I am shamelessly ripping off fletch's work here, but the following (hexagonal) grid:
-8 . . . - - -8
-7 . . . . - ^ -7
-6 . . . . - - - - -6
-5 . . - . a a - ^ ? ? - -5
-4 . . . . k o ! - ^ ? ? ? -4
-3 . - . a h j a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ - -3
-2 . . - . a a a ^ a a - - - -2
-1 . . . a a a b + + ^ ^ - -1
0 . . . m c u a a - ^ - ^ 0
1 . - . a a . a a - - ^ 1
2 - ^ ^ a a a ^ a - - ^ 2
3 - - - - - - - . . - 3
4 ^ - - - - - ^ - - 4
5 - ^ - - ^ - - - 5
Is actually the same grid as this rectangular grid:
-8 ...-- -8
-7 ....-^ -7
-6 ....---- -6
-5 ..-.aa-^??- -5
-4 ....ko!-^??? -4
-3.-.ahja^^^^^- -3
-2 ..-.aaa^aa--- -2
-1 ...aaab++^^- -1
0 ...mcuaa-^-^ 0
1 .-.aa.aa--^ 1
2 -^^aaa^a--^ 2
3 -------..- 3
4 ^-----^-- 4
5 -^--^--- 5
It is just a question of
- How the grid is rendered.
- how a cell's neighboring cells are determined.
Once the data structure is reduced to rectangular, the mystery of the hexagon disappears. It is this kind of thinking that reduces a checkerboard to an 8 x 4 board, for certain games.
pbeckingham - typist, perishable vertebrate.