Or just a delayed delivery of the messages since I received them today. I guess the mail served went down, or had quite a heavy load for some time. But the queue of still unsent messages was still there and was processed after some time. It just happens now and then.
About patterns, series, geometric sequences... sets in general. There is always some way to find out their mathematical description in the same sense like for example stating that the sequence 2,4,6... is simply 2*n with n from 1 to infinity. Provided of course any set is... constructible. But this is an axiom that can be accepted, or also rejected without any contradictions in the two resulting theories of sets.
Now, assume that we reject the constructibility of all sets - and so also the constructibility, even the purely visual constructibility of all sets. This implies that there will be always some geometries, some sequences, some series of objects that will remain for ever outside any possibility to *see* them. For in the moment you see them they are no more inconstructible.
Assume furthermore that the camera doesn't see exactly the way you see - i.e. it could see something you can't see. Could it capture a geometry that nobody sees? In this case, if it captures it, and if the image is an exact representation of what it captured, you will still not see that "set" on the image.
So, the outline is:
1) Reject constructibility of all sets. (This is a free decision.)
2) Assume that the camera doesn't "see" exactly the way you do. (I think that this is a reasonable assumption.)
3) Go for exakt photography (in order to not distort what the camera sees.)
Then, there will be infinite many "geometries", "series", and sets of things in general, that *are* on the image, but that we simply won't see. Now, if that's not a creative thing to do! Let the image contain more than you will ever see.
And when I look to all those "oh so creative smudges with PS".... hmmm! Those people keep on constructing each and every constructible set on the try to find the inconstructible ;-)
Cheers!
Nick
P.S.: It is Saturday, and all mathematicians must be formalists on weekends! ;-)
yes, i did not get notification for most of the messages i received yesterday and day before yesterday. some crazy virus feels like clowning around with us perhaps. i do not know.
well, examples as this shot of yours Nick, are really worth of studying for their complexity in a 'disproportional proportionality' (what a contradiction) , some sort of patern that can only be explained through geometry (visually) and of course maths. like here, because the perspective is so accurate, the image comes strong and very evident of its content, on a very radical composition where all elements interact firmly all because of perfect positioning.
And yet another comment of which I didn't get any notification, Visar! Something strange was on on the 16th of April. :-/
Thanks a lot for the nice and so detailed, real comment. Indeed it was perspective under low light again, and not much of anything else.
That rule of thirds has many implementations, however. It just depends on what one finds as *the* separator. But it's also true that here I have only halves. (And also halves of halves = quarters.) It seems that I don't really use that rule in some conscient manner - I rather simply de-center. So again a point to work on.
Hey, hey, wai-wait-wait, Gustavo! Hold on, I am definitely no teacher, ey? I am less than a student on the search for... after infinity. And who knows what I will ever find.
Thanks a lot for the encouraging comment for yet aniother time. I am especially gald of you consider the two of them having enough detail since exactly this is my main doubt on this one.
there are many elements that contribute to this greatly observed perspective; it is the wall of the buildings on the right, the pavement, the trees on both sides of road, the raod, electic polls etc. all seem to meeting at on point, which is the point where the couple is emerging from- thus i do not mind them being far, they are just rightly put to complement this great great perspective.
the composition, is very radical- nonconform to the ruls of the third, divided firmly by the tree in the forefront into two and as the perspective moves deeper into the starting point, it fractiones accordingly creating a complex composition with much details throughtout too well organised.
0 
, some sort of patern that can only be explained through geometry (visually) and of course maths. 