Temperature

What is at stake

Some positions both players are desperate to move in, and some neither player wants to touch. The difference is a number — how much the move is worth — and it turns out to be the most useful single quantity for deciding where to play.

Reading a thermograph

A thermograph is two walls rising from a number line, closing in as the tax on moving increases, and meeting where the position stops being worth fighting over. Everything about a position's hotness is in the shape.

Move where it is hottest. four independent components of one position, ordered by temperature. The temperature is how much a player loses by moving somewhere else instead, so the hottest component is the one to take — and a component that is already a number has no temperature at all, because nobody gains by moving in it.

Playing the hottest

Given several independent fights, play in the one with most at stake. The rule is simple, it is what strong Go players do without being told, it is provably close to optimal — and it is provably not optimal, which is the interesting part.

Cooling

Charge a tax on every move and a fight becomes a number. The height of tax at which that happens is the temperature — so cooling is not a technique for finding the temperature, it is what the temperature is.

The endgame, accounted for

Add up what each region is worth, then add the biggest thing at stake, subtract the next, and so on down. On a board of simple fights the result is exact — and the moment one region has a fight inside it, the account is out by a point.

{2 | 0} + {2 | 0} — where the temperature goes. Three thermographs on one frame: two positions and their sum. The mean of the sum is the sum of the means, every time. The temperature is not: it is bounded by the hottest of the parts and is often far below it, so the number that says how much is at stake in a whole board cannot be got by adding up the parts.

Two hot fights that add to a cold number

The mean of a sum is the sum of the means, every time. The temperature is not — it is bounded by the hottest part and is often far below it. Two positions each worth fighting over can add to a plain number that neither player wants to touch.

{2 | 0}, added to itself. The value of n copies of one position, for each n, beside n times its mean and the smallest distance between the two. The mean value theorem says that distance stays bounded however many copies are piled up — and the bound is the position's temperature, which is what makes the temperature a second genuine measurement rather than a diagram-reading convenience.

The same fight, eight times over

The mean is not roughly what a position is worth. It is the number that eight copies of the position stay close to — and the theorem is that the closeness does not decay as the copies pile up. The gap stops at the temperature, and stays there for ever.

How much changes hands, against how much is at stake. Two ways of choosing where to move, run against optimal play over every board from a pool of three components. Biggest-first takes the component where the most changes hands, which is the count in every endgame book; hottest-first takes the one with the highest temperature. They disagree on most of these boards, the count costs points more often, and — the difference that matters — the count sometimes loses more than the largest temperature on the board, which is the bound the theory's rule is guaranteed to keep.

Big is not the same as hot

A player sizes a move by how much changes hands when it is played, which is the number in every endgame book. The theory sizes it by temperature. On a plain switch the two agree exactly, so nothing shows; on a move with a follow-up they come apart, and the count gives up more than the guarantee the theory's rule carries.

{5 | {4 | 0}} beside one other fight. A local position and a single switch, played out together at each of several ambient temperatures. The middle columns are what optimal play does: whether it opens the local fight, and whether it answers when the opponent opens it. The answer stops being forced at a temperature the local position alone does not name.

Sente is a fact about the rest of the board

A move that must be answered is called sente, and the word is used as though it described the local position. It does not. The same fight is answered while the rest of the board is quiet and ignored once it is busy, and the crossover — measured by solving the whole board at every temperature — sits at the follow-up's own temperature.

The thermograph of {6 | {5 | {4 | 0}}}. Temperature runs up the page and value across it. Each wall is where a player is willing to move once a tax of that much is charged per move; above the temperature at which they meet, neither wants to move and the position is worth its mean value. The height of the meeting point is what is at stake.

A thermograph is built from its options'

The diagram is not measured, it is computed — each wall is an extremum over the options' opposite walls, shifted by the tax. That construction is why a hot follow-up lowers the temperature instead of raising it, and why two fights with the same swing can differ by a factor of two in what is at stake.

Is {{5 | 3} | {2 | −4}} double sente?. One local fight with a follow-up on each side, played out inside a sum with a switch whose temperature rises. The two middle columns are what optimal play does when each player opens the fight. Whether the opponent has to answer is settled by the ambient temperature and not by the shape, so the same position is double sente, sente for one player, and gote for both, at three different ambients.

