To give the answer credit, that answer does suggest adding the vectors (the same). It is also much more thorough than what I said, and I like the images. I like the answer and I was attempting to iterate.
I think these two things could be improved from that answer:
* I'm suggesting a general approach to measuring track tension, which is the average of the vectors. I didn't see that idea in the answer.
* I think the answer could be communicated a little more simply. For example, we don't need to think in terms of Q[sqrt(3)]; I see that as a distraction.
> For example, we don't need to think in terms of Q[sqrt(3)]; I see that as a distraction.
Except for replacing Q[sqrt(3)] by a suitable ring extension of Z, I see no possibiliy to simplify the argument. So what kind of simplification do you have in mind?
You're speaking as if floating point representations of numbers have zero utility. One approach here could be numerical. An algorithm could work with vectors represented as floating points. Another approach, which depends on the relative angles and lengths of track pieces, may be to encode each piece as an (angle, distance^2) pair. Many angles can give us an exact distance^2 values.
I think these two things could be improved from that answer:
* I'm suggesting a general approach to measuring track tension, which is the average of the vectors. I didn't see that idea in the answer.
* I think the answer could be communicated a little more simply. For example, we don't need to think in terms of Q[sqrt(3)]; I see that as a distraction.