...quote from
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?topic=4040.msg21503#new...
There's a confusing thing going on about the definition of fractals.
But as to everybody that wishes to make up their own definition of the term "fractal", that has gotten way out of control. Seems like everybody and their dog thinks they can call just about any image as "fractal" and get away with it.
I would rather stick with a definition closer to what Benoît B. Mandelbrot intentionally meant when he coined the word years ago.
Hey, my cat said it was a fractal!

j/k
Couldn't it be whatever actions lead to developing a fractal dimension near self-similar art be considered a fractal? Mandelbrot also said that the most interesting fractals have a chaotic attribute to them.
I'm somewhat frustrated by (present company excluded) mathematicians only explaining fractals in mathematical language. Then they say it can only be explained that way. As my friend who laughs at me when I try to learn the language of math, does. It's far beyond me some times.
I have a book that explains fractals in music and explains fractals by scanning images, shrinking them down, making x number of copies, placing them back on the scanner, shrinking down the same way, making the same number of copies, and then repeating the process the same way at least 3 more times. I get the idea of applying a pattern (idea) unto itself is a fractal. It creates self-similarity and dimensions of itself at many areas of itself, like my photoshop fractals and Matty's fractals. So my simpler understanding of what fractals are, is an idea, theme, or action made up of itself and refers to itself.
Now that is an equation right, but explained without the fancy numbers and symbols that take me forever to memorize and understand. Believe me I love math and the concepts of number theory and all of it, but it is taking me forever to understand and if ever catch up with the latest mathematical symbols and concepts.
I admit I made many mistakes in referring to a thing as a fractal when it isn't. Such as the Moire Effect and the Fibonacci Sequence. These are all things made up of itself but the chaotic aspect is not there. IFS is not necessarily chaotic either though, right? So this is where I get a little confused.
Okay, if I am wrong about all of this and the concept of fractals, can someone please make it clearer, because I really intend to learn it all. If only I had more time and more brain power.
I am currently reading: Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid by Hofstadter.
It's taking up all my free time to read it and research to understand it. Plus I'm going through Gleick's
Chaos, Madden's
Fractals in Music,
Chaos and Fractals: New Frontiers of Science, the famous Mandelbrot's book,
The Fractal Geometry of Nature, DVD teaching company lessons on Geometry, Algebra, Calculus, Trigonometry, Science.... etc...
I feel I have lost all highschool knowledge since 1996 and my BA degree was only music. Not one math class was taught at Cornish where I graduated (exactly how is that possible?). So when I worked on fractal music, due to boredom of only classical music and jazz, I decided to learn all I can.
Sorry for the long winded rant but I feel this is the only place where I can get support but yet, I feel out of place for not being up on my math skills. I can't hold a mathematical discussion here with anybody, because it's beyond me. Which is why I hardly respond to some comments that don't make any sense to me for fear I may make myself look stupid as I may have already.
Thanks all for doing such great work on applications and new ideas of fractals and 3D, 4D(That blows my mind), and perhaps maybe soon we will transcend beyond time. Time is the 4th dimension right?