Welcome to Fractal Forums

Fractal Math, Chaos Theory & Research => (new) Theories & Research => Topic started by: jehovajah on September 13, 2012, 12:43:52 PM




Title: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 13, 2012, 12:43:52 PM
For me Newton, De Moivre and Cotes are the most significant triple in modern mathematical science.

N(x,y,z) = xñ + yč + z$

Where n is the unity in honour of Newton
Č is the Cotes root of unity and $ is the De Moivre root of unity
Č$ = -n, č*-n= -č and $*-n =-$, č2=$ , $2=-č

N2(x,y,z)= x2ñ - z2č +y2$ + 2*( -yzñ + xyč+ xz$)

It is clear that these are not quaternions, but they demonstrate that quaternions are based on the roots of unity modulo 8, these  being based on roots of unity modulo 6.
 As my computer is down at the moment I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to code this up and render a mandelbulb for me. Just replace ñ,ç,$ by 1,i,j using the given transform.
The formula for higher powers I will discuss later.
For the theoretical background and a bit of historical blather see my blog


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: kram1032 on September 13, 2012, 01:07:36 PM
So what you're saying is:

(x+iy+jz)² = x²-iz²+jy²+2(-yz+xyi+xzj)

so...

Code:
x =  x²-2yz + a
y = -z²+2xy + b
z =  y²+2xz + c

As proposed MSet?


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 13, 2012, 09:54:05 PM
Almost.

The labels 1,i,j have several meanings in such a formula. In my case they do not represent the underlying algebra, the coefficients however do. It may be that you have to code it with 1,i,j to get your app to render the kind of image I want to inspect. However, if you do not use i,j in your coding you shoul be ok to use the coefficient rules as you have stated.

I expect the generated image to be distorted into the Cartesian reference frame, but at this stage I do not want to apply correction values to portray exactly how it sits in space. Anyway I have not worked those out yet!

See what you can do with what you have thanks. I will be interested in your results.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 13, 2012, 10:58:12 PM
So what you're saying is:

(x,y,z)² = x²-iz²+jy²+2(-yz+xyi+xzj)

so...

Code:
Newx =  x²-2yz + Cx
Newy = 2xy-z² + Cy
Newz = 2xz+ y²+Cz

As proposed MSet?

Just to clarify it for any code warriors not used to this early stage of implementing a new formula.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 14, 2012, 09:01:17 AM
The quaternion 8 group is not isomorphic to the roots of unity modulo 8 because of the non commutativity. This means it is homeomorphic to a related group, possibly the direct sum of the cyclic groups 2 and 4. While the logarithmic addition is commutative, the underlying product is not, making it truely a remarkable insight to combine the group elements precisely that way, and also explaining why it took ten years for Hamilton to realise this combination. There was no group theory then to help him out, and this is why he is, along with Grassmann, generally regarded as the fathers of modern Algebra.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 15, 2012, 10:03:07 AM
My recent blog post explains how Hamilton's quaternions came to be non commutative. I also posit that a commutative version of the quaternions underpins it. Group theoretical structures are referenced, but I would refer the reader to Norman's excellent overview of group theory on his YouTube channel.

The Quaternions are a viable functioning reference frame, so why fix what works, right? Well would you not like them to be commutative, providing they do not mess up the fractals? That is all i am saying! Don't mess with the fractals, baby! ;D


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 16, 2012, 04:34:33 PM
So what you're saying is:

(x+iy+jz)² = x²-iz²+jy²+2(-yz+xyi+xzj)

so...

Code:
x =  x²-2yz + a
y = -z²+2xy + b
z =  y²+2xz + c

As proposed MSet?

Here I rendered m-brot and j-set of formula. Side extruded 3D fractal. All are rendered using Log Trichrome colouring, colour lines are z value gradients during all iterations.

IMHO it needs someting more, maybe some hidden coeffitients or something.
 You could test different formula versions, just download Chaos Pro and place your formula in formula file ( forFormula.cfm in forFormula.zip at the bottom), which actualy are text file. Just change zzx= zx*zx + .... All another needed code alredy are there. It have the most easy to use compiler of all, unless you can use assambler language and edit machine codes, then you can test with m3d;) Or GPU programming with no math libraries;) Of corse it don't means best renders ever.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 16, 2012, 04:39:11 PM
Here is 2D, m-brot inside and cutout on z=-0.0001. All the same colout method. IMHO, it needs much more.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 17, 2012, 02:12:48 AM
Thanks Asdam! Some great colouring.

I will be able to work with what you have done, but I am very pleased to see the Mandelbrot like cross sections.
I suspect a few things may need adjusting to counter the fractal generator bias toward ijk but Good Job! :D


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 17, 2012, 04:14:09 AM
Ok, I am excited!
My original request was for a 3 d render to produce a mandelbulb. I think Asdams work is based on the notion of extruded fractals, but I am not familiar with Chaospro.

