Logo by AGUS - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Check out the originating "3d Mandelbulb" thread here
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. April 17, 2024, 01:02:39 AM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: New person, help+idea  (Read 344 times)
Description: Hello
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DakarV
Forums Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« on: November 05, 2016, 12:18:57 AM »

Hey guys

I was hoping people could help me understand and tell me if this idea has been done

Basically I was thinking about putting the mandelbrot into 3d,
My understanding is that the problem is complex numbers have 2 parts which translates well into 2 dimensions but not 3. So to try and replicate it we've tried to map two of the dimensions to either the real part or the imaginary, presumably trying every combination, adding, multimpling modulus average etc of two axis to make one part of the complex number.

So my question is why did spherical coordinates work, didn't they have to do a similar mapping of two parts to one and one to the other. Also which part is imaginary is it the radius or one/both of the angles, or one/two of the axis, what happens if you change these around? I know it only really works in higher dimensions so what about higher dimension versions of the methods I mentioned earlier?


Idea:

Anyway my idea was to try to represent two dimensions with one number, if you have a sphere start at a pole and wrap it up in a line in a spiral. The line will be infinitely long but we map it to the limits of the real or imaginary part of the fractal, then when we take some degree of accuracy the line has finite length and any point on the sphere can be represented by one number.

Similarly in cartesian you could have a 2d spiral on one plane for the real or imaginary. Or for simple maths do a grid shape so if we could do 10 d.p of accuracy each line on the grid could be 0.00001 so work out the volume covered first then the position down each line. Going from 0-1 a point in the middle 3/4 across would be 0.7500050000

Sorry my maths isn't good enough for the spirals unless you took each circumference to be the same but then motion around it wouldn't be linear, well my brain is hurting thinking about it.


Has this idea been done or does it just produce the same result as other methods? Sorry I'm not that good at maths hopefully I made myself clear.

Thanks
« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 02:13:02 AM by DakarV » Logged
DakarV
Forums Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2016, 01:27:20 AM »

Also as i heard complex number work in four dimensions you could do the opposite of this and convert one axis/number into two doing the reverse of this transformation

« Last Edit: November 05, 2016, 02:13:35 AM by DakarV » Logged
DakarV
Forums Newbie
*
Posts: 5


« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2016, 11:57:55 PM »

What do people think, I'm liking the idea the more i think about it

The problem with conventional methods is you end up multiplying or adding axis which maps the same number the multiple joining points, here each value is only present in one location. If we think about the grid version in cartesian each point on the plane will be a point on a line section of the normal version. I was worried moving in one direction changes the value a lot more that the other but it will be like moving alone the line at different scales. If every line in each direction works then the composite should look ok right?

Then the other part of the complex number can be taken as z or you could even do the same thing and give it as a function of z and x or z and y


Could someone test this out for me I did the maths for vertical lines running in the same direction
I was thinking we would map the imaginary part as it has symmetry

a + b i

b = ( ( ( (((Ymax-Ymin) x ((X-ΔX)-Xmin)) / ((Ymax-Ymin)x(Xmax-Xmin))) + (ΔX((Y-Ymin) / (Ymax-Ymix))) ) x (imax – imin) ) -imax )

imax is how much of the imaginary part we want to plot , it should be at the boundary for the Mandelbrot set or just above it, around 1.12?
The other max and min values are arbitrary, we should choose values that will correspond to the z values

I was thinking of doing it between 1 and -1 on both axis as it's similar to the limit of the imaginary and it makes the formula easy

It becomes:

b = ( ( ( ((X-ΔX)/2 +0.5) + (ΔX(Y/2 + 0.5)) ) x (imax-imin) ) -imax )
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Any idea how this is done? Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) _db_ 2 1735 Last post February 05, 2008, 02:09:34 AM
by _db_
A different 3d mandelbrot idea Meet & Greet Tglad 5 2342 Last post January 06, 2010, 05:52:00 PM
by Nahee_Enterprises
Yet another new person Meet & Greet Derakon 8 1273 Last post January 06, 2010, 04:20:45 PM
by Nahee_Enterprises
Competition Idea Discuss Fractal Forums « 1 2 3 » jwm-art 40 7461 Last post March 18, 2010, 07:17:20 PM
by kram1032
That particular idea Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) Dinkydau 0 762 Last post April 09, 2012, 06:53:04 AM
by Dinkydau

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.145 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.007s, 2q)