Structure of The Sequence
The 64 hexagrams are grouped into 32 pairs. For 28 of the pairs, the second hexagram is created by turning the first upside down (i.e. 180° rotation). The exception to this rule is for the 8 symmetrical hexagrams that are the same after rotation (1 & 2, 27 & 28, 29 & 30, 61 & 62). Partners for these are given by inverting each line: solid becomes broken and broken becomes solid. These are indicated with icons in the table below.
Given the mathematical constraints of these simple rules, the number of lines that change within pair partners will always be even (either 2, 4, or 6). Whereas the number of lines that change between pairs depends on how the pairs are arranged, and the King Wen Sequence has notable characteristics in this regard. Of the 64 transitions, exactly 48 of them are even changes (32 within-pairs plus 16 between-pairs) and 16 are odd changes (all between-pairs). This is a precise 3 to 1 ratio of even to odd transitions. Of the odd transitions, 14 are changes of three lines and 2 are changes of one line. Changes of five are absent.
| 1 ↕ 2 | 3 ~ 4 | 5 ~ 6 | 7 ~ 8 | 9 ~ 10 | 11 ~ 12 | 13 ~ 14 | 15 ~ 16 |
| 17 ~ 18 | 19 ~ 20 | 21 ~ 22 | 23 ~ 24 | 25 ~ 26 | 27 ↕ 28 | 29 ↕ 30 | 31 ~ 32 |
| 33 ~ 34 | 35 ~ 36 | 37 ~ 38 | 39 ~ 40 | 41 ~ 42 | 43 ~ 44 | 45 ~ 46 | 47 ~ 48 |
| 49 ~ 50 | 51 ~ 52 | 53 ~ 54 | 55 ~ 56 | 57 ~ 58 | 59 ~ 60 | 61 ↕ 62 | 63 ~ 64 |
Read more about this topic: King Wen Sequence
Famous quotes containing the words structure of, structure and/or sequence:
“What is the structure of government that will best guard against the precipitate counsels and factious combinations for unjust purposes, without a sacrifice of the fundamental principle of republicanism?”
—James Madison (1751–1836)
“A structure becomes architectural, and not sculptural, when its elements no longer have their justification in nature.”
—Guillaume Apollinaire (1880–1918)
“It isn’t that you subordinate your ideas to the force of the facts in autobiography but that you construct a sequence of stories to bind up the facts with a persuasive hypothesis that unravels your history’s meaning.”
—Philip Roth (b. 1933)