The render I am looking for may have to be placed in a quaternion frame  or a bespoke 3d renderer. What I expected was a twistedlathe image with lots of swirls. This can be controlled by getting the correct parameters even if it flattens the image.
Asdam,Good Job! Thank you so much! :D


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 17, 2012, 04:13:42 PM
Ok, I am excited!
My original request was for a 3 d render to produce a mandelbulb. I think Asdams work is based on the notion of extruded fractals,mbut I am not familiar with Chaospro.

The render I am looking for may have to be placed in a quaternion frame  or a bespoke 3d renderer. What I expected was a twistedlathe image with lots of swirls. This can be controlled by getting the correct parameters even if it flattens the image.
Asdam,Good Job! Thank you so much! :D
There are lots of swirls and twists, but only in single plane and in XY cutout;)
If you want image with twisted swirls you'll need triplex math or maybe trigonometry. Or more complex polynomials;)

Best so far what I got using quadratic polynomials and modulus function is this:
(http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/a/s/asdam/IMAGE2_Mbrot_half_12.jpg)

Quote
zx=real(z);
zy=imag(z);
zz=abs(part_j(z));

zzx = zx*zx - zy*zy + 2*zz*zx  + Cx;
zzy = 2* zx * zy + 2* zz * zy   + Cy;
zzz= zz*zz - zy*zy  + abs(Cz);

z= quaternion(zzx, zzy, zzz, 0);


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 17, 2012, 11:59:35 PM
There are lots of swirls and twists, but only in single plane and in XY cutout;)
If you want image with twisted swirls you'll need triplex math or maybe trigonometry. Or more complex polynomials;)

Thanks again Asdam. Interesting form, but not what I expected to see from my formula. However your comments pinpointed the notation issue. I am used to Quasz so xyz are real and imaginary coefficients of 1,i,j!

Try
zx^2-2*zy*zz + cx=zzx
2*zx*zy-zz^2 +cy=zzy
Zy^2+2*zx*zz +cz =zzz
In the quaternion bracket.
Please allow zz to have its full variability.

The swirls in one plane refer to the extrusion render done previously, or have you other mandelbulbs not published?
Thanks for your support  ;D



Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: M Benesi on September 18, 2012, 07:55:02 AM
  Hey there.   Ended up with something very similar to Asdam's version.  Basically a very thick 2d Mandy.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 18, 2012, 08:34:54 AM
  Hey there.   Ended up with something very similar to Asdam's version.  Basically a very thick 2d Mandy.

Hiya Matt! Howya doing? :D

Yes this happens sometimes with me to! I remember when I first attempted to make a 3d version of Fracmonks formula. The important thing is the relationship between the coefficients and the frame used to display those coefficients. And then you do have to fiddle a bit .
Asdam's quaternion offering is very exciting, because this is what I might get with Quasz when I get my computer back.
It is such a long time since we did this we forget that simple mistakes in programming our fractal generators cause unexpected results, and differences in notation too!
Like your new work by the way, and I think it is important.

Thanks again guys :beer:

Just an update, while i am analysing your results: I think I might try z=z^3 +c this being modulo 6 and all! Catchya later. Lol!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 18, 2012, 02:22:28 PM
Restrict y and z to<<1 to pick out Mandy's.

Working on cubic now.

RIP computer! :'( repair man told me it died.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: eiffie on September 18, 2012, 05:18:04 PM
Your formula is actually a neat trick to turn the normal extruded mandelbrot:
nx=x*x-y*y+cx
ny=2*x*y+cy
nz=z*z+cz
... into one that isn't axis aligned :) I couldn't have come up with that if I tried.
It is very easy to get a more twisted version (almost pick at random). I like this one:
nx=x*x-2*y*z+cx; //mix a little of y and z into x, etc..
ny=y*y-2*x*z+cy;
nz=-z*z+2*x*y+cz;
This has no mathematical basis but it makes a neat shape!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 18, 2012, 05:59:40 PM
Based on your experiences guys I have modified the formula for use in the quaternion frame with zz being the coefficient of the j vector/imaginary magnitude.
N(x,æy,ßz) = xñ +æyč+ßz$ where exp(-0.5)<æ, ß <exp(1)
Try
zx^2-2*æ*ß*zy*zz + cx=zzx
2*zx*æ*zy-ß^2*zz^2 +æcy=zzy
æ^2*zy^2+2*zx*ß*zz +ßcz =zzz
In the quaternion bracket.
Please allow zz to have its full variability.

Playing with small values of æ,ß may bring out the form I am expecting, thanks guys.
Still working on cube.



Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 18, 2012, 06:02:58 PM
Your formula is actually a neat trick to turn the normal extruded mandelbrot:
nx=x*x-y*y+cx
ny=2*x*y+cy
nz=z*z+cz
... into one that isn't axis aligned :) I couldn't have come up with that if I tried.
It is very easy to get a more twisted version (almost pick at random). I like this one:
nx=x*x-2*y*z+cx; //mix a little of y and z into x, etc..
ny=y*y-2*x*z+cy;
nz=-z*z+2*x*y+cz;
This has no mathematical basis but it makes a neat shape!
:woot:
Thanks eiffie, this is what I was talking about! Right there! Your my main man!

