Talk:Burning Ship fractal

message: Why is this page linked? Only one of the pictures on that site seems to be a Burning Ship, and there is no relevant commentary or even descriptions of any of the pictures. - Rainwarrior 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I found the link to his papers on the Burning Ship buried at the bottom of the page. Is there a way we can make this link more obvious? - Rainwarrior 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michelitsch Fractals 

message: The External link: Burning Ship fractal zoomer by Jetro Lauha may have a virus. I am running AVG which says so. Can anyone confirm this? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't confirm this but it seems like this page doesn't mention fractals at all. So I delete the link. bungalo (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojan 

message: Is the imaginary axis traditionally displayed inverted, with -i at the top and +i at the bottom? I believe all of the pictures are displayed in this way, as it lends to the idea of a burning ship, but the page fails to note this. Feneer (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. The description pages of all these images have that formula with the sign inverted (minus instead of plus). bungalo (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imaginary Axis 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Burning Ship fractal. 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/20110821220641/http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm to http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The animation is 32 meg. It's absurdly large and can expand horribly in a browser's memory (the gif animation can be expanded to individual frames and take up far more space). The youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S3lc2G3rWs) is far smoother and smaller. This is not the right use for a gif. 89.241.98.75 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessively large .gif 

message: What does this mean, that the mapping is non-analytic? What should be analyzed? 
There are many equations at the linked page "Cauchy-Riemann Equations". 
Which one is ignored? 
Is this a problem? (some ugly distortions?) --Uli Cl (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-analytic mapping 

message: 1) In the formula, " + c" is not explaned. c is not a constant (what you might think).
c is the point (x,y) which is tested by the iteration. You can see this, if you study the programming code. 
(search for "+x" after zx*zx-zy*zy and "+y" after abs(2*zx*zy) )
2) z0 = 0 (in the introduction) contradicts with z0 = c in the code. 
(search for the lines zx:=x and zy:=y before the iteration)
If you analyze this contradiction very deeply, you will discover that this is not a big problem. 
The start with "zx:=0 zy:=0" just causes one iteration more than the start "zx:=x zy:=y".
Both works! But an article about mathematics should not have such an inconstistance.
I suggest to use the code zx:=0 zy:=0 which ist more similar to the mandelbrot set.--Uli Cl (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  + c is not explaned, z0 = 0 contradictory to code