For the 3▓ square, you are correct; we have 6 constraints, as opposed to the magic square's 8 (or really 5 as opposed to 7, given arbitrary normalization). However, for 4▓, we have 24 constraints as opposed to a magic square's 10; in general, constraint count grows factorially as opposed to the magic square's linear. Of course, I'm out of my depth w.r.t. geometry here, so maybe there's another mapping I'm missing.
in reply to Re: Not A Magic Square But Similar (Finite Geometry)
in thread Not A Magic Square But Similar
#11929 First ask yourself `How would I do this without a computer?' Then have the computer do it the same way.