Welcome to Fractal Forums

a 3d fractal are series little points of a thing that recreates itself on a 3d   x^2+c or such manner, and can remain "in" the "object" sustaining the repeated x^2+c force and not leaving to infinity. Although we use complex numbers we can observe a nice outcome on a real 3d axis and I mean on a sensible axis. So that somehow shows a realtionship between countable and imaginary numbers.. existent and not existent, as long as it translates to measures like cm/pixels/ m^3..
1. Is that right?

 Then what do we get if we itterate some results of the object points with the same function as an input or as a c every time each time. or both.
2. Has anyone tried something like that? Has it any basis?

i want to try that with Processing but
3. i still haven't undestood how can this be x^2+c test:    
       from mandelbrot  :P and everything is in english.. it seems like identities ...

I'm a little confused by your questions, but I'll try to answer anyway.

1. It has nothing to do with real or unreal. The term imaginary for the right (as in opposed to left) part of the complex numbers has nothing to do with fantasy, virtual, reality or imagination. Well, maybe for historical/language/cultural reasons.

2. Thats exactly how escape time fractals work. I think you do not fully understand the escape time fractal method. Or I misunderstand your questions.

3. I see your code is from https://processing.org/examples/mandelbrot.html . You can check http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/MandelSet/ComplexIteration/ComplexIterRef.html for more understanding.

heheh of course, i mean imaginary numbers like i^2=-1 not fantasy and imagination :P maybe i didn't write it right. Imaginary numbers need imagination to understand though :P .

We can observe something through a science or generally. Both are useful

I understand this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set#Escape_time_algorithm . I'm wondering if we can take numbers of the results (of border to a depth points? of volume?, the size of distances between borders to a depth?) and create something new. I mean something like y=x^2+ result_numbers or y=x^(result_numbers) + c or something like that . Would something like this have a basis, or how could something like this have a basis? I'm not talking about something specific.. I hope I can discuss with people who know more about these things in the forum.
that's seems a good source, thank you

you might find it interesting how i visualised the mandelbrot iteration, what is visualised there is the same how 3d fractals work, points are transformed until iteration limit is reached or bailout radius is escaped

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_oq4tszuU

very nice, i understand bailout radius, but not fully the tutorial..
good job with the audio visual panorama ;D that's the style
i will try to undestand

Yeah, playing with numbers is always fun.


Oh, then it's simple. Generally speaking, something new is always possible. The possibilities are infinite.

But, if you want to discuss, we need a topic. A subject. Something a bit specific, which could be as vague as a specific idea or abstract concept. But a general discussion on nothing specific seems close to impossible.

youhn i asked 3 questions,
one specific to understand something better, one general and one practical
you helped me with some of them if you can't help me anymore and you think there is no meaning in talking generally please don't answer.

i'm talking about playing with numbers indeed. I'm asking wich way of playing has a meaning. Any related observations/ theories?