So I have seen this type of graphic design used in several places. Here is an example:    The exact pattern I am pointing to is how the triangles are drawn in a way that gives a sense of dimension and depth. Here is another example:    Is there a specific name for this design method?
121771
What is the design style called where they create form with simple shapes, usually triangles like they have done with the ground in the    Or like the images below:
37881
I am looking for an easy way to create in Illustrator vintage style corners like on the picture provided.  I have some technical ideas, but they are time consuming, there should be an easier way I believe.
74095
I need to be able to plot pixels in this pattern. To me, it looks like a sine wave pattern that is both diagonal and convergent.      What would a function for that look like?  Thanks.
18256
is just one example of an article promoting use of the golden ratio in design. Over the past few years I've seen quite a few similar articles, but none of them really seem to go into depth beyond just explaining what the golden ratio is. I've been able to find very  that test it and it seems as if the results are inconclusive.   Here are some more web design articles advocating the golden ratio:             Unfortunately, even though the articles above are from some of the more popular design blogs online, not one of them even cites a study. Only  seems to be even questioning its use, but he only questions it for the medium of the web.  At the risk of going against the grain of the design community, is there any objective evidence that the golden ratio actually improves design? Are there any split test studies comparing the effectiveness of a website design based on the golden ratio versus one that isn't? And if, in fact, the golden ratio in design is proved to be more effective, why is that the case? Are there greater principles that we can pull from it that can be applied in different ways? Are there are other golden ratios?
82328
How do draw a right triangular prism in latex in this point of view?   And moreover, how can I add the right angle label like this?   Finally, how to add lines in the same figure?   Thank you so much
80082
I want to draw something similar to this in latex. How can I do it? I want it to be a directed graph and want to be able to label the vertices.
72563
Q1. I was fiddling around with squaring-the-square type algebraic maths, and came up with a family of arrangements of $n^2$ squares, with sides $1, 2, 3\ldots n^2$ ($n$ odd). Which seems like it would work with ANY odd $n$. It's so simple, surely it's well-known, but I haven't seen it in my (brief) web travels. I have a page with pics  of the $n=7,9,11$ versions, and description of how to construct them; $n=11$ is:    It seems the same method could square the plane, well, fill greater than any specified area, no matter how huge, at least. Which is what 'infinite' means, practically, isn't it? Anyway, it seems, if somehow not known (which it must be, surely - if anyone has links etc to where it's discussed I would be very grateful) then it's another way of squaring the plane.  Q2. Each of these arrangements can be extended, but the ones I've tried (5 or 6) have a little gap to the south-east, (i.e. where the squares don't fit neatly together) but otherwise can be extended forever. Is there an $n$ for which there is no gap? There are more than 1 of each sized square in this arrangement, but still, it would be a nice tessellation with integer squares.  a picture of the 7x7 version extended, and detail of the centre.  Thanks for any answers or help.    P.s. This was too long for the comments section:  I wrote to Jim Henle the other day asking about this method, he hadn't seen it, thought it was nice, but not plane-filling in the way his method is. He wrote in part:     You are sort of "squaring the plane," but not in the sense that we did it. You are squaring larger and larger areas of the plane, but you don't square the whole thing. ... There are many meanings to "infinite". Aristotle distinguished between the "potential infinite" (more and more, without bound) and the "actual infinite" (all the numbers, all at once). Your procedure is the first sort, and ours is the second sort.   Which is what I had thought.   But the more I think about it.. the less clear the difference seems. Well, e.g. 'there are an infinite number of primes' means: there is no highest one; any number you can say, there's a higher prime. That's how that is defined, spoken about, to my (non-mathematician's) understanding. Similarly, there are an infinite number of these $n\times n$ square groups, there's no biggest one, any area you name, there's a bigger one. The Henle's method consists in adding more squares, ideally forever, but practically, you stop at some point and say 'and so on forever'. The procedure requires an infinite number of steps. I can't quite see how this series of $n\times n$ squares is so different. You have to start drawing again with each new $n$, sure, but I can't see that matters so much - there are an infinite number of arrangements, and there's the same 'and so on forever'.. i.e. "there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as an infinite summation or process."  Nov 2015. [I can't add comments to questions below, not sure why.]  Ross M, sorry about the delay! It seems you might be confused between the 2 parts, my fault for combining them in one question. (I still haven't heard anything much about either 2 from anyone.)  The first part is the basic $n^2$ arrangements of squares. (The second part takes just one of these and tries to extend it outwards, wonders about the possibility and mathematics of there being no gaps, and has many more than 1 of each sized square)  I still don't quite see why 'having to rearrange each step' makes a huge difference to anything. Imagine I had a method of going from $n^2$ to $(n+1)^2$ squares by adding more around the edges. Then, according to what people seem to be saying, I 'could tile the whole thing'? The way I've done it has exactly the same area as that would be, just it has to be redrawn. I don't see how that affects whether it 'tiles the plane' or not, or anything else. If someone could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.