Double sente is not a property of the position

A fight with a threat on each side is called double sente, as though the phrase named a shape. Swept against a rising ambient temperature, one such fight — { {5 | 3} | {2 | −4}} — is double sente up to an ambient of 1, sente for one player only from 3/2 to 3, and gote for both from 7/2, and the two band edges are the temperatures of the two follow-ups.

{4 | 0} played out in a stack of 5 coupons. An idealised environment: coupons worth a fixed step less each, which either player may take instead of moving in the game. The rows are the line optimal play takes over the whole board, in order. What the game turned out to be worth is set beside its mean value, and the coupon the players stopped at beside its temperature — two quantities measured from the play, and two computed from the thermograph.

An environment made of coupons

Beside the game sits a stack of coupons worth 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, and a player may always take the top one instead of moving. Play the whole thing out and two quantities the theory computes are measured instead: {4 | 0} comes out worth exactly 2, its mean value, and the coupons stop at 2, its temperature. For {10 | {9 | 1}}, whose temperature is 1, they stop at 7/2 — because what the stopping coupon measures is the hottest temperature anywhere in the tree.

The thermograph of {{5 | {3 | 1}} | 0}. Temperature runs up the page and value across it. Each wall is where a player is willing to move once a tax of that much is charged per move; above the temperature at which they meet, neither wants to move and the position is worth its mean value. The height of the meeting point is what is at stake. The marks partway up the walls are the bends: the heights at which the option holding a wall up stops holding it up. Each stands at the temperature of a follow-up. Every one of them is below the temperature of the position itself, which is where the two walls meet.

A thermograph with two bends

A wall bends where the option holding it up stops holding it up, and most drawn thermographs bend once. { {5 | {3 | 1}} | 0} bends twice, at 1 and 3/2, and neither height is its temperature of 7/4 — every bend lies strictly below where the walls meet. Over a census of 17,255 hot positions two levels deep, a second bend in one wall never happened once.

Cooling by 1, and heating back. Each row is a position, its temperature, what it becomes when every move is taxed, and what comes back when the tax is refunded. The refund is not an inverse: a position whose temperature was below the tax has already frozen into a number, and heating a number does nothing at all.

Cooling by exactly one

Cooling is usually met as a way of reading a thermograph: a tax, and two numbers at the height of the tax. Applied as an operator it returns a position instead — and then the obvious question is whether heating gives the position back. Over the 1,474 values born by day three, 27 survive the round trip and 15 of those are numbers that never moved. Cooling throws away almost everything it touches.

A hot position, split into its mean and what is left. Each row is a position cooled by exactly its own temperature — the tax at which it stops being worth moving in. The result is the mean value with something small still attached, and the last column is that something, obtained by subtracting the mean from the cooled game rather than by inspection.

A number and a fight

Charge a position exactly what it is worth fighting over and the fight disappears, leaving the mean value — with something still attached to it. Over all 1,122 hot values born by day three the residue is smaller than every positive number, it is a star in 942 of them, and it is never nothing. So a hot game is its mean plus a fight plus a remainder that no number reports, and the remainder is what decides close games.

4 | 0 and {2 | {1 | 0}} in the same environment. Two positions and one coupon stack, solved as a single board. The rows are the line optimal play takes; the coupon on top when each position is first entered is compared with the coupon it was entered at when it had the environment to itself. The mean contributions still add and the entry coupons need not agree.

Two games in one environment

A coupon stack measures a position: play the whole board out and the coupon the players stop at is the temperature, the score is the mean. Put a second position beside the first and one of the two measurements stops working. Over 36 ordered pairs the contributions still add to the means every time, and the coupon a fight is entered at moves on 13 of them — without either position changing.

What the rule costs. Every sum of three components from a fixed pool, played out twice: once with one side following the rule "move where the stake is largest" and once with both sides evaluating exactly. The rule is not optimal, the gap is bounded, and the bound is the largest temperature on the board.

A rule with a guarantee

Evaluating a sum of a dozen fights is impossible; following a rule is not. Move where the stake is largest, and over 220 sums of three hot components the rule scores exactly what perfect play scores in 196 of them, is never more than one point behind, and never ends more than the largest single stake below the mean. The rule that is supposed to be different — answer the threat — chose differently in none of the 220.

Which of the two operators distributes over a sum. Cooling and heating, each asked whether applying it to a sum is the same as applying it to the parts and adding. The pools are the values born by day two and a set of deliberately hot positions; the counts are of ordered pairs.

