The pirate voice in my head nearly ran out of breath singing the post title.
Somehow, JNCO has returned.
It definitely wouldn’t be the left image. With legs like those, you could never pull the pants up past the first (or I guess technically last) level of branching. It would either be the big pants or a large number of seperate, smaller pants on each of the lowest branches.
They could use pull-away pants that button up the back maybe
If the pants are stretchy they could fit one of the lowest (already pantsd) branches in each leg of the jeans, and easily pull it up. You need bigger and stretchier pants as you go up the tree, though.
The max size of required pants stretch will be the standard size for the right picture, since each leg already wraps half of the tree. That confirms viability at least, so now I think it’s down to comfort, and does the stretch retract in a restful position, or does stay all loose and cumbersome?
Have you ever seen a binary tree grow? Maybe they put the pants on each level while it is the lowest one before the next level grows
Those are trousers.
First the right then the left.
It depends is the tree puts on pants before or after being populated.
The first one is clearly wrong because no-one (oh alright, almost no-one, Toe-Jeans Georg) wears leg-wear on our toes.
Third option: The top layers are covered by a poncho and only the eight pairs at the bottom have leg-wear. This works when considering each subtree as a separate tree in its own right, up to arguing about how many ponchos are then required.
Fourth option: The top two branches wear leg-wear and those below go in footwear of some sort.
The family pant.
Depends on the year.
Look at this guy not putting on pants because HIS last branch (toes) prevents him. You think the cops will believe that story?
Right image, but under those each one below would also be wearing large pants covering each side of the subtree.
What is the objectively correct answer. I have no idea why people keep asking that question.
A binary tree matryoshka
