Logo by Dinkydau - 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. March 28, 2024, 12:19:57 PM


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: A simpler way to define Mandelbrot sets?  (Read 1223 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« on: March 01, 2010, 09:42:58 AM »

In fact this might not be a new way for a lot of people, but anyway...

Many-valued algebra (http://www.springerlink.com/content/lq53075471u24w50/) is the simple idea that you can consider a set of numbers to be a single many-valued quantity. For example the solution to x^2 = 4 is the quantity {-2, 2}.
Anyway, this leads to the definition for a Julia set:

A Julia set is the solution to z^2 + c = z.
It is the many-valued quantity that satisfies this equation.

This definition avoids the technical details of iterating infinitely many times, in fact it doesn't imply how you should arrive at the value at all, just states its basic property.
Just like sqrt(3) doesn't mention whether you iterate or not to find the result, it really is just a rearrangement of- the solution to x^2 = 3.

To make a similar definition for the Mandelbrot set requires knowing about a feature of many-valued quantities, you can have two sorts of equality. Normal equality {-1,1} = {1,-1} and (what I call) identity {-1,1}=={-1,1}. Identity is used to operate on the same indices of each many-value quantity. For example, if z = {-1,1}, then z + z = {-2,0,2}, that is how many-valued quantities sum. But if two zs in that equation are identical then z + z = {-2,2}. If we indicate identical quantities by suffixing a number, this makes it clearer. z1+z1 = {-2,2}, but z1+z1+z = {-3,-1,1,3}.
With this in mind you can define the Mandelbrot set as:

The Mandelbrot set is the solution to z1^2 + z1 = z
The quantity such that applying z^2+z to each element returns the quantity z.
Logged
Schlega
Navigator
*****
Posts: 63


« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2010, 03:26:56 AM »

I might be misunderstanding you, but I don't think this definition works. For example, if z is the entire complex plane, the equation will be satisfied. Other solutions are the nonnegative reals and {0}. I think the set of all points with periodic orbits would also work.

To fix it, I would say let zi be a bounded set satisfying zi12+zi1=zi, where i is a member of an arbitrary indexing set. The mandelbrot set would be the union of all zi.
Logged
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2010, 05:19:55 AM »

I think you have to exclude the full complex plane as an answer (or alternately you could consider there to be two solutions, the full plane and the answer of interest).
Taking a real number analogy, if you make the equation x = 2*(x - 1), the obvious answer is x = 2.
Using many-valued algebra there are two answers to this, the value 2 and the set of all real numbers {R}. Since the 'full' set is a valid answer to most equations I think it can be considered the non-interesting solution and put aside by default in most situations.
Perhaps a clearer way to define it is to have a class of many-valued quantities which are bounded subsets of complex plane, call them B. We then require a solution within this class of numbers.
The other point you bring up is whether subsets of the mandelbrot/julia are valid solutions. By analogy, if we ask what is the solution to cos(x) = 1, then you could say 0, or {0, 2pi} or {0, 4pi, 78pi}. I think that the non-arbitrary answer is to give the full set of results- x = {n*2pi for all integer n}. The question has not constrained which answer it should be so the full set of answers is sensible. Equally, if I ask you to draw abs(x)<2 on the real axis I would expect you to draw a line between -2 and 2, without leaving arbitrary gaps.

I realised after posting that the formula I gave was wrong for the mandelbrot since mandelbrot iterations go outside the mandelbrot (but the julia set equation is correct).
Perhaps better is, the set of points c such that

z^2 + c = z   (for some many-value quantity z in B)
c element of z
Logged
Nahee_Enterprises
World Renowned
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2250


use email to contact


nahee_enterprises Nahee.Enterprises NaheeEnterprise
WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2010, 05:37:15 AM »

I realised after posting that the formula I gave was wrong for the mandelbrot
since mandelbrot iterations go outside the mandelbrot... 

Interesting!!!  A whole week goes by since the posting and you did not bother to Modify it to correct the wrong formula.     cheesy    wink    evil
Logged

Timeroot
Fractal Fertilizer
*****
Posts: 362


The pwnge.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2010, 06:09:30 AM »

I think the formal definition of the Julia Set is pretty much just that. Except it says to exclude all fixed points. It's incorrect to state that the nonnegative reals satisfy this, because if c=i it will immediately map to something else. Also, 0 is almost never a solution, because 0^2+c=0 if and only if c=0.

I think the correct way to state it would be, "The Julia Set Jc is the set of all solutions to the equation z^2+c=z such that for no z1 and value of n does (z1^2+c)n=z1." (Here the n denotes iteration.)

No, that's actually not correct, because a Julia set also includes unstable fixed points... but this is still "almost correct", in the sense that only a finite (I think?) number of the points are included. And even if there are infinite points excluded, they have a smaller cardinality than the Julia set.

Of course, there are some Julia sets for other functions which, under the formal definition, fill the entire complex plane. Our computers don't treat them that way, though, so we get the meaningless pretty pictures  embarrass
Logged

Someday, man will understand primary theory; how every aspect of our universe has come about. Then we will describe all of physics, build a complete understanding of genetic engineering, catalog all planets, and find intelligent life. And then we'll just puzzle over fractals for eternity.
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 09, 2010, 06:38:22 AM »

Nahee, I don't respond to rudely worded comments. Improve your attitude please.

Schlega, also do take this stuff with a pinch of salt (I'm no expert you see!). I'm thinking out loud really, its sort of an interesting problem to try and find the simplest definition for the mandelbrot, given that it is so unique.

Timeroot, I guess a different way to explain a julia set which is probably the very easiest, is that a julia set is a shape which when squared results in the same shape.
Logged
Timeroot
Fractal Fertilizer
*****
Posts: 362


The pwnge.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2010, 07:35:22 AM »

Except that could also include any number of basins of attraction of the Fatou Set. The formal Julia set is one set satisfying that. The filled Julia Set is another. So is the complex plane. So is everything but the Julia Set...  evil Math is evil! Muahaha!
Logged

Someday, man will understand primary theory; how every aspect of our universe has come about. Then we will describe all of physics, build a complete understanding of genetic engineering, catalog all planets, and find intelligent life. And then we'll just puzzle over fractals for eternity.
Schlega
Navigator
*****
Posts: 63


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2010, 11:03:12 AM »

I'm not an expert, either (I didn't even realize that iterations go outside the mandelbrot set). It is an interesting problem, though.

I've been playing with mandelbrot polynomials, and I think I found a definition that doesn't involve iterations, but is computationally impractical. It's the set of all z such that $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(2n)!}{(n+1)!n!} z^{n+1}$$does not diverge to infinity.


Nevermind. That doesn't work either.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2010, 11:09:31 AM by Schlega » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Virtual investigation to Mandelbrot sets and Julia sets Mandelbrot & Julia Set Jules Ruis 0 5722 Last post October 19, 2006, 06:36:54 PM
by Jules Ruis
how would you define a path along mandelbrot border ? General Discussion « 1 2 » cKleinhuis 24 6620 Last post February 28, 2012, 09:30:41 AM
by asimes
new reveales at Cubic Mandelbrot sets Mandelbrot & Julia Set hgjf2 2 2466 Last post February 02, 2014, 09:10:25 AM
by hgjf2
Coupled Mandelbrot Sets (CMS) Mandelbrot & Julia Set « 1 2 3 » bkercso 33 16539 Last post August 27, 2016, 08:31:57 PM
by claude
Mandelbrot-like sets with normal mandelbrot minibrots Mandelbrot & Julia Set TheRedshiftRider 2 5207 Last post August 01, 2016, 05:38:34 PM
by claude

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 0.182 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.009s, 2q)