By "infinit details", I mean that regardless of how far you scale the image, you end up having a constant level of detail. Take, for instance, the mandelbroth fractal. You can keep on zooming and even when you''ll reach the limits of your computer''s processing power, you''ll still have a constant level of detail. Well, that''s assuming an infinit amount of iterations...
The reason why your image isn''t a fractal is because it doesn''t involve an actual methematical process. Although in a way it is, as you are applying a "simple" process to an astute mapping repetitively. It''s like er... forgot his name. Some guy''s horse-shoe folding. In any event, the main problem is that you can''t zoom in infinitely. You create noise and apply a process to it an infinit amount of time. It''s like creating a random noise mapping and applying a smoothening filter to it. Although the process is fractal, when you zoom in your noise "particles" will become more and more distant and applying the process won''t give you a constant level of detail anymore.
The line->triangle thing you described is, indeed, a well-known fractal called the Koch curve. There''s a variation called the Koch snowflake that involves applying that to a triangle. Pretty dang nice.
Is it fractals?
quote:Original post by GaulerTheGoatIf you imagine the Mandelbrot fractal. Good. Then understand that in every "point" in it, the whole image is repeated.
I didn''t know that in addition to having "infinite detail" (what''s the mathematical definition of this, anyway? The boundry has infinite arc-length, or something?), it also has to have similarlty to itself (like at any neighborhood? Because the Mandelbrot looks different at different places.)
quote:Why does this mean that the ''jiggle'' images couldn''t be fractals, though.Because an image isn''t a fractal in itself, it is only a snapshot of a fractal. The fractal is the mathematical algorithm that produces the image. Your image may look similar to an image of a fractal, but that doesn''t quite cut it.
I didn''t mean that the jpeg image itself was a fractal. I wanted to know if the algorithm used to create the image might be based on a mathematical formula that would generate a fractal. The image was just my basis for suspicion since it looked a bit like one.
Anyways, thanks for the input, especially RuneLancer. I think I should work on it myself a little. I have The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Mandelbrot himself. It''s been at the bottom of a stack of books covered in dust in my room for a couple years now. It looks like a good place to start. Thanks again
Anyways, thanks for the input, especially RuneLancer. I think I should work on it myself a little. I have The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Mandelbrot himself. It''s been at the bottom of a stack of books covered in dust in my room for a couple years now. It looks like a good place to start. Thanks again
The fact that an image is not a true fractal is meaningless. We also can''t write all the digits of pi but that doesn''t stop us from understanding what pi is all about. Chaotic images may still contain more than enough information to speak volumes about a complex system''s dynamical nature for instance.
quote:Original post by GaulerTheGoat
I have The Fractal Geometry of Nature by Mandelbrot himself.
You lucky, lucky man...
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement