Talk:Koch snowflake

message: There's no formal definition for what the Koch snowflake *is*. I assume that, like most curves, it's defined as a subset of R². Where is the actual definition of that set? I see a definition of a sequence of curves K_1, K_2, K_3, ..., but saying, as the article does, that the Kock snowflake is "the limit" of this sequence doesn't mean anything. Limit in what sense? The set of points x such that any neighborhood of x intersects K_n for all sufficiently large n? Gaiacarra (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is severely flawed for not including a formal definition.  Other discussion further down this talk page [] may help, but it needs to be actually incorporated into the article. Jess_Riedel (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... what's the definition? 

message: Besides the shape's idiosyncrasy (being sphere-packing-based), the bit about it is unsourced, claims a specific developer, and until I changed it put its name in bold. Is there any support for its notability or the particular choice of this article for its place of inclusion? LokiClock (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to : "Exercise 74: Sphereflake" (p545&566) in , I'll add more later. Paradoctor (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sphereflake 

message: The Koch snowflake features prominently in chapter 9 of Mathematics and the Imagination. The chapter (pages 299 to 356) is called "Change and Changeability — The Calculus". The figures (#145 to #150) range over pages 345 to 350 showing the first six stages of the construction. On page 345 the authors say "Its pathological character is born out by this incredible feature ... the length of its perimeter is infinite."
On page 347 they say, "...it is not possible to tell at any point on the limit curve the direction in which it is going, that is, the tangent line does not exist."
Instead of mounting the triangles on the outside, they may be taken from the interior of the preceding figure. The result is called the "Anti-Snowflake". The first four stages of the process is illustrated with figures #151 to #162 on page 351.
A space-filling curve is then introduced (pages 352,3) with figures #159 to #162.Rgdboer (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics and the imagination 

message: Is it just me or is the proof of the area of the Koch snowflake missing the most interesting part: why do the little triangles never overlap? (In the similar problem http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=5333 , they do overlap, so that the naive method of calculating the area fails.) -- Darij (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the prof is not complete. Prokofiev2 (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of area incomplete 

message: I expanded the proof of the area and perimeter of the snowflake but it was undone. I think that the explanation as it was is too short and doesn't really get you from point A to point B in the proof smoothly enough. What do the others think?
Here's my edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koch_snowflake&oldid=537408182
Mtanti (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My proof may be too long but still worth considering 

message: I think that discussing origin and creation circumstances would be appropriate for an article like this.  At least a brief mention.174.56.55.37 (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is it named after? 

message: I wonder how long will it take until the US Congress recognise this sign as Neo-Nazi sign? Since they already called the Idea of Nation sign as one (see Azov Battalion). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi sign? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koch snowflake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426000500/https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10210/1941/2Mathematical.pdf?sequence=2 to https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10210/1941/2Mathematical.pdf?sequence=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Koch snowflake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130112023924/http://www.kaust.edu.sa/academics/wep/ to http://www.kaust.edu.sa/academics/wep/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The Dave Rubin page doesn't contain any reference to Koch snowflakes and the name is not at all alike. The reference was added by 86.44.63.103 yesterday. Albert Pool (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just vandalism. I have already reverted it. --Zupanto (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The joke is that, since Dave Rubin is conservative/classical liberal/libertarian, "Koch" can be reinterpreted as the conservative/classical liberal/libertarian Koch Brothers and "snowflake" as the insult "snowflake". The reason why there are (presumably) three vandals with completely different IP addresses is that this page has been posted on the leftist sub-Reddit r/ChapoTrapHouse (named after the podcast) (at least) four times ( (the original vandal probably comes from here), , ,  (the (presumably) two reverters probably come from here)). --Zupanto (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we need 'Not to be confused with Dave Rubin'? 

message: I would like to remove the completely irrelevant reference to Dave Rubin at the top of the page. DiabolikDownUnder (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2019 

message: The image :File:KochTurtleAnim.gif (code: ) was removed from this article because its inclusion doesn't seem to add, "any understanding or useful information about this topic". However, some readers, especially highly visual learners, may get a deeper understanding through a small illustration or short animation than through a text description however lengthy. I think math content on Wikipedia should be accessible to all people and I assume that the creator of the animation thought that it would add either "understanding," or, "useful information," if not both. Hyacinth (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: File:KochTurtleAnim.gif

message: See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Minkowski fractal. Hyacinth (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Minkowski fractal

message: Which is preferable: :File:Koch quadratic island L7 3.png or :File:Koch quadratic island L7 3.svg? Hyacinth (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For display within the article it makes no difference, but if we expect some viewers to click on the article image and look more carefully at it blown up then the svg is better (not least because when I try it in my browser I see the png displayed as a black shape with a transparent background displayed over black, so basically invisible). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Image: SVG vs PNG

message: The area formula could be made much simpler ...
With original triangle of area a0, with 3 sides, we get additional area of 3*1/9*a0, and four times as many sides, so the next addition to the area is 3/9*4/9, and so on, to give a0 + a0*1/3*(4/9)^n-1.
The second half of this expression is the formula for the nth term in a G.P. with 'a'= 1/3 and 'r'= 4/9.  This has a sum given by the usual formula: 1/3 divided by (1 - 4/9), which straight away gives 3/5.
Add in the original area and you have 8/5. Jerryfrog (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area formula 

message: The articles says number of sides after n iterations is given by ... N_{n} = N_{n-1} \cdot 4 = 3 \cdot 4^{n-1}\, .
But on iteration 0 (the initial triangle) there are 3 sides, but the formula with n = 0 would give 3/4 of a side. Axlesoft (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of sides formula incorrect?