Cooling adds and heating does not

The two operators are presented as a pair, and they are not one. Cooling a sum is the same as cooling the parts and adding, on every one of the 1,768 pairs tried, at two taxes and on two pools. Heating fails on 263 — and not for the obvious reason: in every failure neither part and not the sum is a number, so the clause exempting numbers never fires at the top. It fires two levels down, where an option of a sum is one part's option plus the whole of the other.

The operator chosen for one game

Chilling is cooling by exactly one, and the one is not derived from anything. It is chosen because Domineering mostly runs at that temperature — and measured against this site's whole Domineering catalogue it turns thirteen of fifteen boards into numbers or numbers plus a star, and warms thirteen of the fifteen back exactly. They are not the same thirteen: eleven boards do both, two freeze too far to be recovered, and two stay hot and come back on the nose.

Where 1,474 values sit on the scale. The temperature of every value in the pool, counted. The floor is −1 and only numbers are on it; the next rung up is 0, and everything there is a number with an infinitesimal added. Above that the scale is continuous and the counts thin out.

Below zero

Temperature is described as urgency and urgency has no obvious bottom, but the scale stops at −1 and only the numbers are on it. The rung above is exactly zero, and the 337 values born by day three that sit there are the ones a number cannot be told from — flat thermograph, nothing at stake, and an infinitesimal that no number can see. Two independent computations agree on the classification for all 1,474.

Four rules over 220 sums. Each rule plays every sum against an opponent evaluating exactly. Two of the rules come with a bound and two do not; the coldest rule is the control, and it violates the bound often enough to show that being inside it is a real constraint rather than a description of the pool.

A rule with no promise at all

Playing in a hottest component comes with a bound: never more than the largest single temperature below the mean of the board. Over 220 sums the bound holds 220 times — and so does the bound for a rule with nothing behind it, which scores exactly what perfect play scores on 205 sums against the hottest rule's 196. The control that shows the bound is doing work is the rule that plays the coldest component, which breaks it 74 times and loses up to eleven points.

The operator that puts the star back

Chilling is not invertible: it freezes, and 400 values born by day three collapse onto 29. Both heating and Norton's warming operator are exact right inverses of it — each lands back where it started, on all 400 — and they pick different preimages, differing on 396 of them and differing by exactly a star on 335. The clause that separates them is one line long and it is about the integers.

Where a sum's temperature actually lands. Every pair drawn from 45 hot positions, with the temperature of the sum set against the larger of the two temperatures. The bound is never broken and it is almost never used: 864 of the 1035 sums sit exactly at the maximum and 160 are frozen.

How cold a sum of hot games can be

The temperature of a sum is at most the largest temperature in it, and the bound leaves the whole interval below it open. Over 1,035 pairs the sums do not use that interval: 864 sit exactly at the maximum, 160 are frozen outright, and eleven land anywhere in between — every one of them with a component whose wall bends.

The move that stops the other one. Six local fights, each placed beside an environment of known temperature. The last two columns are the band over which taking the local move beats spending the move outside, and the band over which the opponent's move in the same fight has to be answered. They are not the same band.

What a move nobody makes is worth

If Right's move in a fight has to be answered, then Left's move in the same fight prevents an exchange Right was going to get for nothing. That is a reverse sente, and pricing it is the awkward case: over sixty measurements the gain matches the local temperature once and the follow-up's swing twice, and the band over which the move is worth taking is not the band over which the move it reverses is sente.

What is left when the copies pair off

A pile of n copies stays within a bounded distance of n times the mean, and the distance never grows. The difference is a game rather than a number, and what it actually is has a much better answer: for a plain switch it alternates between one fight and nothing at all, and for a fight with a follow-up it is different every time — bounded in size and unbounded in complexity.

Adding two thermographs. Every pair drawn from the 15 values born by day two that are not numbers — 120 sums — with the two walls added pointwise and compared against the true diagram of the sum. The added walls are always an outer bound and the means always add; the whole diagram is right for 92 of the 120, and the 28 it is wrong for are exactly the pairs in which both components are hot.

When two thermographs can be added

The temperature of a sum is not the sum of the temperatures, and the natural repair is to add the whole diagrams instead. Over every pair of hot values born by day two the added walls always bound the true ones and the mast always comes out right — and the whole diagram is right exactly when at most one of the two components is hot, which is precisely the case a reader has no use for.