Correction! This is an offshoot and not my formula so :Unwoot: , but you are still my main man!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 19, 2012, 01:57:31 AM
N3(x,y,z)
Newx= x3 - y3 +z3-6xyz +cx

Newy=3(x2y-y2z-z2x)+cy


Newz=3(x2z+y2x-z2y)+cz

Render in a quaternion frame if possible please using the quaternion coefficients as x,y,z, but do not use the underlying quaternion algebra.
Thanks in advance :dink:


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: eiffie on September 19, 2012, 05:19:54 PM
Your math is correct at least since this creates the z=z^3+c brot extruded at the same 45 degree angle to all axii (just like the original formula). Sorry I don't have a decent rendering of it but imagine the power 3 brot extruded.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 21, 2012, 05:56:31 AM
Your math is correct at least since this creates the z=z^3+c brot extruded at the same 45 degree angle to all axii (just like the original formula). Sorry I don't have a decent rendering of it but imagine the power 3 brot extruded.
Thanks eiffie. Would love to see an un-decent image cos my imagination is not that good! ;D

I did the analysis and found that the extrusion is endemic for this 3d form of modulo 6 roots of unity, because at y= -z you get the actual Mandelbrot relation between the axes. Thus (x,-z,z) are point references in a plane at pi/4 to (x,y,0) plane. Th x axis is the axis of rotation for this plane rotation, but the relations are not circular in the (x,0,z)plane, they break the circular relation when the coefficients start to make the quadratic or cubic terms very large. As a consequence the bailout limits cut the form into the extruded shape. I am interested to see the result particularly for ver small y, and z to confirm my analysis, but Asdam has shown a cut out that gave me the clue to what may be happening.

Your variation is very interesting, by the way, so I hope you do not feel I am dismissing it. It is simply that I have no way of verifying my formulae and the coefficient limits as yet, except by the kindness of you guys, so I do not want to discuss the important meaning of what you have demonstrated at such an early stage. Nevertheless what you demonstrated is in my opinion highly significant!

Thanks again everyone for the interest and the computer time. :beer: :beer: :beer:


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 23, 2012, 06:35:36 PM
Brot with abs function (allways positive z) was not yours but this one:
http://www.fractalforums.com/new-theories-and-research/imho-reason-behind-no-3d-mandelbrot/ (http://www.fractalforums.com/new-theories-and-research/imho-reason-behind-no-3d-mandelbrot/)

I rendered your brot without abs or any other additional function. Engine use quaternion numbers for 3D render, but here it is 3 part vector without 4th part. I itereted 3 variables and left z only for colours, becouse in 3D z is quaternion number, but in 2D z is complex number. So in 2D it would lose 3rd variable and result would not be accurate correspondence. You can trust, these pics are actual result of your formula;)


Cube power looks like cube power mandelbrot extruded in 45 degrees both horizontally and vertically, but closer look shows that this fractal is slightly curved. In some parts there are small stretching, probably when you 'll get to power 8, you 'll see larger curvature and more stretched horns;) 


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 23, 2012, 06:39:25 PM
Here is more to help your imagination.

In 2D this is very small angular piece, but it perfectly corresponds to cutout in z=0. Colour lines here are z value isogradients of different iterations. Julia set with swirls is cutout of julia set somewhere z=0.1, without cutout it was a hudge mass.

Here is full code:
Code:
zAnotherMandelbrot3D (quaternion) {
// PLACE YOR M-BROT FORMULA HERE.
// WORKS IN BOTH 2D AND 3D.

parameter real bailout;
quaternion C;
real zx, zy, zz, zw, zzx, zzy, zzz, zzw, Cx, Cy, Cz, Cw, root2;
parameter bool testInverted;
parameter quaternion julia, perturb;
parameter int settype, power;
parameter real zheight;

// block for cutout.
parameter int iscuted;
parameter quaternion Ctaxis;
real autobailout, coordX, coordY, coordZ;

void init_once(void)
{
// all callculated coefficients place here.
root2=sqrt(2);
}

void init(void)
 {

  if (testInverted==true && settype=="Julia Set")
{
z = recip(pixel);
C = julia;
}
     else if (settype=="Julia Set")
    {
z = pixel;
C = julia;
    }
    else if (testInverted==true && settype=="Mandelbrot Set")
{
z= perturb;
C= recip(pixel);
}
    else
    {
z= perturb;
C= pixel;
    }

Cx=real(C);
Cy=imag(C);
Cz=part_j(C);
// for 4th dim use Cw, zw and zzw. Cw=part_k(C);

//block for cutout. An unelegant code.
autobailout=0;
coordX= real(Ctaxis);
coordY= imag(Ctaxis);
coordZ= part_j(Ctaxis);
if (iscuted == "Larger than")
{
if (coordX!=0 && real(pixel) > coordX )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
if (coordY!=0 && imag(pixel) > coordY )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
if (coordZ!=0 && part_j(pixel) > coordZ )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
}
else if (iscuted == "Smaller than")
{
if (coordX!=0 && real(pixel) < coordX )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
if (coordY!=0 && imag(pixel) < coordY )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
if (coordZ!=0 && part_j(pixel) < coordZ )
{
autobailout= bailout +1;
}
}

zx=real(z);
zy=imag(z);
zz=part_j(z)+ zheight;

