Jump to content

Talk:Mandelbrot set: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Mandelbrot set/Archive 3) (bot
Line 67: Line 67:
Thanks, but I suppose I was being sarcastic that the article effectively has no detailed pictures of the set at all. Maybe it should be retitled. [[User:Davidnugget|Davidnugget]] ([[User talk:Davidnugget|talk]]) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I suppose I was being sarcastic that the article effectively has no detailed pictures of the set at all. Maybe it should be retitled. [[User:Davidnugget|Davidnugget]] ([[User talk:Davidnugget|talk]]) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
:The set itself is clearly visible in many (but not all) of the images in the article, including some of finely detailed regions and some that are purely monochrome. Perhaps as well as being sarcastic you are exaggerating for effect? Perhaps it would be more effective to make constructive suggestions for improvement rather than oblique and veiled criticism? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
:The set itself is clearly visible in many (but not all) of the images in the article, including some of finely detailed regions and some that are purely monochrome. Perhaps as well as being sarcastic you are exaggerating for effect? Perhaps it would be more effective to make constructive suggestions for improvement rather than oblique and veiled criticism? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Come off it, the set is hardly "clearly" visible in any of the complicated pictures where the set itself is very wispy. The constructive suggestion is that it would be worthwhile to include a few of just the set itself in the outlying regions. [[User:Davidnugget|Davidnugget]] ([[User talk:Davidnugget|talk]]) 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:37, 11 January 2018

Former good article nomineeMandelbrot set was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mandelbrot set. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot zoom sequence
A zoom sequence illustrating the set of complex numbers termed the Mandelbrot set. Images of the set, which was defined and named by Adrien Douady in tribute to the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot, may be created by sampling the complex numbers and determining whether the result of iterating for each sample point goes to infinity. Images exhibit an elaborate and infinitely complicated boundary that reveals progressively ever-finer recursive detail at increasing magnifications. Consequently, the Mandelbrot set has become popular outside mathematics both for its aesthetic appeal and as an example of a complex structure arising from the application of simple rules.Animation: Simpsons contributor
Its lovely, a great example of infinity visualised. Would the addition of one more link be inappropriate? I wanted to suggest changing the text from created to generated and adding the link to Fractal-generating software. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelbrot Curves in Desmos

In case anyone finds this useful, I have plotted the first few Mandelbrot curves on the website Desmos. -- Denelson83 04:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False statement removed from an image caption

The following picture under the tile 'Relationship with Julia sets' has had the following label: 'A zoom into the Mandelbrot set illustrating a Julia "island" and the corresponding Julia set of the form , in which c is the center of the Mandelbrot set zoom-in'

This statement is false. Obviously so, in fact, as the Julia island is surrounded by projections which are characteristic of the right side of Seahorse Valley, while the Julia set is generated from the left side of the valley. The creator of the picture, Simpsons contributor, only mentions that the Julia set 'corresponds' to the Julia island in the picture above it, which is centered at -0.743643887037151 + 0.131825904205330i. He makes no claim that it is generated from its center point.

The anon that originally edited it out was right, the Julia set at -0.743643887037151 + 0.131825904205330i truly is connected, and looks like the image below.

Julia Set at -0.743643887037151 + 0.131825904205330i

Please do not revert the page back to the false statement again.

Starprizm (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

uncoloured pictures showing the set .

Is there a corresponding collection somewhere of uncoloured pictures? I would like to be able to see what the set itself looks like! Davidnugget (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically, but if you follow the "commons" link at the bottom of the article you will find some mixed among the colored ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I suppose I was being sarcastic that the article effectively has no detailed pictures of the set at all. Maybe it should be retitled. Davidnugget (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The set itself is clearly visible in many (but not all) of the images in the article, including some of finely detailed regions and some that are purely monochrome. Perhaps as well as being sarcastic you are exaggerating for effect? Perhaps it would be more effective to make constructive suggestions for improvement rather than oblique and veiled criticism? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, the set is hardly "clearly" visible in any of the complicated pictures where the set itself is very wispy. The constructive suggestion is that it would be worthwhile to include a few of just the set itself in the outlying regions. Davidnugget (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]