speed” is what I was talking about. And that angle is to be expressed as the 3 Cartesian coordinates of dx, dy, and dz. The “speed” is to always be “1” (of whatever units of time - one tic of the clock). Within each step of 1 tic of the clock, the PtA “tennis ball” bundle travels dx, dy, and dz from where ever it was. The trick to get you out of the conundrum of geometry, is to simply keep track of each tiny bit of PtA (aka “an Afflate”) as though it was somewhat like a tiny tennis ball passing through space. And you have billions of them passing through each other (by specific rules of engagement).
Void of the actual rules of engagement, the result in pictorial form, would look something like this:
That is a pictorial of “empty space”.
The end result using the proper rules of engagement displays the cause of the formation of subatomic particles, their behavior, and the entire rest of the universe.
James
I think so.
Let Abit/s = affectance bit/s : Let N = any particular Abit in the array : Let the symbol “&” be the array separator.
With two arrays we are tracking many Abits:
PtA(N) & PtA(N)
x(N) & dx(N)
y(N) & dy(N)
z(N) & dz(N)
Speed is one clock cycle(theoretically equating to the speed of light in physical space) represented as a tic.
Angle is randomly preset at the first moment of populating the Abit - and updated as the “difference” between n & dn where n can be x,y or z.
Currently void of the actual rules of engagement between Abits.
Each tic, n is assigned the value of dn - through the switching of the primary array.