}
void loop(void)
{

//PLACE YOUR M-BROT FORMULA HERE:
if (power=="Square")
{
zzx=zx*zx - 2*zy*zz + Cx;
zzy= - zz*zz + 2*zx*zy + Cy;
zzz= zy*zy + 2*zx*zz + Cz;
}
else if (power=="Cube")
{
zzx=zx^3 - zy^3+ zz^3 - 6*zx*zy*zz + Cx;
zzy= 3*(sqr(zx)*zy- sqr(zy)*zz-zx*sqr(zz)) + Cy;
zzz= 3*(sqr(zx)*zz+ zx*sqr(zy) -sqr(zy)*zz ) + Cz; //ERROR CORRECTED
}

zx=zzx;
zy=zzy;
zz=zzz;

/// All three number parts are iterated seperetely, hence zzx and zx.
z= quaternion(zzx, zzy, zzz, 0);

// in 2D z is complex number so zz, zy, zz must be iterated or zz would be lost.

}
bool bailout(void)
{
// cabs(z) is included for smooth bailout in 2D, abs(zzz) is included coz in 2D z is complex variable, autobailot is for cutout.
return( cabs(z)+  abs(zzx)+ abs(zzy) + abs(zzz)+ autobailout < bailout );
}
void description(void)
{
this.title = "Newtonian Triplet";
this.maxiter=34;
this.helpfile="http://www.fractalforums.com/";

bailout.caption = "Bailout Value";
bailout.default = 12.0;
  
settype.caption = "Set type";
settype.enum = "Mandelbrot Set\nJulia Set";
settype.default = 0;

    testInverted.caption="Inverted set";
    testInverted.default=false;


separator.label1.caption  = "4th value is unused.";
    julia.caption = "Julia Parameter";
    julia.default = (-0.2,0.3,0.45,0);
    //julia.visible = (settype=="Julia Set");

    perturb.caption = "Calculation Start";
    perturb.default = (0,0,0,0);
    perturb.visible = (settype=="Mandelbrot Set");

    power.caption = "Power";
    power.enum = "Square\nCube";
    power.default = 0;


zheight.caption = "Z height";
zheight.default = 0.0;

//block for a cutout.
separator.label2.caption  = "CUTS along NONZERO coordinates.";
iscuted.caption="CUTTING";
iscuted.enum="None\nLarger than\nSmaller than";
iscuted.default= 0;

Ctaxis.caption ="Coordinates of cut";
Ctaxis.default= (0,0,0,0);
Ctaxis.visible = (iscuted=="Larger than" || iscuted=="Smaller than");
}
}


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 24, 2012, 12:03:20 AM
Well, what can I say?
To start off with a million thanks Asdam. Fantastic results, and the care to analyse is very much appreciated.
I am convinced of your results and your care in application. What got me excited was your 2d cutout!. The extruded form was unexpected because of the inherent formulaic twist, but of course I had only a prayer that the Madelbrot would even turn up! Your cut out showed not only it was in their but the essential requirement for it to be in there.
The extruded form required explanation, and I think I found it from the data.

The cubic was an intuition. The swirls being there were my signal that the rotation was in there. This would encourage me to dig deeper, and play around with coefficients.

Now you have given me data to analyse, and some glorious results.
Thanks again so much :dink:


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 24, 2012, 04:16:29 AM
Here is more to help your imagination....
Here is full code:
.......

zzz= 3*(sqr(zx)*zz+ zx*sqr(zy) -sqr(zy)*zz ) + Cz
this.helpfile="http://www.fractalforums.com/";

Could I beg of you just one corrected run? The highlighted above ,should be sqr(zz)*zy.
It may make no difference at all, but could you check?

Also I have posted a formula for very small coefficients . I don't suppose you have time to test that out, but if you could ....

In any case, it goes without saying that I am very grateful for whatever you might be moved to do.

Thanks again. ;D


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on September 24, 2012, 04:55:34 AM
Here is 2D, m-brot inside and cutout on z=-0.0001. All the same colout method. IMHO, it needs much more.
Now I understand your generating code better I understand the cut out better.the cut out actually seems to cut across a 3d form showing the internal colouring from a cross sectional view. In both this and the cubic a definite cross section line(change in facet line) is visible. This is why I am so interested in the small valued coefficient formula.

If you had not set up your cut out box as you have this would have been totally obscured by a plane view at pi/4 to ij axes. Your cut out box seems to cut out a cross section of a form, but with z being so small you would expect a thin slice wouldn't you? In fact you seem to have isolated a small solid mandelbulb form!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 30, 2012, 04:52:59 PM
Here is correct version. Now this is perfectly linear and extruded.
Haven't changed coefficients, but testing on other 3D brots small coeficient change resulted only in change of dimensions but not overall shape, unles you change them much.



Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on September 30, 2012, 04:57:25 PM
Julia set alsou is perfectly extruded;) 2D version is pretty interesting. Changing coeffitients would be much more4 easy in Ultra Fractal, becouse it would be wisual, but no 3D. Hm, maybe this could be 2D UF formula.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 04, 2012, 09:24:01 PM
Many thanks Asdam. Some lovely renders and colouring. I am hoping to get my computer up and running soon and I will be able to explore these fractals using yours as a map. The slices show interesting surfaces buried in the extrusions, and rather like a diamond it will be interesting to explore what faceted cuts reveal buried in this gnarly extrusion!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 06, 2012, 03:23:17 AM
Igor has supplied the body parts! and now my Frankenstein LIVES! :laugh:

So Quasz rocks, as usual. The results show the twisted deformation i expected from the formula and encourages a further exploration of the coefficient proportions.

While Asdam's extruded renders are the clue to what to look for, the bailout condition promotes an extruded sculpture. Quasz uses a spherical modulus condition with a more pleasing sculpted result. The sculpture is tilted at π/4 in the yz plane.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 06, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
The following is the xy view looking down from the z height onto the sculpture. Don't get dizzy now  :crazyeyes:. This particular code is ready to go to explore coefficient relations. At this moment the coefficient scalars are set to exp(0) or 1.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 07, 2012, 11:09:14 AM
I have exposited my insights in my blog, but this memorial to Newton, De Moivre and Sir Roger Cotes, has turned out to be a satisfying culmination of my original impulse to join in finding the Mandelbulb.

While there is no doubt in my mind of the fundamental significance of the Mandelbulb in once and for all time shifting the paradigm of a mathematics, a physics and a mechanics of the behaviour of our mental, subjective processing of space, it is only one of an uncountable magnitude of dynamically varying reference frame products.

The iconic Mandelbrot set of relations, whose visualisation generated an iconic visual form is the gold Standard for an aesthetic evaluation paradigm. This evaluative standard actually enables several mental processes to be standardised and compared, rather like a Rorsach test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorschach_test
From this form I may derive the fundamental process concepts : reference frame, fractal quantification, fundamental dynamic magnitude calculus, based upon a fundamental vector magnitude analysis that relies upon Grassmanian Analysis into Ausdehnung Groesse. Within this analytical scheme particular fundamentals are worthy of note: the Newton, De Moivre, Cotes–Euler analytical and theoretical principles, and the Hamilton Quaternion Algebra; the Turing extension of these thereto disconnected streams of thought into the Universal coding machine paradigms that ultimately reintroduced art and aesthetic apprehension as rigorous elements of a mathematical comprehension of space. Upon the back of these shifting sands Benoit Mandelbrot found the underlying Rock solid coral reef of the Mandelbrot set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoit_Mandelbrot

From pursuing the aesthetics of this set we, here at fractalforums.com, were able to participate in a remarkable and historical construction process that lead to the revelation of the Mandelbulb. This has spawned several important fractal generators, but none more significant than the Fractint movement that underpins all the work done to generate a z-plot generator, a Cartesian reference frame surface generator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractint
Certain standards are now possible, but not necessary. The fluidity of the situation should continue as a mark of the actuality, well described by Herakleitos/Plato: All things change, nothing remains still!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herakleitos

Let no one fail to recognise what has played out here amongst the members of this forum, nor to be proud of being associated with such a groundswell of collaboration from all levels and nations in the human community.

Steve Jobs has been commemorated by Apple this week. May we commemorate the passing of Benoit Mandelbrot in the days to come.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LemPnZn54Kw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LemPnZn54Kw&feature=related)


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on October 07, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
Result of quasz looks a bitt distorted. Linear looks of Chaos Pro probably means that render is mathematicaly correct. When I made errors in whatever formula it allways distorted the result.

IMHO, He was the greatest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras)


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on October 07, 2012, 05:06:55 PM
A had idea about iterating hybridising two brot fractals by mean of means.

Arithmetic mean were strange, but harmonic mean worked well and unlike geometric mean formula of harmonic mean have only quaternion friendly functions.
Result seems to be mean like Cthuhu;) First were initialisated by z=0, second by z=pixel, alsou smoother had fever iterations.

//single iteration
//your brot
zzx=sqr(zx) - 2*zy*zz + Cx;
zzy= - sqr(zz) + 2*zx*zy + Cy;
zzz= sqr(zy) + 2*zx*zz + Cz;

//my brot
      zz=abs(zz);
      zzx2= sqr(zx) - sqr(zy) + 2*zz*zx  + Cx;
      zzy2=  2*zx * zy + 2* zz * zy   + Cy;
      zzz2= sqr(zz) - sqr(zy)  + abs(Cz);


z1= quaternion ( zzx , zzy, zzz, 0);   
z2= quaternion ( zzx2 , zzy2, zzz2, 0);   

   
/// harmonic mean of both
      z3=2/( 1/(z1)+ 1/(z2) );
      

      zx=real(z3);
      zy=imag(z3);
      zz=part_j(z3);         
      z=z3;   


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 09, 2012, 03:47:49 AM
Thanks, Asdam.

