Logo by Tglad - 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: Visit us on facebook
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. April 20, 2024, 04:19:01 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: What about the "dust"?  (Read 1868 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
KRAFTWERK
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 1439


Virtual Surreality


WWW
« on: December 18, 2009, 09:44:33 AM »

I am a real layman, both in mathematics and rendering/programming, I didn´t even know the difference between Pi and Phi until yesterday...
http://www.fractalforums.com/mandelbulb-renderings/degree-and960-mandelbulb/   sad
I am just an amazed explorer of this new world you found (must have been a thrilling journey for you...) therefore I ask the stupid questions... smiley

Could the dust that appears when you do a lot of iterations in reality be the true mandelbulb details you are looking for?

Daniel White has two interesting examples of "dust" becoming details on his site:
http://www.skytopia.com/project/fractal/mandelbulb.html




Imagine Benoit Mandelbrot:

The first attempt gave a lot of "dust" around the set, but if I do fewer iterations it looks much nicer:


Am I too far out here? Newbee and layman and all... smiley

(May I propose a Philosophy-part in this forum, to prevent me and other laymen from polluting the Theory part? I sure have a lot of wonderings about this.)
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 11:49:47 AM by KRAFTWERK » Logged

oftakofta
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2009, 11:53:08 AM »


Quote
(May I propose a Philosophy-part in this forum, to prevent me and other laymen from poisoning the Theory part? I sure have a lot of wonderings about this.)

I concur, a philosophy part would be a great addition to this forum.

As far as I understand the logical foundations of mathematics, as outlined in Principia Mathematica, self-reference (and thereby paradoxes) is avoided by having a hierarchical structure of statements. That is, until Gödels incompleteness theorems proved otherwise. Douglas Hofstadter discusses this at length in his books "I am a Strange Loop" and "Gödel, Escher, Bach". These books are good if you have some basic philosophy training and can stand the pompous writing style of the author. No mathematics above high school level is needed to follow the arguments.

Having said that, I am still convinced that mathematics is the only way to truly communicate objective truths about the nature of nature between pepole. It is just that it becomes a little strange when self-reference and infinities are involved.

Sorry for drifting off topic.
Logged
kram1032
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 1863


« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2009, 04:46:23 PM »

Though it gets really interesting when maths in physics proof that subjectivity is an objective fact of nature.
That's differently expressed in two theories which are searched to be unified smiley

Theory of relativity and Quantum mechanics smiley
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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 0.166 seconds with 29 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.008s, 2q)