Talk:Fractal

Template:WP1.0

Suggestion

Hopefully this can offer an eventual merge? Sr13 05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Adding a reference for item 34 on the achieved talk page (page2). A reference from the Nexus Journal: Daniele Capo, The Fractal Nature of the Architectural Orders. [1] Nikhil Varma 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Adding a link to www.fractalguide.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.192.192 (talk • contribs).

I have recently developed a web based fractal viewer. Does anyone think a link to the viewer on the fractal pagewoulds be useful. http://www.webmandel.com is where it can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.137.1 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL. A new link is not necessary.TheRingess (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.137.1 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that would rule out that link in WP:EL, in fact items 3 and 4 of what should be included fit the given site well, and it passes all tests of what not to include. EL is also a style guide, not a strict policy. All that said, I don't like the link simply because of the ugly layout and palette used. Fix that up, and the site would make a great addition to this page. Nazlfrag (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

image

I have an image of a real-life fractal. It's from the glass door on a wood-burning stove. The charring on the glass flakes off in a fractal pattern. It's not a great picture, but it is a great example of fractal behavior in a physical process. Does anyone think it would help to contribute it to the article (and to the Commons)? --Cheeser1 07:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Colloquial usage"

What exactly does the lead sentence mean by "In colloquial usage, a fractal is..."? How is "fractal" a colloquialism? See also colloquial. If the definition is wrong, fix the definition, don't label it a colloquialism. If the definition is correct (albeit rough or vague), then it's fine as-is (minus "colloquial"). --Cheeser1 06:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The point that "colloquial" is trying to make is that what follows is not a mathematically precise definition of a fractal, because it is too vague. "Colloquial" is a flag to say "please don't pick holes in this definition, we know it is not exact". Unfortunately, we cannot put in a mathematically precise definition because there isn't one (AFAIK). Every attempt that I have seen at a precise definition either excludes objects that are generally agreed to be fractals, or includes objects that are generally agreed not to be fractals. But maybe "colloquial" is not the right term here - would "informal" be better ? Gandalf61 08:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one precise definition of "integral" either. A better example, take "chaos." How about this:

A fractal is generally "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be subdivided in parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole," a property called self-similarity. The term was coined by Benoît Mandelbrot in 1975 and was derived from the Latin fractus meaning "broken" or "fractured".

Does that sound better? I'd also probably want to change "A fractal as a geometric object generally has the following features" to simply "A fractal often has the following features." You think that works? --Cheeser1 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So long as it remains clear that the term has no really precise mathematical definition (Well, in fact it does: a fractal set has non-integer dimension!) But the point is that it has a more widely understood vernacular meaning (which is arguably much more important)--C G Strauss 21:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the "non-integer Hausdorff dimension" definition does not work, because it excludes objects such as the Smith-Volterra-Cantor set (dimension=1) and Peano curves (dimension=2), which are generally considered to be fractals. See List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension for more examples of fractals with integer Hausdorff dimension. Gandalf61 08:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think the imprecise definition is actually quite appropriate, given the different uses of the term to describe what are similar (if not precisely the same) phenomena. --Cheeser1 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For a formal definition of a fractal, what about a set whose Hausdorff dimension differs from it's topological (Lebesgue covering) dimension? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.209.115 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's one of the properties that a fractal can have. I don't know if there are counter-examples. Actually, the page states that "It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve)". I think that the text between parentheses is mathematically wrong, since the Hilbert curve as a topological dimension of 1 (being a curve) and an Hausdorff dimension of 2. Maybe it remains from an earlier version, where it was only stated that a fractal has a non-integer Hausdorff dimension? -- Clément Pillias (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Links

• XaoS — One of the fastest fractal generators.

And in general, how about Comparison of fractal software — lim 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a place for software comparisons, unless the comparison is, you know, notable (e.g. the article Windows Vista might include comparisons to its predecessors). I don't think we're in the habit of (basically) reviewing/rating software/games/etc. --Cheeser1 19:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about something like this: Comparison of container formats, Comparison of audio codecs, Comparison of SSH clients — lim 10:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What is about making a list of fractal softwares and small descriptions with how to download, and use them.

