Copyright © University of Cambridge. All rights reserved.
And a new idea:
TO SQ :N
REPEAT 4 [ FD :N RT 90]
Then type SQ 50 and see what happens. What about SQ 30?
Now can you write another procedure to produce this ring of squares? It might start:
TO RINGSQ :N
REPEAT 8 [SQ :N ...
But why not REPEAT 6 and then turn a little?
Or, why not consider a systematic reduction of the basic design?
Why not then put all the four designs together?
Why not add others that are bigger?
BUT what has this got to do with the following numbers:
0.4142; 1.4142 and 2.4142?