Through my exploration of this, I sought to find the formula for an area of an isosceles triangle, given one only has its perimeter and its internal angles. Specifically so I could prove the proportional relevance of 1/phi.

Here is the formula:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]a=area, d=vertex angle,p= perimeter

No other fruits yet for my inquiry, except that one may prove the equation for Plato's divided line is x+y+y+z holds true, given the rules of proportional division he specifies. That is, there will always be two parts of same length when one divides a line (point-line, where geometric points are nonexistent absolutes) and the resultant portions all by the same proportions. I demonstrated this with an 18 unit line, which divided into 12/6, then 8/4/4/2. Perhaps one could divide a line in 1/9, then it'd be .1/.9/.9/8.1

... Appears it still holds true.

Thus a conclusion: Arbitrary divisions, repeated precisely as before (twice more*) equally onto the parts of the first division, begets an

**order**ly pair; a sameness, repetition.

*Quantitatively, it is twice more. this involves time. Qualitatively, it is only once, as a pattern, which is there as a

**proporty**(property/qualia,proportion).

With regard to Wheeler, 1 is a reification of no-thing. A void, reified into its opposite: every-thing. As a void has sameness and only sameness with the absence of thinginess - and 0 is absurd in representative mathematics (although one could argue 1 is just as absurd in reality), 1 also has only sameness with itself. Using 1 as a representation for the 'emergent' order of repeated and equal division is appropriate. 0 appears incompatible with the human mathematical system, when utilizing divisions. 0/x appropriately always gets 0, and x/1 appropriately always returns the same number x. 1 is a mirror of proporty. The addition and subtraction of 1 is the addition and subtraction of potential for the absorption of proporties.