shouldn’t it be “…if it is NOT invariant…” or am I confused?

]]>“just last year, as reported on this blog by Evelyn Lamb, another pentagonal tiling was found”

The Bothel pentagon was a little further back, in 2015. See my October 2015 Scientific American blog called ‘Martin Gardner at 101 (“It’s as not-so-easy as 3, 4, 5”)’

]]>“just last year, as reported on this blog by Evelyn Lamb, another pentagonal tiling was found”

The Bothel pentagon was a little further back, in 2015: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/martin-gardner-at-101-it-s-as-not-so-easy-as-3-4-5/

]]>That can’t be the correct statement of what he proved, because here is an isosceles triangle that admits an aperiodic tiling:

http://www.algorithmic-worlds.net/blog/20100130-radialtiling.jpg

]]>I am a math teacher and I love what a I do, but it is very frustrating that we cannot motivate students to do math, to learn math, to live math.

Outside is full of parks. ]]>