There is a proposition that Alperton to Mornington Crescent can be achieved in four moves. However proof has not been accepted for the existance of this number.
The more calculations are carried out I am sure it will end up staring us in the face. I have been struck by the elegant simpicity of a the General Theory of Relevance: where e=mc2.( e being Euston) I disagree with this in one aspect and the is the appropriatness of the mc2 given the Euston conflagration. The more sensible move and theory is e2=mc, (e being Euston Square) thus avoiding inverse coefficient of the magnetic modulus of previous BR station. This brings me neatly to what may to some be a moment of de jvu. I question at this stage about Alperton as a first move and propose the usage of
rabmc2
where r=Ravenscourt Park: a=Alperton: b=Blackhorse Road : with the 2on the diagonal being Euston Square. Geometrically this three sided quadrilateral could work in parallell to a divergence of LV on the Jubilee Line.
I suspect that Kilydd could be on the right track. The e=mc² seems to be the signal in this discussion. Change it to e=(mc)² and a whole new, previously unseen, network appears. Of course, the square root of (mc) is still unkown, the history of (mc) having been hidden in the depths of iniquity for time untold - plus - what "e" equates to is also a problem.
The referent "e" could be, as stated, a local station (or somewhere on the projected line) but it could also be the symbol for Euclid. This raises very deep and meaningful questions. Like other governmental organisations, the word "TIME" enters the equation - as indeed both Einstein and Euclid intended. Anyway, unlike rab with his Sinclair I am about to bring into the endeavour my whiz-bang VIC20 super computer; unlike rab's ancient device, this has at least twice the power... a bit like ticket inspectors really. Please check in occasionally as it should take no more than twenty years to bring this conundrum to its final conclusion.
Now, come on, it's quite simple. The establishment where time is of the most importance, indeed the one where it is called out by name, is the licensed purveyors of intoxicating liquor. TIME, gentlemen, please. Therefore, e is clearly Elephant and Castle. From here, it's obvious. So I'll let you fill in the gaps. *looks shifty, legs it from scene*
Now then, according to CAMREC, who seem collectively to have taken a leaf (or several leaves) from the EEC when it comes to drafting their more recent legislation : "A strile that is non-composite (other than demi-semi-striles set out for that purpose) may only be considered a strile in relation to stations which are neither perpendicular nor oblique. Furthermore, non-adjacent stations may be striled freely provided their quadrant ratios are zero, or +/- 1 ond. Semi-striles shall be considered impertinent in these circumstances and are only allowed when (a) all bridges have been lowered, (b) the token weighting at Hammersmith does not exceed the combined Becks-equivalent at Kew, (c) The DLR is not in spoon, or if in spoon has an obviated L.V. above 4.5, (d) There are no emus. All part-striles smaller than semi striles, and notwithstanding the demi-semi-strile alluded to parenthetically above, shall in non-polar conditions be wavered automatically, or alternatively put in vanche for three (or in exceptional circumstances, two) moves. However if any of the striles are semi-cubical, proto-parabolic or Gaussian then all transient vectors about the turning point must be considered neuter - or at best quasi-masculine. Trimming may occur in these circumstances. All the forgoing is reversed and/or transcended in the case of counter-striles which inherit their characteristic from the originating strile or part-strile. Unified Strile Theory suggests that a counter-ellipsoid-demistrile may in this instance be considered frank." From this it is pretty clear that at least one of the stations must be Royal Oak, surely to goodness ?