The differences between Chaos Pro and Quasz come down to differences in Laplacian or Lagrangian constraints. Viewing a fractal generator as a dynamic Lagrangian or Laplacian is useful only if you carry it to its logical extent. Therefore the criteria I use is not "mathematical" correctness, but system congruity. Anyhow, I am not a big fan of " mathematics" per se, since from  the early 19th century it seems to have lost its way.

Your renders and sculptures are every bit as valuable as mine or anybody else's for that matter, and they certainly helped me visualise the formulae.

On the matter of your hybrids, they are very lovely forms, but they lose there authenticity through the quaternion division operation, at least for the Newtonian triples. This is because Newtonian triples are not Quaternions!  I am hijacking the machinery of the quaternion generators to represent non quaternion math visually, but it only works as long as I do not engage the underlying quaternion math.

By specifying which element is conjuncted with which and how it is conjuncted, I impress a foreign outcome on a visualisation platform. Consequently I have to accept some distortion in the images.

To attempt to code a roots of unity modulo 6 generator is something I have no great inclination to do, especially as it will not give me any results that are radically different from the ones I am achieving by baudlerizing the Quaternion reference frame.

http://youtu.be/ONZX9GeeygY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONZX9GeeygY&feature=youtu.be
The quaternion reference frame is the most sophisticated frame we currently use, although Grassmann's Ausdehnungs Groesse are more sophisticated but not implemented in code yet.
 
http://www.ieoie.nl/ produced the animation. To me it reveals the roots of unity.

John Browne is slowly constructing such a code for Mathematica, but how he is progressing I do not currently know.
https://sites.google.com/site/grassmannalgebra/


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 11, 2012, 05:05:26 AM
I can confirm Asdam's sculpture of the cubic Newtonian triple, but not the quadratic. The extruded form is in fact a short extrusion, and the flat surface is not due to slicing, but the cubics in x, y and z.
I have checked the code for the quadratic several times, but cannot find any mistakes.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 14, 2012, 04:18:21 AM
http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/2mandelbulb.html#epilogue

On this anniversary of Benoit's death, time to take stock of the impact of the catalytic effect of his dogged insistence on the fractality of geometry.

There is a lot more to this notion than just the iconic Mandelbrot Set. This is the time when mathematics was transformed from a dark brown rigid crysalis into a beautiful and flexible butterfly. To do so it had to break through the crust of fuddy duddy mathematicians, the establishment board of Mathematicians, and change into the board of computer scientists!. Mathematicians have never really recovered from that sweeping computational change, nor should they! For God sake do not let the mathematicians of old ever regain control!

I can remember when the Four colour problem was solved! The amount of muttering among traditional mathematicians was huge! I also remember when calculators were allowed into schools, the rumblings that went on then!

As a mathematical student all my life I know how crippling the board of Mathematicians have been. I know how the Hardys have marvelled at the free spirited Raminujans, how the Gauss's have trampled on the Grassmann's and the Lewis Carols have mocked the Hamilton's.

While I was a student in Manchester, the computational department was the poor cousin of the number theorists, who were consigned to endless computings of orders of inaccuracy of computer results to vindicate their colleagues belief in the superiority of the old school! It was trumpeted how old school could give exact solutions while computers could only give approximate! That all changed with the 4 colour solution!

Computational alternatives could be churned through with relentless machine efficiency. Combinatorial results beyond any one mans ability could be arrived at in a number of weeks, then days, then hours and now seconds!

Our arrogance has blinded us as mathematicians from the brute facts: someone centuries ago made computation into a cash cow, called it mathematics and has been defending it ever since! The need to compute, compare proportion is an artistic need, not confined to so called Mathematicians. The development of computer science has enabled that basic need to be met in ways that any individual artist can apprehend.

Today, computer graphics and films and apps owe a tremendous heritage tax to Benoit's pioneering work, Hamilton's promotion of the Mathesis of the imaginary and the development of abstract algebra, and Grassmann's thorough analysis of the theory of Platonic forms in terms of a process algebra that underpins all computation. These 3 in particular are a gateway to philosophers and thinkers and Astrologers of the past since star charts began as cave paintings!

Today I downloaded an app that gives me access to the star charts that began it all! Not only can I see stars now or in the future, but also in the past back to the times when cave paintings were the only records! This is the true legacy of our philosophers and artisans: we have discoverd those elements of constancy even in dynamism that make sense of our experience of our universe, and the fractal, iterative patterns and sequences that encode them.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on October 14, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
Looking to video linking to your video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21tZI3Hc12E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21tZI3Hc12E)
This is quind of funny. No wisdom, but with a time b-> v

The Merkava (Hebrew:  מרכבה Chariot) is a main battle tank used by the Israel Defense Forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg/300px-MerkavaMk4_ZE001m.jpg)

Down with the offtop. I think, my renders should be exact correspondence becouse square and cube version have the same special features. If there were some error, they would not have same features, or would have some sort of distortion like with my first renders of cube version.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 15, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
The Merkaba is not off topic. The topic is about the "mystical", mysterious "roots of unity"

I would have named the topic Hamiltons missing Triples, but really it does not do justice to his attribution to De Moivre and Cotes. Ieoie is also a phonic transliteration of YHWH, which i am sure Rob Hermans knows very well.

