hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Fractal: was Re: Champagne Elegance

  • Subject: Re: Fractal: was Re: [iris-photos] Champagne Elegance
  • From: "Aunty Pear" <auntypear@iprimus.com.au>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:35:28 +1000

Hello, Gerry,

Wow, Waaaaaaaaaaaaay too cool  that explanation was good but useless I am no
genius in math's - I use in built formularies. I will be hiding behind
nearest tree if you ask me to come up with something like this you just
wrote. Can I keep your letter, please? We have a few fractal junkies in my
other group and they will be impressed with it also.  But I must warn you,
their math's are just as mine - at the level of 2 + 2 = ?....

And I want to get you started on Mandelbrot or for that matter Julia, may be
I will learn something new there...

Way off topic too.

Thanks for letter.

Cheers,

Aunty Pear

----- Original Message -----
From: Gerry Snyder <gerrysnyder@mediaone.net>
To: <iris-photos@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 1:32 PM
Subject: OT: Fractal: was Re: [iris-photos] Champagne Elegance


> Aunty Pear wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Christopher.
> >
> > I am sending one fractal to have a look at.
>
> Beautiful, A.P.
>
> 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
> straight line.
>
> 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
> parameters.
>
> 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
> --
> mailto:gerrysnyder@mediaone.net
> 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/
>
>


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 






 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index