The determination of the figure denoted by the three projections, may be
more easily effected by treating each projection as an indication of
what cubes are to be cut away. Taking the same shape as before, we have
in the Moena projection Urna, Moles, Bidens, Tibicen; and the
possibilities from them are Urna, Frenum, Sector, Moles, Plebs, Hama,
Bidens, Pallor, Cortis, Tibicen, Mora, Merces. This may aptly be called
the Moena solution. Now, from the Syce projection, we learn at once that
those cubes, which in it would produce Frenum, Sector, Hama, Remus,
Sypho, Saltus, are not in the shape. This absence of Frenum and Sector
in the Syce view proves that their presence in the Moena solution is
superfluous. The absence of Hama removes the possibility of Hama,
Cortis, Merces. The absence of Remus, Sypho, Saltus, makes no
difference, as neither they nor any of their Syce possibilities are
present in the Moena solution. Hence, the result of comparison of the
Moena and Syce projections and possibilities is the shape: Urna, Moles,
Plebs, Bidens, Pallor, Tibicen, Mora. This may be aptly called the
Moena-Syce solution. Now, in the Alvus projection we see that Ostrum,
Comes, Sector, Ala, and Mars are absent. The absence of Sector, Ala, and
Mars has no effect on our Moena-Syce solution; as it does not contain
any of their Alvus possibilities. But the absence of Ostrum and Comes
proves that in the Moena-Syce solution Bidens and Tibicen are
superfluous, since their presence in the original shape would give
Ostrum and Comes in the Alvus projection. Thus we arrive at the
Moena-Alvus-Syce solution, which gives us the shape: Urna, Moles, Plebs,
Pallor, Mora.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account