This topic is to pursue the many wonderful reference frame structures which can be made from the roots of unity, using a Grassmann analytical method. Hamilton himself recognised that Grassmann was the master in this analytical field. Un fortunately, due to what i can lightly describe as "Gaussian Smoothing" Grassmann was never properly acknowledged publicly until Riemann"s death.
It takes some considerable effort to root out the instilled confusion over the use of the notion of the √-1. In the end it is a mental state of beliefs and manipulation rituals that one comes down to.

I am still exploring this under the heading of The Children of Shunya.

I am of course interested in your renders, and have no qualms about their correctness. I am using them as an aesthetic guide and prompt, and they may inspire me to find mistakes i have repeatedly overlooked. But i am pleased also with my results because they intuitively confirm what i imagined. This may be why i cannot see any mistakes, if any.
At the moment i put it down to the Lagrangian constraints on the 2 differing systems. Where they agree is in the π/4 orientation of the mandelbrot outline, which for me is a remarkable insight into the mechanics of this form.

I have found an A.C.Pickover formulation in Quasz that gives the most stunning Mandelbrot outline when viewed from the side, but the 3d view reveals the disposition of the particles in this spherical distribution in the YZ plane. The degrees of freedom in real space is what we have to expect in the 3d Mandelbrot, but also it gives hope that some arrangement and processing will reveal a holy Grail!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on October 23, 2012, 05:51:27 PM
Interesting enought that one of greatest scientist of all times Newton were just a part time scientists, and that on another part he were an alchemist. Just none knows becouse at his time this practices had to be hidden, and at the modern time that would spoil materialistic image of Newton.



I was thinking, maybe 4D spacetime is like like iterated 3D mandelbrot. 3 spatial dimensions corresponds to 3D screen. The 4th dimension of time is unusal, as it moves just in one direction of increased entropy and less energy. This corresponds iterations, iteration number moves in one direction of increased fractal compexity. 0th iteration corresponds to time before creation. 1st dimension is like Big Bang, an act of creation. With next iterations one can notice swirls of galaxies with each new iteration growing more complex but thinner and thinner.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 27, 2012, 03:03:04 PM
I think I have the division coefficients for the Newtonian triples, indicating that they are a field. When I have worked through my current blogposts on polynomials I shall write them out here.

They are based on the cubic, which makes better sense of the extruded mandelbrot solution for the cubic. It makes the square result also interesting and inclines me to the view that the images I have produced on Quasz are along the right lines, if the division coefficients are correct.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 27, 2012, 04:37:24 PM
Interesting enought that one of greatest scientist of all times Newton were just a part time scientists, and that on another part he were an alchemist. Just none knows becouse at his time this practices had to be hidden, and at the modern time that would spoil materialistic image of Newton.
I think that Newton looked into many things. In the Cromwellian climate he lived under Alchemy was not as disreputable as it apparently was in the Catholic dominions. Certainly Robert Boyle had to be very careful hoe he presented his works on electricity and magnetism!

However, apart from the serious charge of occultism, I think Newton was free to investigate Alchemy as a science, within the remit of the Royal Society. One of the remarkable things about Principiae was how studiously he avoided going into chemical detail with regard to matter, and how cleverly he avoided being drawn on the causes of Gravity, for fear of being charged with occultism!

Cotes in fact distinguishes Newton's general approach as being free of occult expositions. However, within the Royal Society, there was a benign view on magnetism , and you find Newton uses it as a metaphor for Gravity. This is not his thinking only, but echoes Boyles dissertations on the same subject.

However when directly asked what the cause of gravity was, Newton refused to be drawn!
I on the other hand have no such qualms!


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on October 28, 2012, 04:58:13 PM
If Newtonian Triples do constitute a field and there are division, raising in cube and square powers, this mean, that there could be implemented other formulas.
Talis z=z^2/(z+1)+c
 
Or spider:
p = pixel; z = c; c = p;
z=sqr(z)+c+c;
c=0.5*c+z;

Maybe it will create something nice looking with lots of swirls in all directions.

They actualy were afraid not so about religion, but if someone would manage to turn lead into gold, it would ruin economics of monarchs :crazy:


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on October 29, 2012, 05:08:39 AM
For me Newton, De Moivre and Cotes are the most significant triple in modern mathematical science.

