Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about Fractal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Someone ruined this text with obcenities, so I reverted it to the penultimate saved version.Nikos.salingaros 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello guys! I made some fractal images for the swedish page: Sv:Fraktal, copy them to here if you like, Sv:User:Solkoll --80.217.177.185 20:11, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think the broccoli image was a most excellent example of fractal-ness in real life. It was removed on 16:06, 3 Apr 2005 by User:Brian0918 without a hint in his edit message ("converted pics to gallery...") that he removed it. I vote for putting the image back into the article. -- Yogi de 20:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see you have listed the featured article fractal on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention with the note "poorly organized; some parts may be expressed better". Can you be more explicit about what further work you think needs to be done on the article ? How can its organisation be improved ? Which parts can be expressed better ? Perhaps if you create a list of specific issues on the article's talk page, then we can try to reach a concensus on the way forward. Gandalf61 15:50, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:Gasket14.png|128px|right|thumb|A [[Menger sponge]]]]
Guys guys guys!? Why don't we just discuss "merging fractal animation"? Silver The Slammer 12:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think most of this section should be moved out. It currently breaks the page up in an odd way. Charles Matthews 10:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How would people feel if the {{attention}} tag was now removed from this page ? I think most of the points raised by Eequor when he tagged it in November have been addressed. Gandalf61 14:39, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I changed the bibliographic sources to standard MLA format which can be autogenerated at this site: http://www.easybib.com/ --MPerel 03:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
The iterative calculative nature of the Mandelbrot set needs to be mentioned to reflect the mathematical relevance of having it there.
If I got it wrong, correct it please. ;) -- Zalasur 04:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, that's just wrong - self-similarity is not the defining property of a fractal.
Charles Matthews 14:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So the intro was changed 17 December by User:EastNile, who hasn't edited since. I think we needn't take that as authoritative on fractals. The first para certainly needs to go back to something more like it was before. That's because fractal does now have some strong connotations, but a rather particular actual denotation. (I hope that clarifies a bit what the issue is here: it is not as if self-similarity is irrelevant.)
Charles Matthews 14:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think we should make it clear in the beginning that fractal is NOT a precise mathematical term, like say group. There is NO common definition in mathematics what a fractal is.
Danimey 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe this string of words, found in the first sentence in the article, belongs together. And even if it does somehow belong together, it sounds very awkward.
Here is the sentence:
"A fractal is a geometric object which is rough or irregular on all scales of length, and so which appears to be 'broken up' in a radical way."
The "so which" seems to be superfluous. It adds only awkwardness, and probably causes the sentence to be improper.
Another suggestion, dilational or magnification symmetry is not addressed in the article. This is the angle that Yale takes, although it doesn't seem to be a traditional path for explaining fractals. What I like about the magnification symmetry approach is that it places fractals in context with other mathematical objects/ideas: the butterfly has line symmetry, bricks have translational symmetry, an octahedron has reflectional symmetry, fractals have magnification symmetry. It gives the sense that fractals aren't just a rogue field and have a place in an old and established order of mathematics. It is reminiscent of placing them within an organization chart, and from the hub, or node of magnication symmetry, it is easy to move between the different types of fractals. In one sense, it is good that fractals are set apart, in another, it doesn't help the field to be perceived as an antithesis to standard math. It goes back to the old preschool and kindergarten exercises of identifying in what ways things are different and in what ways they are the same.
ok someone please tell me what a fractal is in english? Explain it too. and define iteration and self similarity. if you get it post it. o by the way, when you explain, please use only around like 6th grade vocabulary, otherwise the words are too complicated for me.-dran
Please NEVER put a flag like that in the main article again, it is very bad form, those of us that monitor these pages also monitor the talk pages too. I would suggest this link: Fractals, in Layman's Terms your questions may be answered there. DV8 2XL 03:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
who decides what fractal galleries are included on the fractal page?