Vishvax 06:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

See this guideline, which explains what I mean when I say that you can't use the existence of one article to justify the existence of another. I see no reason to make such an article, especially since "fractal software" and the features that define such software are poorly-defined. It's not like an audio codec, which can be compared in some more objective/encyclopedic ways. --Cheeser1 21:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fractal Geometry at Yale - This is Mandelbrot's definitive online resource on the subject. It is probably reasonable to treat it as being in a category of own with regard to relevant links. --Hjb (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)hjb

• I know that placing a long list links to fractal generators is discouraged here but I think that the community would benefit from a few good viewers/generators as long as they are vetted by the coordinators. I would like to propose one: http://ladimolnar.com/Fractalia/ BTW, I agree with the fact that a few links like http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/ should also appear here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.167 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fractal-generating software

In the history of this article, a comprehensive list of fractal-generating software is buried. Based on this list, a dedicated article for the list of such software could be created.

See the revision of the article, after which the list of fractral-generating software was removed by the courageous User:Salix alba.

Above, an objection has been raised that "fractal-generating software" is a poorly defined category. I cannot confirm such a statement. To begin with, any program that generates a Mandelbrot set, Julia set, of IFS is a fractal-generating software. Put differently, to the extent to which the term "fractal" is defined, the term "fractal-generating software" is defined too.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe that if you really want these links you can probably put them on your user page and reference this fractal page, otherwise I would suggest compiling a list somewhere outside wiki.
Wyvern917 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

verry little math

Altough most Wiki pages about math subjects are unreadable because of the nathlanguage used. This article contains no formula at al. Well that's great its a good read. But perhaps a little bit about the mathematics behind fractals just at a level one can create his own basic version fractal would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have included a small article about how I recently discovered how to hand draw fractals of anything. I left links showing where to go to see a demonstration. I would like to download a step by step process (in diagrams and an explanation) in which I can show any one (with out using complicated equations), how to hand draw a fractal of any shape. Any help that you could give on how I can download images would be great.--JASONQUANTUM1 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree about putting more math in this article, I am a student of mathematics and find fractals very interesting. I would really like to know about the math behind a fractal.

Missing from the article seems to be the information that the Koch snowflake is actually Three Koch curves fitted together. Also the Fractal Dimension is on a separate page from the main article. I would say that the importance of fractals comes into play when we try to fit Euclidian geometry onto shapes that are far from Euclidian in nature. Because these shapes are so complex we need to study them in different ways from the Euclidian shapes. Just as there are Euclidian like shapes in nature also we find Fractal like shapes and Euclidian geometry will not help us to understand them. Richardjames13 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that there definitely could be some more maths in this article. For example, are there equations to represent fractals? Or to find their area?My 2 Cents' Worth (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest just borrow stuff from BM "The Fractal Geometry of Nature", there's plenty of math there to drawn from. --Lbertolotti (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

CD picture of "fractal" referenced to number 7

didn't find any mention in the source that microwaved CD's or DVD's exhibit fractal features. did you find any mention of that? --Kirils (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fractal software mention

I believe it is necessary to mention fractal generators. A person who knows little about fractals will be none the wiser after reading the four methods of making fractals. What a newcomer most likely wants to know is how fractals are made in practise, rather than in theory.

Further, I think that a short article on fractal generators is appropriate, and I have begun work on this.

If there are good reasons why this is unnecessary or inappropriate then please add them here, rather than just deleting. Soler97 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I do still object to its inclusion. Mostly on the grounds that it is so obvious of an observation as to be meaningless. No one writes their own fractal programs or uses the mathematics to draw their own fractals. Of course everyone uses a fractal generator. This section merely presents the mathematics that those fractal generators use. If it isn't made clear earlier that most people use generators then it could be, but the sentence does not belong in a section discussing the algorithms, in my opinion.TheRingess (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you object if I put the same sentence at the end of the introductory section? In my experience, the obvious should be pointed out, especially to people who have no knowldege of fractals and very little of computers. It may be obvious to you and me, but people routinely ask me "How are fractals made?" These people are satisfied with the answer, "using a program". An encyclopedia article should presume the absolute minimum of knowledge on the topic in question.

Also, do you object to the addition of a short article on fractal generators? Soler97 (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fractal program on NOVA

NOVA recently aired a television program on fractals. (the full video of which is available to be viewed online, as well as other things pertaining to fractals) Perhaps the link should be mentioned in the External links section? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fractals/ Cardsplayer4life (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Nova presentation "Mysteriously beautiful fractals are shaking up the world of mathematics and deepening our understanding of nature" adds an additional dimension to the discussion. It brings to life many of the individuals who pioneered this form of geometry as well as brings to life practical application of the mathematics. I disagree that Wikipedia should limit the "Amount of Links" on a issue. The Nova presentation can also be embedded.

