Dividing land plots, or parcelling out a territory, is very important in the beyond-fence and beyond-screen countries and states. The simplest solution is to seize a land, conquer, take it brutally in possession in this or that way thus the problem will be solved by getting rid of it. However this is not possible always and in every moment of the history. In the past this was more possible than this is now. Of course, now this is possible, too, but must be committed in much more subtle way, less brutally and more sophisticatedly – such subtleness can be so troublesome sometimes that not worth any effort. Regardless of the times and the level of subtleness conquering or seizing a land cancelled the problem of dividing only for a while. A conqueror usually conquers the land to let nobody else conquer it, and if it happened so, then a conqueror, sooner or later had to face the problem how to divide what he or she had seized. Well, usually people conquered a piece land to divide it later among the offspring. And usually people have offspring, and if not offspring then cousins – rarely somebody is as lonesome as a finger (this is one of many stupid beyond-fence sayings – rarely it happens that somebody looses nine, or rather nineteen, fingers, at once or one after another). Of course, in case of one heir there is no division problem. It can also happen that brothers and sisters don't want the land, or are disinherited, however such cases are not that often to be considered typical, nor so rare to discuss them as extreme phenomena.
When the dividing is going to occur location of buildings is crucial for the process. The buildings are usually located either at the edge, or not. Of course, each of the two types has numerous variants (closer to the centre, closer to the corner, and so on) but they don't influence the dividing process significantly. Well, each plot can be divided in any way, so mostly the dividing method depends on one's whim, on logic, on tradition, on whatever. So, the location of the buildings is not the most important factor. It has no importance at all, indeed. However, if parents have their houses by the road, sons and daughters want to have their houses also by the road, for they are convinced such choice is the best, they think there can be no other choice. This is logical, at least a little, because when the house is built by a road and when all the crops are stored in this house it's easier to transport them further. However to make all sons and daughters have their houses by the road and fields and orchards behind the houses, the land should be divided into narrow strips spanned from this road up to the horizon. It is inevitable that eventually a strip will be narrower than the narrowest cottage, provided that a cottage is a very oblong rectangle touching the road with its shorter side. What next? Certainly one can try to widen the strip taking into possession the neighbouring strips. Such expansion is morally ugly and in fact much less interesting than further divisions which seems impossible. Things impossible are usually more interesting than things possible. Now vertical (let's call it so) dividing is impossible – but horizontal (let's call it so) is absolutely possible. Maybe a new road should be drawn, perpendicular to the old one to meet the demand of having a house by the road. With no doubt the process of horizontal dividing will end like the vertical one. Then the diagonal, oblique dividing should begin. Here the amount of possibilities is breathtaking, though not infinite. If diagonal means at an angle of 45 degrees then oblique means at any angle… And there are many oblique angles, really a lot... What a madness! Yes, a sheer madness it is. To divide a plot of land numberless times. All those lines overlapping and covering each other would create a grid with meshes smaller than the smallest cottage. What a dreadful situation... Let us consider the other variant: the buildings are located not at the edge. Let us assume logically they are in the centre of the area – logic prompts this is the optimal location due to the same distance from every edge of the plot. It can be supposed that sons and daughters will copy this scheme – logic will not be needed any more – and everybody will want to have a house in the centre. It can be imagined with no difficulty that after some time new plots will be not big enough to built there even the tiniest cabin. Houses on hen paws, known from fables, could help to solve the problem, houses similar to mushrooms: cubes on one pole which should be thinner than a needle or a thread. The shape of such farm will be of no significance – maybe it would be easier to mark out rectangular plots then amoeba-like ones protruding the pseudopodia in every direction, but finally all plots would have a shape of a dot inevitably approaching an abstract point having no measures at all.

The mixed systems are not worth discussing, since they are so obvious. The golden ratio (sometimes called also a golden division) is not worth discussing either, since it has nothing in common with dividing the robbed gold.


This is how it is THERE. How it is HERE?
Let's assume for a while, for fun, that THERE is different than HERE. HERE is not THERE, while THERE is not HERE. This assumption is as funny as the one telling that HERE is identical with THERE. It's not clear whether the assumption telling that HERE is neither different nor identical with THERE is funny or pathetic. Fun can be pathetic like pathos can be funny.

HERE? Here there is no need to divide anything. Here it's enough to turn a page and start writing on a new, blank one.

<<<