Although it may not look like it. I spent about 2.5 hours constructing this "tessellation". I'm not the most gifted in the art department, but I took a stab at it. Two of my biggest problems with the construction were that I didn't have a protractor to make angles equal, and that I didn't start with an equilateral triangle in the center. Those two errors started to become more apparent as I started to branch out further with the design. Below is a picture on my tessellation spread across 9 sheets of 8.5 by 11 paper.
I started constructing this figure with just an equilateral triangle. As I mentioned I didn't have a protractor so I used the Pythagorean theorem to essentially make two right triangle back to back with a height which was twice the length of the base. From there I wanted to use different shapes to make a more unique construction. I used barn shaped hexagons which were hexagons with two 90 degree base angles. I simply filled in the rest of the space with whatever other shape would keep the general shape near a triangle. If I were to make this figure into a true tessellation I would make sure to use general shapes that would fill the rest of the figure into a larger equilateral triangle. By ensuring I have a larger equilateral triangle I would be able to surround it with three more copies of the figure, one on each side, and the pattern could repeat infinitely, by continuously adding copies to each new open side. If there is not a repeatable pattern present, then it is not a tessellation.
I applaud your effort and like the idea of the scale. It's not really a tessellation if it doesn't have a visible pattern that would extend to fill the plane. It is mathematical design, where you've made a shape with rotational and reflectional properties.
ReplyDeleteTo make an exemplar, just add a paragraph about your thinking while making it. What decisions did you make and why, or even the mechanics of making it, if that's interesting.