Talk:Fractal/Archive 2

message: Someone ruined this text with obcenities, so I reverted it to the penultimate saved version.Nikos.salingaros 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hacking

message: 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)
replies: text: Speaking of images (Mandelbrot Image at top), I was under the impression that, although the Mandelbrot was highly complex (like a fractal), it was not a fractal because it is not self-similar at all loci Dragoon235 05:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broccoli Image 

message: How would people feel if the  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 just recently read the article for the first time, and I think flows very nicely now, imho.  --MPerel 03:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
::I see that Stirling Newberry has now removed the  tag, so I have also taken fractal off the list at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Mathematics. Gandalf61 10:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
:::Nope! It's still there!!!!! Silver The Slammer 12:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove <nowiki>{{attention}}</nowiki> tag

message: Sorry, that's just wrong - self-similarity is not the defining property of a fractal. 
Charles Matthews 14:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence, self-similarity

message: 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)
thread_title:  ok guys i need help 

message: who decides what fractal galleries are included on the fractal page?
:The editors DV8 2XL 03:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a concensus situation. There are some Wikipedia policies and gudelines, but most cases are not black and white, so a concensus view emerges. As a rule of thumb, a link to an obviously commercial web-site inserted by an anonymous user with no previous discussion is more likely to be removed than a link to an informative web-site inserted by a signed-up Wikipedia user who has previously discussed his/her intentions on the article's talk page. If you feel strongly that a particular link should be included in this article, I suggest you explain your reasons here on the talk page and invite discussion. Gandalf61 12:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fractal galleries 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Mandelbrot's definition of a fractal and the discussion of definitional problems in the Definitions section, and the different types of self-similarity described in the Categories of fractals section. You could add a sentence to the article to say that some people do not include the Mandelbrot set within their definition of fractal, but I think a reference supporting this statement would be helpful, as it would be a minority view in my experience. Gandalf61 13:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-similar

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "book review" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think it belonged on this page--too much detail in a niche area for a general article on fractals. Sorry about the page hopping, but I really think it's more at home in the IFS article, which actually badly needed an example. --Experiment123 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Thanks for the explanation.wvbaileyWvbailey 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is such a nice page 

message: 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)
thread_title: applications

message: The fractal fern overlaps with the broccoli and the page has a horizontal scrollbar at 1280x1024, Ubuntu, Firefox 1.5
: I'm afraid it rarely renders well for me either.  Unfortunately, I don't know enough about image formatting and wikipedia to understand why.  I am also using Ubuntu at the same resolution but firefox 1.0.7.  --Richard Clegg 21:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Layout 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright violation in history section 

message: 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.
:I'll explain how it's done for the Mandelbrot fractal. This is a set generated by taking a point in the complex plane and repeatedly performing the same operation on it. Most points end up whizzing off into the distance, but some stay close to where they started. These are part of the Mandelbrot set and are colored one color (usually blue or black). If a point isn't in the set, it will diverge to infinity and you can tell a point isn't in the set once it reaches a certain distance from the origin, a circle of radius 2. The number of steps it takes to cross that boundary is the color it gets. So if it takes only one step, it's given color #1. If it takes ten steps, color #10. Points that start close to the edge of the Mandelbrot set take a long time to move past the boundary. That's where the complicated colored bands come from. Other fractals are colored in a similar way. I hope this explanation helps. Reyk YO! 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quasicrystals and fractals 

message: 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)
replies: text: Since my changes weren't verified this article will not become a good article. Overall though I think this article could benefit from some more insight into the mathematics of fractals. Also the "might (or might not)" statements should be removed from the article and rephrased if necessary. Cedars 08:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: I deleted this section because there seems to be no criteria for what constitutes a notable link.  TheRingess 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fractal Art Galleries Section 

message: (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)
replies: text: This stuff is all gone now anyway. As good a way to deal with my problems as any. Thanks, Beaumont. Dchudz 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually I find that the examples section should be rewriten and expanded. A list of (more) examples within some important categories should do (curves, planar IFS, Mandelbrot-Julia, logistic-map-related, strange attractors, stochastic fractals...). Detailed discussion of each example could be moved to a separate article. IMHO, at the present the examples are the core of the actual "definition" of what fractal really is. --Beaumont 18:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Cantor Set paragraph? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Formally you're right. And formally, we may split the first feature into two (as in the source) and define "most of" to be 4. Personally, I find this unsatisfactory. Maybe it is better to refer explicitly to the examples? Anyway, this is the best definition I've heard about. --Beaumont 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: After a while I added an interpretation that may help. Actually, natural look excludes staight lines, squares etc. In nature we have no straight lines. --Beaumont 15:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Definition, Real Line... 

message: 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)
replies: text: I originally did not include it here because this article is rather long. I don't object to the merge. I admit the current article is sparse, but the subject is rather extensive. HighInBC 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fractal animation]] 

message: Why don't they aim for a younger crowd?
Silver The Slammer 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  young 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Usage of the word euclidean 

message: 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)
replies: text: The area is not infinite since a koch snowflake is enclosed in a finite region in the cartesian plane.TheRingess (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koch Snowflake 

message: I don't understand why things in brackets are necessary in the fourth feature:
* It has a Hausdorff dimension that is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve).
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)
thread_title:  Topological dimension of space-filling curves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  what about fractals in architecture?