Could we have some more diversity at the top of this article? We currently have two pictures from the Mandelbrot set there, and nothing else. This Mandelbrot set is so common in the article and in this topic so we might confuse readers to the point that they think that Fractal == Mandelbrot set. So let's find a beautiful different example picture to put alongside the beautiful original mandelbrot picture. — Sverdrup 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the Mandelbrot set isn't self-similar though it has fractal dimension. There are those rigid sticklers that would claim that the Mandelbrot set isn't technically a fractal, though it has fractal characteristics. This is ignored in the article. I was originally going to dispute the facts of the article, but have decided that this objection may be more cosmetic. Thoughts? --ScienceApologist 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that strictly speaking the Mandelbrot set itself is not fractal, but the boundary of the Mandelbrot set is fractal. The same applies to the Koch snowflake where the set itself is measured in m2 while the circumference is measured in m1.2. Anybody know the exponent for the circumference of the Mandelbrot set? Another thing. When the complex plane is drawn with 1 to the right, then the symmetry axis of complex conjugation is horisontal, and the Mandelbrot set is shown lying down. It is more pleasing to the eye to see the monster standing up, with 1 upwards. Bo Jacoby 07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Please read this forum thread between me and my friend about this topic, and make some changes.--Max 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is for Gandalf61: Who are you? the tin god of references? This is called an annotated bibliographic entry and there's nothing wrong with it. I'm putting it back. It's not a "review" its an annotation. It's useful for folks who want to read more. wvbaileyWvbailey 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the animation, the beautiful fractals. I sent my nephew here (he's taking 8th grade algebra, was doing a project on fractals) for a look-see. Nice work is going on here. wvbaileyWvbailey 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the random fractal? Is it not a fractal? If not, discard it. If so, what's wrong with it? If it helps the 8th-grade nephew understand, then put it back. Thanks. wvbaileyWvbailey 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I liked the fern, the colored one. Why did it have to go away? I don't like all this page-hopping. Sigh. wvbaileyWvbailey 03:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of the animation and IFS colored fern... and I aggree the fern is better in the IFS article. Tó Campos 12:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I just reorganized this article and rewrote some bits. I'd like this article to stay accurate mathematically while recognizing the colloquial uses of the term fractal. --Experiment123 01:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
i didn't want to edit the page without getting people's opinions on whether financial analysis should be added to the applications section. i've just finished mendelbrot's "the (mis)behavior of markets," and while he isn't able to replace the valuation formulae stemming from the efficient capital market hypothesis, he makes some very lucid suggestions that others appear to have followed in their research. while the pure number of citations does not tell us whether they agree or disagree, his financial work has at least been taken seriously. thoughts?afuturehead 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
There's dispute as to how much credit Mandelbrot deserves for finding fractal patterns in financial markets. Some say he hasn't done much other than attach the label "fractal" to analysis done by other people.
The fractal fern overlaps with the broccoli and the page has a horizontal scrollbar at 1280x1024, Ubuntu, Firefox 1.5
While searching on google for "Anklets of Krishna" I found the following webpage:
http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/Panorama/Art/Kolams/Kolams.html
The material about kolams seems to be a word for word copy of that material.
This seems to be a likely copyright violation. So I removed it.
Can anyone show that it isn't?
Plus even if it isn't, I'm not sure it belongs in the history section, perhaps it belongs in an examples section.
TheRingess 17:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
How are generated fractals coloured? Every image of fractals I've seen is in a kaleidoscope of colour, but I can't find an explaination of which bits of the image get which colour.
The pinwheel tiling, as its name suggests, is known generally as an aperiodic tiling but it is also a fractal. It is obtained by dividing a 1:2:sqrt(5) triangle into five smaller triangles of the same shape or conversely by inflation - surrounding one such'seed' by four copies and repeating the procedure with the larger figure. Thus tilings are 'extended' to infinity while fractals are usually thought of as divided down to infinity. Anyway, I believe that the topics of fractals and quasicrystals should be perceived as typical for the end of 20th century mentality.
The infinite aperiodic sequence 101000101000000001010001010... is the Cantor set written up from the atom '1', but I am not sure if it is 'fractal' in a meaningful way. However many aperiodic sequences are 'fractal' in the disputed self-similar way: if you strike out every other term you get the same sequence, e.g. in 0110100110010110...(Thue-Morse; you can see it in the list of self-similar sequences in the OEIS). Aperiodic tilings are easily constructed out of such sequences. This could be an other argument for the link between aperiodic and fractal structures. al 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi all,
I'm happy to promote this article to be a good article but I made some changes to the article in line with what I thought the article was trying to say. Specifically I tried to highlight comparisons between the topological/Hausdorff dimension. If someone can verify my changes are correct I will promote this article.
Cedars 01:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted this section because there seems to be no criteria for what constitutes a notable link. TheRingess 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
(In the Examples section.)
As far as I can tell, we don't ever explain what "a Cantor set" is. The linked article is mostly about the standard Cantor set, with allusions to alternatives. Presumably a Cantor set is something like "Anything obtained from an interval by repeatedly removing middle portions from segments"? And the "might (or might not)"s are about the fact that you can get something with Hausdorff dimension zero by increasing how much you remove, or Hausdorff dimension 1 by decreasing how much you remove? I think we should clarify this somehow.
Also, the last sentence is inconsistent with the rest of it: "By comparison the topological dimension of any Cantor set is 0 and hence all Cantor sets are fractals."
And I agree with the above about "might (or might not)." Maybe deleting the "(or might not)" achieves the desired effect. Or something else?
