'Cause math is cool.I was doodling in math class and made a very boring fractal that looks like a tree. If I were to make it infinitely larger, it would be a very ugly mess of infinite spirals and each spiral going for infinity (inward). It also curves back into itself, obviously.Also, for more math related things that are actually interesting (not like the stuff you learn in school), check out these people on youtube:ViHartNumberphile[more shall be added to this list]
I love going into Golly and running one of the Wolfram fractal triangle rule thingies and seeing how ridiculously large I can get things.
One time, on my iPad, I broke the generation and population counts, and got the step size pretty darn high. Yes, that says 8339 generations every frame.
This does count as fractal, right? If not, well, I've already spent time with typing, image uploading, calculating, etc. that I don't really care right now. It's good enough.
Well, technically that isn't a Sierpinski; while it does create what looks very similar, an actual Sierpinski triangle starts with a triangle of a definite size, while this is something that grows infinitely when it's going down. You know what I actually don't think it really matters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if the colors in my posts don't make sense don't worry about it
Link Removed
also you should check out Link Removed
I love going into Golly and running one of the Wolfram fractal triangle rule thingies and seeing how ridiculously large I can get things.
One time, on my iPad, I broke the generation and population counts, and got the step size pretty darn high. Yes, that says 8339 generations every frame.
This does count as fractal, right? If not, well, I've already spent time with typing, image uploading, calculating, etc. that I don't really care right now. It's good enough.
Yes, it is indeed a fractal. It is called the Sierpinski triangle. In fact, I drew it in math class today.
Also, I am going to turn this into a general mathematics thread.
I was doodling in math class and made a very boring fractal that looks like a tree. If I were to make it infinitely larger, it would be a very ugly mess of infinite spirals and each spiral going for infinity (inward). It also curves back into itself, obviously.
That's very similar to a Pythagoras Tree:
It really fascinates me how different sets of rules can lead to the same shape, take the Levy C. Curve for instance:
It has a totally different rule, yet yields the same basic shape. There are many other ways to get this shape as well.
As SuperSupermario24 was saying, there is a difference between Sierpinski's Triangle and that particular Wolfram rule, even though they make the same thing. The Sierpinski Triangle is such a common shape, you can find it everywhere in math. There's even one hiding in Pascal's Triangle. (Highlight all the odd numbers and you will see.)
Currently, my favorite fractal is the Dragon Curve.
It really fascinates me how different sets of rules can lead to the same shape, take the Levy C. Curve for instance:
It has a totally different rule, yet yields the same basic shape. There are many other ways to get this shape as well.
As SuperSupermario24 was saying, there is a difference between Sierpinski's Triangle and that particular Wolfram rule, even though they make the same thing. The Sierpinski Triangle is such a common shape, you can find it everywhere in math. There's even one hiding in Pascal's Triangle. (Highlight all the odd numbers and you will see.)
Currently, my favorite fractal is the Dragon Curve.
All Images are from Wikipedia.
I still haven't figured out how to draw the Dragon Curve, and I really want to be able to draw it :3
It is also my favorite fractal.
As for Pythagoras tree, thats pretty interesting.
Also, ViHart making super mega squiggles and ending up with that triangle-fractal thing (I no longer know what to call it):
I remember when the mathematics community said fractals had no serious use in mathematics or science, that it was basically akin to a cheap party trick. Boooooy were they wrong.
The Mandelbrot set is all sorts of awesome.
In addition to having all sorts of epicness in itself, there are other fractals that have an infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside of them (the ones I can think of at the moment are the Collatz fractal and the Tricorn fractal), and since each Mandelbrot set has an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside itself, which each have an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets in themselves, you get... a pretty large number.
Fractals are amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if the colors in my posts don't make sense don't worry about it
Link Removed
also you should check out Link Removed
The Mandelbrot set is all sorts of awesome.
In addition to having all sorts of epicness in itself, there are other fractals that have an infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside of them (the ones I can think of at the moment are the Collatz fractal and the Tricorn fractal), and since each Mandelbrot set has an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside itself, which each have an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets in themselves, you get... a pretty large number.
Fractals are amazing.
The Mandelbrot set is all sorts of awesome.
In addition to having all sorts of epicness in itself, there are other fractals that have an infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside of them (the ones I can think of at the moment are the Collatz fractal and the Tricorn fractal), and since each Mandelbrot set has an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside itself, which each have an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets in themselves, you get... a pretty large number.
Fractals are amazing.
I prefer the Julia set, to be honest.
By the way, there's actually no Mandelbrot sets within the Mandelbrot set.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Fermat »
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain.
[;/quote]
Also, for more math related things that are actually interesting (not like the stuff you learn in school), check out these people on youtube:ViHartNumberphile[more shall be added to this list]
Rather K-12 and a few college years. After that it is facinating research and honestly comes 'back to the roots' in a new light with previous geometric and calculus to assist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Fermat »
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this, which this margin is too small to contain.
[;/quote]
One time, on my iPad, I broke the generation and population counts, and got the step size pretty darn high. Yes, that says 8339 generations every frame.
This does count as fractal, right? If not, well, I've already spent time with typing, image uploading, calculating, etc. that I don't really care right now. It's good enough.
also you should check out Link Removed
Well, technically that isn't a Sierpinski; while it does create what looks very similar, an actual Sierpinski triangle starts with a triangle of a definite size, while this is something that grows infinitely when it's going down.You know what I actually don't think it really matters.also you should check out Link Removed
Yes, it is indeed a fractal. It is called the Sierpinski triangle. In fact, I drew it in math class today.
Also, I am going to turn this into a general mathematics thread.
That's very similar to a Pythagoras Tree:
As SuperSupermario24 was saying, there is a difference between Sierpinski's Triangle and that particular Wolfram rule, even though they make the same thing. The Sierpinski Triangle is such a common shape, you can find it everywhere in math. There's even one hiding in Pascal's Triangle. (Highlight all the odd numbers and you will see.)
Currently, my favorite fractal is the Dragon Curve.
I still haven't figured out how to draw the Dragon Curve, and I really want to be able to draw it :3
It is also my favorite fractal.
As for Pythagoras tree, thats pretty interesting.
Also, ViHart making super mega squiggles and ending up with that triangle-fractal thing (I no longer know what to call it):
In addition to having all sorts of epicness in itself, there are other fractals that have an infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside of them (the ones I can think of at the moment are the Collatz fractal and the Tricorn fractal), and since each Mandelbrot set has an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets inside itself, which each have an uncountably infinite number of Mandelbrot sets in themselves, you get... a pretty large number.
Fractals are amazing.
also you should check out Link Removed
Indeed.
I prefer the Julia set, to be honest.
By the way, there's actually no Mandelbrot sets within the Mandelbrot set.
also you should check out Link Removed
Not really technical but a defining trait. It's not self-similar which many fractals are for any finite set of random fractals.
Rather K-12 and a few college years. After that it is facinating research and honestly comes 'back to the roots' in a new light with previous geometric and calculus to assist.
Heh. I am 11.
If people could just realize what math has to offer, everyone would love it.
Curves, fractals, paradoxes, etc.