How hot a day gets

A day of construction buys exactly one degree of temperature — nought, then one, then two — and the value attaining the maximum is unique on every day: ∗, then {1 | −1}, then {2 | −2}. The distribution underneath is not tidy at all: it peaks at a half, leans to the right of the peak, and has a hole in it at one and three quarters where nothing is born.

Five rules over 120 sums built to punish greed. Each rule plays every sum against an opponent evaluating exactly, on a pool whose components are traps: a large immediate gain that hands the opponent a larger follow-up. The pool was built to punish the greedy rule and does not — that rule scores a move by the stop it leaves, and a stop already contains the follow-up. What the traps catch is the rule below it, which scores a move by the territory it takes and loses up to 16.

A pool built to punish greed

The rung below found a rule with no theorem behind it beating the rule with one, and predicted that a pool of deliberate traps would reverse the result. It does not. The traps miss, because the rule called greedy scores a move by the stop it leaves and a stop already contains the follow-up — and the rule the traps do catch, losing sixteen points where the guaranteed rule loses five, had to be written to make the point.

The same population counted twice. The temperature scale over the positions this site has enumerated, once with every position counted and once with every distinct value counted. The two disagree about how much of the subject is hot, about what the commonest hot temperature is, and about whether a number is the usual thing for a position to be worth.

How hot a real position is

Counted one value at a time, a tenth of the subject is hot. Counted one position at a time — every board this site has enumerated, all 11,397 of them — it is a twentieth, two thirds of the positions are worth numbers outright, and ten of the seventeen rulesets never produce a hot position at all.

Where sente stops, by what the answer costs. The largest ambient temperature at which a local move is still answered, sorted by how deep the fight below the answer runs. When the answer ends the fight the crossover is the follow-up's temperature; when the answer starts another fight it is exactly half of it, and a third level does not halve it again.

The answer that starts another fight

A local move is answered while the ambient temperature stays below the follow-up's — and that rule, which this site has carried since the anchor opened, is exact only when the answer ends the fight. When the answer starts another one the crossover is exactly half the follow-up's temperature, on every position tested, and a third level of fight does not halve it again.

How far down the stack the guarantee reaches. The temperatures of a sum's components, sorted largest first, with each position asked whether playing in the hottest component can lose more than the temperature sitting there. The first two never fail; the third fails on 681 sums.

A schedule instead of a number

Playing in the hottest component loses at most the largest temperature on the board — the classical guarantee, stated against one number. Sorting the temperatures and reading the guarantee one step further down gives a promise 47 per cent smaller that is never breached over 1,734 sums. Two steps down it fails 120 times, so the schedule has exactly one step of slack in it.

Two feet, and the one that halves the crossover. The thermographs of two follow-ups, drawn to the same scale. The first has a right wall that leans in from the axis and its move is answered up to the follow-up's full temperature; the second has a wall rising vertically first and its move is answered only to half of it.

What the halving is a function of

A move is answered while the board is cooler than the follow-up's temperature — or half of it, depending which of two classes the position is in, and the classes were stated in terms of forms. They are a feature of one wall: whether the follow-up's right wall rises straight up before it leans. Fifty-five positions, no exception, and the crossover becomes something a reader can see.

When the players stop taking coupons. Every pair of fights from a pool of nine, played beside a coupon stack, with the coupon standing when somebody first plays on the board. Sixty of the eighty-one leave exactly when the coupon falls to the board's temperature.

When to leave the environment

A Go player's question is not which fight to take but when to stop taking the small stuff. Put two fights beside a stack of coupons and the orthodox answer — leave when the coupon falls to the hottest temperature on the board — is exact on sixty of eighty-one pairs. All twenty-one departures have a fight with a follow-up in them, and every pair of plain switches leaves on time.

The same temperature, and four different departures. Positions with a temperature of one whose follow-ups are worth different amounts, with the coupon at which the players leave the environment. The departure tracks the follow-up.

How big the answer is

The rung below found every early departure from a coupon stack caused by a position with a follow-up, and could not say more: its follow-ups were all of a similar size, so the class it measured was one bit. A pool graded by follow-up size answers it. With the position's own temperature held at one, the departure runs from coupon 1 to coupon 3.5 as the follow-up's temperature runs from 1 to 4 — and over the whole grid the players leave at the larger of the two temperatures.

What a game actually produces

Fifty-three per cent of the Domineering regions of at most eight squares are hot. Of the components eleven hundred random games actually produce, sixteen per cent are — and ten per cent once single squares are counted. The figure is the same on three sizes of board, so it is a property of play rather than of the board, and it says that every temperature census this site has taken over a catalogue overstates how hot the game is by a factor of three.

The crossover by depth. How far the ambient temperature can rise with the move still answered, by how deep the fight goes. Where the answer settles the fight it is the follow-up's temperature; deeper it is that less a half.

A subtraction, not a factor

The crossover factor was a half on fights whose answer starts another fight, measured on a pool with two three-deep positions in it. A pool built to be deep gives twenty, and the factor does not survive them: the crossover is the follow-up's temperature less a half on eighteen of the twenty, and a factor of a half agrees with that only where the temperature is one — which nearly every position in the earlier pool had.

Two clauses, one formula. The law split by which of the two temperatures is the smaller. When the answer is colder the correction is half of it; when it is hotter the correction saturates at half the fight's own temperature.

Half of the smaller temperature

The correction to the sente crossover has been priced twice — first as a factor of a half, then as a subtraction of a half — each time on a pool whose answers were all about the same size. Over 128 fights with answers from a number up to a temperature of six, the correction is half the answer's temperature, saturating at half the fight's own. Both earlier readings are regions of that one law.

Three populations, three answers. How often something is worth fighting over, measured on the catalogue of shapes, on the pieces a played game produces, and on the whole board those pieces make up.

One fight makes a board a fight

The rung below found 16 per cent of the components a played game produces to be hot, against 53 per cent of the catalogue they are drawn from, and predicted that the share of hot boards would be much larger. Taking the same play-outs and tallying at the board gives 32 per cent — twice the piece figure and not ten times it, because a Domineering board carries only 1.68 pieces and the hot ones cluster on the same boards.

The ordering that does not order. Playing in the hottest component against playing by the larger of a component's two temperatures, over 220 boards. The proposed rule is exact far less often and its worst case is nine times as bad.

The quantity that does not order a board

The rung below found the players leaving an environment at the larger of a position's two temperatures, and proposed that a board should therefore be played in the order of that quantity. Over 220 boards of three components it plays exactly on 124 against playing-in-the-hottest's 196, loses 85 of the 97 disagreements, breaks Hotstrat's guarantee on six boards, and costs nine points on its worst one.

The rule that was supposed to lose. Five ordering rules on the same 220 boards. Playing where the temperature less the answer's is largest is exact more often than playing in the hottest component, which is what the rung below predicted it would not do.

A rule that beats the hottest

The rung below proposed the reverse of the rule that had just failed — discount a component by its answer's temperature rather than promoting it — and predicted, before the sweep, that it would not beat playing in the hottest component. It does. It plays exactly on 201 of 220 three-component boards against 196, wins two thirds of the boards where the two disagree, keeps inside a guarantee proved for the other rule, and the gap widens as the board grows.

The obstacle was the catalogue

The rung below could not measure the early game because its regions were too large for the catalogue, and asked for a bracket rather than a value. No bracket is needed: a twelve-square region evaluates in five milliseconds and an eighteen-square one in under a second. What was expensive was cataloguing every shape rather than sweeping the positions a board actually reaches — and the sweep says a board is hot four times in five three moves in, and cools when it breaks up.

The third temperature is not consulted. Positions grouped by their two top temperatures, with the third temperatures they hold between them. The crossover is the same for every position in a group however far apart their third temperatures are.

The two numbers at the top

The rung below found the crossover of a sente fight to be its temperature less half its answer's, and said a proof would settle the depth question with it. The depth question is settled without the proof, by construction: group the positions by their two top temperatures and the crossover is single-valued on every group, however far apart the third temperature is — and the formula survives a fourth level of fight, which the rung below never reached.

A plateau, not a point. The rule's score as the coefficient is varied on a fine grid. It is constant across the open unit interval and drops at exactly one.

The worst value in its own interval

The rung below scored a component by its temperature less its hottest answer's and asked what rate the answer should really be charged at. Every weight strictly between nought and one scores the same and beats the rung below's choice of one at every board size — because a ranking rule's score is a step function of its own coefficient, and one is exactly where two components tie.

The five hottest regions. Every eight-square Domineering region at the ceiling temperature, with which of the boards swept ever produces it.