N(x,y,z) = xñ + yč + z$

Where n is the unity in honour of Newton
Č is the Cotes root of unity and $ is the De Moivre root of unity
Č$ = -ñ, č*-ñ= -č and $*-ñ =-$, č2=$ , $2=-č

N2(x,y,z)= x2ñ - z2č +y2$ + 2*( -yzñ + xyč+ xz$)

It is clear that these are not quaternions, but they demonstrate that quaternions are based on the roots of unity modulo 8, these  being based on roots of unity modulo 6.
 As my computer is down at the moment I wonder if anyone would be so kind as to code this up and render a mandelbulb for me. Just replace ñ,ç,$ by 1,i,j using the given transform.
The formula for higher powers I will discuss later.
For the theoretical background and a bit of historical blather see my blog

Modulo 6 for the roots of unity mean the circle is divided into 6 sectors. Thus i can enscribe in one sector an equilateral triangle and that enables me to read off the root of unity.

Actually i have a desktop image that gives me them anyway.
č=(1/2,√3/2)=1/2+i√3/2
conj(č)=(1/2,-√3/2)=1/2-i√3/2=-$

The division in analogy with the dual complex notation is going to be based on the factorisation of x3+y3+z3
The corresponding factorisation is going to be more involved, more polynomial.
let r=(y3+z3)1/3

x3+y3+z3=(x+r)(x–čr)(x–conj(č)r)

Compare this pattern with the pattern for x2+y2

x2+y2=(x+iy)(x+conj(i)y)

Thus we can expect the same pattern when we factorise r

r=(y3+z3)1/3={(y+z)(y–čz)(y–conj(č)z)}1/3

finally, in terms of the axes labels or vectors or even Strecken
r={(y+ñz)(y–čz)(y+$z)}1/3


x3+y3+z3=(x+ñr)(x–čr)(x+$r)
I have chosen not to label the leading term in each bracket with ñ to provide a clearer mnemonic, but all coefficients are attached to labels!

Applying these factors appropriately should estabish the denominator  of a division as a real value, i just need to check what state it leaves the numerator in.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on November 09, 2012, 10:49:04 PM
A different tack.

The reciprocal of N(x,y,z) = 1/(xñ + yč + z$) = e0ñ + f0č + g0$

Thus 1=(e0ñ + f0č + g0$)*(xñ + yč + z$)

That is 1ñ + 0č + 0$ ={xe0 -z f0 -y g0}ñ +{ye0 + xf0 - zg0}č + {ze0+ yf0 + xg0}$
Solving the simultaneous equations for the coefficients
e0=z(x2+zy)/((z2+yx)2+(-y2+zx)(x2+yz))
f0=z(z2+xy)/((z2+yx)2+(-y2+zx)(x2+yz))

From which g0 has 3 versions

g0=(ze0+yf0)/-x =(ye0+xf0)/z=(xe0-zf0-1)/y

Of course this method could be used to solve for N(0,1,0) and N(0,0,1) and so raises fundamental questions about the notion of "number" and group theoretical structures called "number fields", questions which are usually just swept under the carpet! That is not to say they are not explored, but rater they are not allowed to revise the notion of number, or even to falsify it.
I prefer the notion of magnitude and for quantity :bound magnitude. And for process algebra:Conjugacy and Adjugacy in a sequential dynamic.
The process * here is often confused with multiplication. However that should be said in another, more revealing way: the process of multiplication is confused with the combinatorial process  *. Until the process called multiplication is properly distinguished as factorisation bonds this is not at all obvious due to pedagogical miseducation. Factorisation bonds in fact relate better to Euclid's commensurability algorithm (GCD) in which the true combinatorial nature of multipleform is clearly revealed. See my blog for further details.





Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on December 20, 2012, 10:34:46 AM
The relation of this topic to vortex mathematics  or rather ring theoretical structure of the Z9 and Z18 and the Z2 + Z9 finite cyclic groups is the fascinating topic of study I am embarking on now.

Here Randy Powell gives some insight


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uROabhExdwY&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: jehovajah on November 13, 2014, 07:54:49 AM
So I actually was working on these 2 years ago!

This link discusses the quaternions and the search for a triplex combination

http://www.songho.ca/math/quaternion/quaternion.html

The author sets out to demonstrate by contradiction that a triple form does not exist for the premise he starts with.

2 things: contradiction is not a proof of none existence! And the base elements  chosen are not the only possible basis.

When I tackled this issue it was from a different point of view. I was looking at group behaviours modulo (n), and specifically applying that to the rotation of the axes of a reference frame. I could see what I was doing, but I could not explain what I was doing!

I remember being very poorly at the time, recovering from a life threatening blood disorder. Working on this issue was a welcome distraction.

Applying the roots of unity in this way as a control for the axes interchange seemed an interesting thing to do, but I honestly had no clue what I was doing and moved from one inspirational flash to another.

Today I have the benefit of the mentorship of Hermann Grassmann and that has made a huge difference in terms of my ability to coherently understand what I was doing back then. It is making a huge difference going forward also.


Title: Re: Newtonian Triples
Post by: Alef on November 15, 2014, 02:08:40 PM
Have no idea whats there is going on, but nice anyway.

Quote
I remember bing very poorly at the time, recovering from a life threatening blood disorder. Working on this issue was a welcome distraction.
Fractals aren't so bad way to escape.