61714
What's this type of illustration called?
73780
I'm currently starting a course about Graph Theory, and I've been explained about the Havel &amp; Hakimi degree sequence. However, I'm not too sure about it yet. First of all, I want to know if I understand it correctly, so I'm going to try to explain what I think the theory proves.  First, I've shamelessly stolen the following statement from the presentation:    Okay, so what I want to ask is the following.   What does "is graphic" mean exactly. Does that mean it's a graph? I know stupid question, but I cannot think of a degree sequence that's not a graph... What's the practical use of this. What problems could you solve with this.
79205
Major Noob Question here but I want to create a 2d shape that seems to draw itself like in this video below:   I saw in KaptainKrisitan's videos and wanted to replicate in blender, but I don't have a clue how.
7670
The unique style of the diagrams at  has an informative but nice hand-drawn touch. I guess they are actually drawn by hand but just recently on our partner site for Mathematica someone asked how to draw a similar diagram such as this one with Mathematica's plot functions ().    Now without Mathematica this should be possible as well but I have a hard time getting the details right. Can such a diagram be created in TeX with a similar design? My first attempt does not look particularly great but here it is (the font is from ):      \documentclass{standalone}     \usepackage{tikz,color}     \usepackage{pgfplots}     \usepackage{fontspec}     \setmainfont{Humor-Sans}      \begin{document}     \begin{tikzpicture}     \pgfplotsset{every axis/.append style={line width=1pt}}      \begin{axis}[%         axis x line=bottom,         axis y line=left,         xtick={1.2, 2.9, 4.5},         xticklabels={-3 days, -1 day, 5 minutes},         yticklabels={}     ]     % 1st plot     \addplot [cyan!80!white, samples=200, domain=0:6] {0.05*rnd+3+(sin(deg(x))^2)/sqrt(x)*exp(-(x-2))};     % white background for 2nd plot     \addplot [white, samples=200, domain=0:6,line width=4pt] {0.05*rnd+0.4*x+2+x^2*sin(deg(x))^2*exp(-x)};      % 2nd plot     \addplot [red!80!white, samples=200, domain=0:6] {0.05*rnd+0.4*x+2+x^2*sin(deg(x))^2*exp(-x)};      \end{axis}       \node at (2.7,4.6) {downhill};     \draw  plot[smooth, tension=.7,line width=2pt] coordinates {(1.2679,5.5206) (1.9454,5.493) (2.4017,4.9261)};      \end{tikzpicture}      \end{document}
38752
I'm researching non-Euclidean geometry.  Now I am looking for a good source for it.  Please suggest me something.Thanks.
107505
Can someone help me create a spiral (helix) similar to the one shown in the image? How might this be done except from drawing the curves perfectly by hand?    I achieved the desired result, but very painstakingly by drawing everything from hand. See the pictures below. To specify my question: Is there a simpler way to draw a shape similar to this?
113607
I'm not too sure how to describe the effect that I'm going for or what it is even called.  Thus, I'm having some trouble finding any help through Google.    I want to accomplish something like this "SLOPED" text below, but have the bottoms of the letters follow the slope as well instead of being horizontal.    I have tried using the free transform tool, skewing, and using perspective, but I don't like the effect they are resulting in.  All of the tools that I just mentioned result in the appearance of the word being angled away from the viewer (perspective).  I want more of this style effect, whereas the letters are not skewed horizontally, but scaled evenly along a path that I lay out.  What is the name of this text effect?  Can anyone point me in the right direction to a tutorial or know how to accomplish this themselves?  I know that I could go through and do this letter by letter, but I was really hoping to find an easier method.  EDIT I have removed many elements of my design and quickly threw some sample text in it, but this should give you an idea of what I am trying to accomplish.  I want a mixture of the above and below effects.
66622
I like the effect on the images used on this  page, and out of curiosity I'm trying to replicate it in Illustrator. It's not a simple multiply mask, and seems a more involved than the kind of duotone I can do in inDesign.
76840
I am looking to create some graphics or logos that look and feel very much like that thicker colored construction paper in photoshop or illustrator cs6  Example here:   and here :   Any thoughts here?
73455
This links heavily into the following question:      However I didn't want to limit the suggestions to "Web Based" tools, I have found and used the following tools for prototyping, wireframing and mockups in the past with some success:     (part of Expression Blend)   I am also aware that some designers choose to use graphics applications such as Photoshop and Illustrator for the task.  This is a Community Wiki question so post away with your thoughts, try and keep it to one package per answer so that we can build up an idea of how the community feels about these tools.