--Dchudz 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This new definition in the opening paragraph better matches my experience with the word "fractal" than the strict. But it's still not quite right: As we say in a later paragraph, the real line wouldn't be called a fractal, but it does have three of the five ("most") of the characterizing properties... What to do? -- Dchudz 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to start this(Fractal animation) article, and I have a crude beginning. I feel it would benifit from more minds. Thanks! HighInBC 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's nice, but I'd like to propose that Fractal animation be merged into this article. I don't really think animation alone warrants its own article. Gregly 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a convex fractal? I think this would be an interesting property to exclude, if it's so.
The question provoked some interesting (original?) research, so let's get back to the origins. If you want some properties of fractals, we have tons of them, see any book by Falconer, Mandelbrot or others. And, apparently, convexity (or concavity) is not the the big issue. We may think of another way of enriching the article (projections, products, you name it).
To conclude, I believe that not-too-sexy examples of fractal bounded domains are the only possible convex fractals. On the other hand, I have never heard about such a statement in the literature and, unless someone finds an actual reference, we have no reason to discuss it further, no reason to insert our research into the article (actually, I suspect that from math point of view the question may be somehow trivial and was not really studied; but any proof of the contrary by some refs will be welcome).Beaumont 15:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't they aim for a younger crowd?
Silver The Slammer 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)== !@$#%@$ ==
WHO UNEDITED MY PAGE?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Power Gear (talk • contribs) October 23, 2006
Please understand you do not own this page and anybody is allowed to edit it, or unedit it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
People! Stop fighting and check out the article on Silver The Hedgehog.
All known fractals are acceptable in euclidean geometry (opposing what many "applied" students say), and all of them are constructed using euclidean geometry (the original article presenting the koch snowflake, for an instance, uses nothing but eucidean geometry to derive their properties). It may be incredibly hard to describe in terms of simple drawings like lines and circles, but they are euclidean;
Expressions like "non euclidean" or "contrary to euclidean" should be changed to "not traditional".
--200.17.137.71 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with some of the other comments on here that the article doesn't flow very well, and I'd quite like to see the article upgraded in status, so can I suggest the following (they're not minor changes, so I thought it better to discuss them first). I'm quite happy to do it myself, but I know that some people have already put a lot of effort in, so there may be some reasoning (e..g- behind the ordering as it stands), that I'm unaware of:
1. Change the ordering of the sections (numbers reflect thier current ordering):
o 11.1 Multiplatform generator programs o 11.2 Linux generator programs o 11.3 Windows generator programs o 11.4 Mac generator programs o 11.5 MorphOS generator programs
Apart from that it's just the links that need weeding and/or re-ordering in terms of usefulness since there are such a large number of them (which may be more appropriate in the fractal art page?).
-- Submanifold 26/12/2006
In the article it talks about the snowflake having a finite area, isn't it infinite? As the triangular area is added to the existing shape no other areas are taken away, meaning that every step it gains area and perimeter. Thanks Onefournine 10:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why things in brackets are necessary in the fourth feature:
Well, my "main" question would be: "Isn't topological dimension of any curve = 1?" Because the brackets say that topological dimension of Hilbert curve is 2 (or more). 89.164.4.146 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel the shikhar of the Hindu temple, which is the most visible form of fractal in its architectural form, that derives itself from the meaning and form of the "temple" be portrayed in some relevant section of the article. The history section begins with the mathematical history. The examples from nature section limits itself to imagery from nature. If we take just the imagery the temple "shikhar" can be placed in it, by renaming it to something like "visible examples of fractal" or create a new section on "Application of fractals"(?).
To quote references from the net, there is one example that uses 2 different examples of the Hindu temple as examples of "fractals in architecture"
The philosophical base of "self similarity" and its meaning is provided in Stella Kramrisch's The Hindu Temple. --Nikhil Varma 05:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are some detailed studies related to Shikhar:
1. A Computational Approach to the Reconstruction of Surface Geometry from Early Temple Superstructures
2. The Generation of Superstructure Geometry in Latina Temples: A Hybrid Approach
3. ON RECOVERING THE SURFACE GEOMETRY OF TEMPLE SUPERSTRUCTURES
--Nikhil Varma 05:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
A fractal as a geometric object generally has the following features:
This being the main page for Fractal, to make it more complete, I think the example of the Hindu temple and also other architectural forms that resemble the imagery, if not as systematic as the geometry of the Hindu temple, should be included to provide the reader of the extent of "fractals" in our world.
I am still scavenging to fetch resources from the net that provide more detail studies of the fractal geometry and its mathematics involved in the Hindu Temple architecture. More than imagery it is the mathematics behind the design that can more strongly demonstrate the application of the concept to design.
We can even provide further links to aspects of fractals and its "need" or effect on people, from an architectural point of view.
Question: Should we have a separate page on "Fractals in Architecture"? and provide a link on the main page (with an inspiring image) to that page?
--Nikhil Varma 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.