<object width = "512" height = "328" > <param name = "movie" value = "http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" > </param><param name="flashvars" value="video=1050932219&player=viral&chapter=1" /> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param > <param name = "allowscriptaccess" value = "always" > </param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param ><embed src="http://www-tc.pbs.org/video/media/swf/PBSPlayer.swf" flashvars="video=1050932219&player=viral&chapter=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="512" height="328" bgcolor="#000000"></embed></object>

Watch the <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1050932219" target="_blank">full episode</a>. See more <a style="text-decoration:none !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#4eb2fe !important;" href="http://www.pbs.org/nova" target="_blank">NOVA.</a>

More Examples from Nature

I wonder if anyone thinks it worthy of mention in the "In Nature" list of examples that gecko toes and feathers are fractal in structure? Pammalamma (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly you could mention these examples if you have a reliable source for both of them. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Picture collection of natural fractals

Hilbert Curve

It has a Hausdorff dimension which is greater than its topological dimension (although this requirement is not met by space-filling curves such as the Hilbert curve). As far as I know Hilbert Curve has Haussdorf dimension=2 and topological dimension=1. Is that correct ? Lbertolotti 8 febb

No, the Hilbert curve (i.e. the image of the Hilbert map in R²) has a topological dimension of 2, equal to its Hausdorff dimension. I checked this at the Mathematics Reference Desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

nonfractals?

by the definition given in this article, the last five images, interesting as they are, are not fractals. why are they in this article?· Lygophile has spoken 15:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could expand on that a little. Which specific images do you mean ? Why exactly do you think they are not fractals ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

well, the very last five images in the article. the "poenix set" seems to merely contain a bunch of spirals (which are inherently perferct fractals), so i don't think that's really notable as a fractal image (but you don't get to see much of it). the "Pascal generated fractal" and the "fractal flame" are a in essence bunch of lines. if you zoom in, the lines get thicker and less curly, and it doesn't resemble itself in different zoom-scales. the Sterling fractal uses overlapping copies of an image, like a bunch of fractals do, but in contrast with those fractals, these images are not ordered in a way, that they collectively resemble that image, nor does that image have parts that resemble that image. it's basically the same for the julian one.· Lygophile has spoken 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to "zooming in", those images are just screen-shots of images created by fractal generating software programs. When you "zoom in" on the image, you are just expanding pixels - you cannot "zoom in" to show more detail. You seem to be expecting to "zoom in" in the image as if you were using the fractal generating program itself - that is just not possible. With regard to having "parts that resemble that image", I think you are talking about the property of self-similarity. That property can be quite difficult to determine from a single image - just because an image does not have any visually obvious self-similarities does not mean that it is not a fractal. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Aros

I would like to add this to External links. It is freeware. It is an excellent and simple mandelbrot generator/zoomer.

Aros Magic

Any thoughts? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Generation / Beginner's Help

I want to add, for anyone who does not understand this topic, that a FRACTAL IS:

The 'SET' (look up Mathematical sets) of all the Points, on the COMPLEX PLANE (look up complex numbers) which when iterated through a fractal equation, does NOT escape to infinity. (For example, the Mandelbrot is , z(n+1) = z(n)*z(n) + c Where 'c' is the point you are testing......).

If this is any help, please say so!

74.199.8.90 (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that is not helpful. The sets you describe are only one example of fractals. The definition in the article is good.--seberle (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking I meant more of a specific ALGORITHM explanation, how to actually visually generate a fractal. Mostly, because this does not exist in articles about specific fractals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.8.90 (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fractals are not necessarily in the complex plane, or complex hyperspace for that matter. The escape to infinity test applies to Julia and Mandelbrot sets, but not much else. By that definition, clouds, mountains, and coastlines aren't fractal; there are many other real-plane and real-space examples. The formal definition is usually given as "a set of points whose Hausdorff-Besicovich dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension," but that excludes the Hilbert curve so it's all kind of up in the air.

There are many algorithms that generate fractals and new ones are invented all the time. It's easy to cite any particular one, but the algorithm to use depends on what you want to see. Most are amazingly simple -- the core of a Mandelbrot set generator is perhaps three lines of C++ -- and that's part of the beauty. The wikipedia is full of generation algorithms, simply search for what you want. Diffusion limited aggregation and the Sierpinski triangle are good places to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.219.227.172 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Featured article again?

