OT: Fractal: was Re: Champagne Elegance
- Subject: OT: Fractal: was Re: [iris-photos] Champagne Elegance
- From: Gerry Snyder <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:32:42 -0700
Aunty Pear wrote:
> Hello, Christopher.
> I am sending one fractal to have a look at.
A brief explanation. "Normal" geometic objects look like what they are
at just one scale. Zoom out on a circle and it's just a dot. Zoom in
properly and it is a circle. Zoom in farther and it just looks like a
Many real things look about the same at different zoom factors. A map of
the west coast of the USA has a certain roughness. A map of the
California coast has a similar roughness. So does one of Los Angeles
County. The puffiness of clouds is similar at different scales. In a
(dicot) tree, the branches off the trunk have similar geometries to the
smallest twigs on the branches. Etc.
In short, many natural objects we see all the time are not
well-represented by circles and squares. Objects with similar roughness
over a range of scales look more real with a much smaller number of
The name comes from these constructs having (somehow) a fractional
number of dimensions. WAY off topic for here.
And don't get me started on the Mandelbrot set.
Gerry Snyder, AIS Symposium Chair, Region 15 RVP
Member San Fernando Valley, Southern California Iris Societies
in warm, winterless Los Angeles--USDA 9b-ish, Sunset 18-19
my work: helping generate data for: http://galileo.jpl.nasa.gov/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/