Eight squares, and no hotter

The rung below found no Domineering position hotter than three halves on four boards and asked for the position that attains it. It is a region of eight squares, there are five of them up to symmetry, three are the hot core of an attaining board on every size swept — and the ceiling holds at nine and ten squares too, where the obvious extrapolation predicted seven quarters.

Five premises, and the step. The claims an induction would need, with what checks each. The last row is the step and nothing here checks it.

The premises an induction would need

The rung below settled by a grouping test that a position's crossover depends on its own temperature and its answer's and on nothing below them, and asked for the induction. The four paragraphs are not written here; the checking they would rest on is. The law holds at five levels, survives translation, heating and cooling — and none of that is the step.

Thirteen cells, thirteen scores. The rule scored in every cell of the unit interval on the designed pool, at three components.

A pool built to have an answer

The coefficient in the rule score a component by t − λa scored identically for every λ in the unit interval, because the rule reads an ordering and that pool's orderings changed at three places. A pool designed to have twelve crossings turns the interval into thirteen different rules, and all three board sizes agree on one cell: between a quarter and a third.

Three orders, one of them right. The holder's rank above the crossover under three different orderings of the options.

Which top is the top

The crossover law's proof rests on the walls above the crossover being governed by the top two options, and the check was never run. Run on 23,586 heights it holds exactly — but only when the options are ranked by mean value. Ranked by the temperatures the law is stated in, it fails on a fifth of them.

One size further. The hottest Domineering region of each size, one size beyond what the rung below could reach.

The ceiling was a plateau

Three halves of a move looked like a ceiling on a Domineering region's temperature: it held at eight squares, at nine and at ten, and the rise that had been a quarter every two sizes stopped. At eleven squares four regions reach seven quarters — and they contain the hottest eight-square shapes and are hotter than them, so the extra material is not cold.

The counts, beside what happened next. The hottest Domineering region of each size with the number of shapes attaining it, and whether the next size was hotter.

A description, and not a detector

The rung below noticed that the count of shapes attaining the hottest temperature grew across a plateau and collapsed at the step, and proposed it as a way to read a plateau off a single size. The growth is exact — five plateaus, no exception — and the rule is impossible: five orbits precede a rise at seven squares and no rise at eight.

Two claims read as one. The proposed geometry separated into the claim the rung below established and the claim it needs but did not.

The four paragraphs prove something else

Three rungs earned the right to write the crossover law's proof as two straight walls meeting where the law says. The walls are straight — one of them everywhere, for a trivial reason, and the other only above the answer's own temperature. The crossover sits below that height, so the geometry holds nowhere the law is about, and where it does hold it proves the temperature instead.

What a designed pool can say. Six statements about the coefficient, with which pool each rests on.

A second pool, designed differently

One designed pool put the rule's best coefficient between a quarter and a third, and all three board sizes agreed. A second pool, built by the identical greedy criterion from different material, has no cell that is best at every size — so the coefficient is a property of the pool and there is no number to find.

{2 | {1 | 0}}, added to itself. The value of n copies of one position, for each n, beside n times its mean and the smallest distance between the two. The mean value theorem says that distance stays bounded however many copies are piled up — and the bound is the position's temperature, which is what makes the temperature a second genuine measurement rather than a diagram-reading convenience.

The residues as a sequence

Four of the eight residue sequences never repeat, and a recurrence is not a description. There is a closed form and it is not for the game: the stops and the temperature of the n-th residue are periodic with period one, two or four on every sequence in the pool, while three of them produce a different game at every n.

An environment instead of a stack

The guarantee behind playing the hottest component survives one step down a board's sorted temperatures and fails at two. Against a coupon environment as hot as the board it survives all of them — because the rule stops being approximate and starts being optimal, on every sum in the pool built to punish it.

Where the two diagrams part. Pairs of hot day-two values with the true thermograph of their sum against the one made by adding the components' walls. Every pair parts, and every pair parts at the lower of the two temperatures.

The second bend is the boundary

Adding two thermographs wall by wall gives a diagram that is right at the mast and wrong below it. Over every pair of hot values born by day two, the added walls sit outside the true ones at every height — an outer envelope with the truth somewhere inside — and the two pictures separate at exactly the lower of the two temperatures, on all twenty-eight pairs. Above that height both components are still fights and the addition is exact; one sixteenth below it, every pair has parted.