Now that the article has references and has been improved in various ways, perhaps we should reclassify it as a "featured article" again? Soler97 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article would have to go through the featured article review process first - see WP:FAC for details. Getting an article successfully passed to FA status often involves a lot of work - take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Euclidean algorithm/archive1 for a fairly recent example. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This article would have problems with GAN, since there are entire unreferenced sections. They have all been tagged, so you can easily identify them. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Self similar?

Not all fractal sets are self similar, some are only self affine. (see for example Faloner's "Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications".Wilmot1 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The concept of self-similarity includes self affine transformations. The "similariies" in self-similarity can be more general than geometric similarities. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Links to other topics

I've linked the text concerning Fractal Art and Fractal Music to their associated articles in the "Applications" section. However this means that Fractal Art is now linked to in three places: in it's own "In Creative Works" section, in the "Applications" section and in the "See Also" section. Surely only one location is necessary? I propose to remove the link from the latter two sections. FatPope (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No immediate objections so I've gone ahead with this change FatPope (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticalmess (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC) History of Mandelbrot fractal Think this might be useful for putting fractals and their history in perspective - http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/MandelSet/MandelMonk/MandelMonk.html Apparently, the first occurence of a calculated fractal is earlier than thought. Should this be incorporated somehow? Before editing the article, thought I'd talk this through with the editors here?

Seriously? That was an April Fool's joke. Look it up.TheRingess (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticalmess (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Ah indeed - my bad -- saw it referenced elsewhere, and no April 1st date was listed. My apologies - nice catch! Nice example of iterated function system animation, trough not for an article: IFS fractal 1 Edo 555 (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Naturally occurring

The romanesco broccoli is not really "naturally occurring" because this vegetable is a product of artificial selection (it is a cultivar of some Brassica species). I'd change it to just natural fractal but that sounds like some mathematical term. And it's such a minutial thing anyway. --137.146.170.254 (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well you're right, of course, but I think that's being just a little bit pedantic. Sometimes we can get so wrapped up in being technically correct that we forget we're supposed to be presenting a point to a reader. I'd leave it the way it is. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fractal mountains rarely look like real mountains to an experienced geologist or alpinist. Algorithms based on accretion create objects that look like sand piles colored to resemble mountains superficially. I dare say it could be done better if the algorithms paid attention to layers of different hardness and the relative contribution of erosion and different fracture processes. 86.150.232.81 (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

External link

Benoît Mandelbrot: from cauliflowers to cosmic secrets

biology

This looks interesting:

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5037/version/1/files/npre20105037-1.pdf

(arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1010.4328 )

69.111.192.233 (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bringing the article up to "code"

This article has fallen off a long way grade-wise over the years, due to increasing standards within wikipedia. Galleries have been verboten on wikipedia for years now, because they are an example of what wikipedia is not. I assigned as many images as I could on the right, per wikipedia standards. This article now has a lead, and I added a few more references. The unreferenced sections are tagged as such. I think I found many of the instances of multiple same wikilinks. Keep in mind that if this article is ever going to pass GAN, let alone FAC, that it needs to be very well referenced, with wikilinks only at the first occurrence of terms within the article. It also needs to be comprehensible to the lay reader, which this article is not at the present time. I'm a scientist and I'm having problems understanding the text. This is the oldest article I've encountered yet on wikipedia, and the most edited, so it would be worthwhile to at least get this article up to Good Article status. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How about zooming out?

Fractals always appear to involve zooming in. But how about zooming out? Are there examples of mathematical fractals that can be zoomed in and out infinitely whilst remaining self-similar? Are these still called fractals, or do they have a special name? Greetings Heinzzweinsteiger (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fractal architecture

A very nice and early (1928-32) example of "fractal architecture" is the Thiepval Memorial in France by Arch. Sir Edwin Lutyens(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thiepval.jpg). I think this should be added to the "arts section". My english is not good enough to add it myself. 94.110.95.43 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is there a reliable source that actually refers to this as "fractal architecture" ? Is there any evidence that Lutyens was influenced or inspired by fractals when he designed this memorial ? Gandalf61 (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ghastly definition

Does the main definition seem poor to anyone else? >> "a rough or fragmented geometric shape that can be split into parts, each of which is (at least approximately) a reduced-size copy of the whole". This is a horrible definition, imo, firstly, because it references someone else's quote exactly, whereas a fractal means many different things to many people. A W article should be smarter than mindless parotting someone else's exact definition.(?).. Secondly, it's just plain dead wrong.

Let's say I have a circle filled with various colors, and I divide this into four even quadrants. Now I have four pictures resembling pieces of pie, none of which are a "copy" of a circle, not even approximately. They're a picture of a portion of the image, that's all, which would be saying like the front legs of a horse are a copy of the picture of a horse. If go further with this circle division, you're going to get pieces that are 100% solid colors, all of them non sequitur to each other (a picture of all blue, a picture of all yellow, a picture involving green and purple, etc.), just like they're non sequitur to all the little pieces photographing the edges of the circle. Some will be open space and have no color or curvature at all.

Now, if this circle shape is really a fractal, we're generally going to see lots of self-similiarities as we go deeper; we may see very similar "copies" to our original picture, yes, but there are still all those other pieces that are not copies. In fact, there are some cases we won't even see anything like the original shape, a circle created by a jagged triangular outline. So there cases where NO parts, not even one, is a "copy" of the original image, even if you assume that "split into parts" is just talking about taking particular portions, not dividing the image in such a way where every piece left over is also supposed to be a copy.

Further, a fractal isn't necessarily "rough" or "fragmented", given fractals are used in art to create flowing, fluid shapes, that not only utilize fractals, but of which the end result is quite definitively called a fractal. Being a mathematical-oriented definition, this doesn't cover the elegant fractals that have "evolved" in a sense from the basic math. (Not that they're "better" fractals, but they're certainly properly categorized as fractals.) "Fractal" is a very widely used adjective, used to describe end results only even partially based on the root mathematical core, which is sometimes just a tool or "paintbrush" of sorts. Artistic images properly labeled "fractals" may have no resemblance to their strict mathematical origin. Hence, even "shape" in this definition is incorrect in these cases, as these fractals are pictures, not just shapes.

I could go on, but I'm already exhausted. It's just plain horrid. Not my personal "original research" horrid. It's just plain strictly, verifiably horrid. Squish7 (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of this disucssion page?

I'm fed up with people robotically removing things they don't like or that they feel doesn't meet guidelines, whether right or not, with an infinitesimal tag of explanation. This isn't my job. I don't get paid to do this. Entirely undoing something here without a word is like running up to someone writing a nonprofit letter to charity they spent five hours on because the paragraphs were formatted poorly, then walking away saying nothing but "F--- you". That's literally exactly how I feel. How much further do I have to go to investigate ahead of time than taking a chunk of my personal time to thoroughly and exhaustively write out my concerns on a "discussion" page, then waiting over a half-month for no one to answer. Obviously I'm going to try to alter the page to the best of my ability and knowledge if that's all I have. What--is--the--point of a "discussion" page if I can't post my concerns and get a response in half a month... what other processes could I possibly follow before trying to post what I think should be changed.

Experienced people here run to a change like a sudden forest fire, and ignore the kids nagging you on a consistent basis for proper campfire preparation instructions. If you're going to "watch" a page like a vulture, then why not "watch" the discussion page and actually bother helping or discussing something to provide instruction to someone who would like to change something but has questions about it. It's I live in FEAR around here. It's like a horror movie. when someone does this it's like they're literally walking up to my face and spitting in it.

I wrote the section "Ghastly definition" above. I thoughtfully, thoroughly expressed a concern about the page in a proper place. No one responded for 16 days so I just did the best I could to make the change. It gets ripped down in practically nanoseconds for being a "POV essay", when I thought I'd written the most NPOV and Wikipedia-friendly thing I've ever written. Assuming I'm wrong, why not suggest improvements, or god forbid click the secret button to discover where I actually asked the question 16 days ago, and respond to that with suggestions. This just shouldn't even be ALLOWED. If you're going to "vulture" an article, you should be required to "vulture" the discussion page.

I'm sorry for expressing my anger around anyone to whom it doesn't apply, but you can't imagine what it's like to have a level of ADHD where it can take you half a DAY to write one long email or a couple paragraphs of an article or essay. If I take my time to viciously adhere to the rules and guidelines as well as I'm able and as far as I know them, I'm sure as hell gonna be infuriated if that nonprofit time I'm taking of my own life is spat on in ways I'm too tired to even describe anymore.

Would someone please tell me how you're supposed to reach a consensus around here? If my alteration just now was a "POV essay", then how does anybody go about editing anything unless there's a reference number after every..single...word in every article. What I wrote was very general. How do you provide references for statements like "widely used across science and art"? In retrospect, after realizing afterwards that there was a page specifically for fractal art, distinguishing "fractal" from "fractal art", my concern and edit would have been different, but that's still something that someone could have explained weeks ago when I went through my concerns thoroughly.

Minus my previous concerns that there weren't any explanation of fractal art around here, my criticism of the main definition still stands. My paragraph still stands as a suggestion preface, though I don't know how it could possibly be edited or modified or improved, without someone editing or modifying or improving it... Squish7 (talk) 10:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

For reference, this was the paragraph I added at the start of the article that got removed: "The term fractal is of strictly mathematical origin, yet as computer processing speeds increase and allow greater resolutions and exploration, the term continues to expand and shift in meaning, branching into, or even creating, entire applications not originally foreseen. The term has been used in regards to many various corners of science and art (e.g. geometry, probability, meteorology, visual art) and across many different mediums (imagery, video, audio, film, the web, stock art, etc.). As the term evolves into versatility, so does the fuzziness grow of what precisely the term means, or should mean. The easiest way to unravel the concept, then, is to begin with its strict mathematical roots."

Instead of changing the definition, I tried the lightest thing I could think of to address my issue: prefacing the article with a note that the main definition given is strictly a mathematical one. I still think it's a decently ghastly one (somewhat less so now that I see that Wikipedia has segregated "fractal" and "fractal art"), but I didn't change it. I thought arranging viciously obvious, widely known, and verifiable facts to flag the narrow/poor definition was behaving properly. If you disagree it's a poor definition, then SPEAK. UP. Squish7 (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed your new paragraph from the article's lead for two main reasons. Firstly, the paragraph was written from your personal point of view, without any supporting references or sources. Secondly, the lead section in a Wikipedia article is supposed to summarise the contents of the article, whereas your paragraph took the lead off in an entirely new direction that is not supported by the rest of the article. If you have sources that say that the definition of the term "fractal" is changing or shifting as you claim, then I suggest you cite these in a section in the body of the article, rather than modifying the lead section. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not written from a personal point of view; it's just about exactly what would be there IF the article on "fractal art" did not exist (information that would otherwise be here), which I didn't know about. If there was not that page, my paragraph would have been a very appropriate addition/correction to what was here, as this article makes extremely little mention of fractal art. I couldn't have known that W put all the artistic elements in another article. That's why I posted a discussion item and waited over half a month, so someone could correct me if there was something I was missing. If I post something akin to "this article is completely wrong", and get no response, why wouldn't I assume that the article is very out of date, and go correct it based on what I know, modifying with the unarguable, verifiable basics.

My issue isn't that you removed the paragraph, my issue is that you wasted my time by not monitoring the page and offering an answer when I all but directly STATED that I was going to do that. I even brought UP your concern specifically! (I.e. that my feelings on the matter may be prone to issues of original research, hence the ASKING of the question before I bothered doing anything.) That is, there's a decent chance if I think there's an error or strong omission on the page, that I'm working on a way to fix it, or a special article to add. At the absolute least you could have bothered to look at the discussion page and responded to my question WHEN you removed my paragraph, since obviously I'm going to want to know/ask why it was removed, even if it would have been too late to save me from wasting my efforts.

My anger is from that I used my cumulative knowledge to behave in a manner that was very appropriate, and got treated as if I logged on for my first time and just started throwing my opinion up without any regard for the policies or method of behavior. Anybody in general who is not specifically trying to behave improperly is going to feel stepped when an edit is removed without a full sentence of explanation. In this case, I took extra efforts to inquire beforehand, and waiting a good time for a response. Do I really have to put "This is my precise revision that I will paste in two weeks if I do not get a response to this post"? Of course my paragraph changed the nature of the article; if a discussion page is not monitored, why would I assume that the article is current and accurate? Squish7 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I think the definition--even outside the artistic issues now covered--is still very poor. It's completely disprovable, as I've done, above. Just the fact that it references someone else's precise quote is bad news; there's an element of plagiarism, there, in fact, just as there would be if you just pasted the article where that quote came from, saying "this is what a fractal is about, because it was written by an expert". Ughgh. Squish7 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I hope you are feeling less angry now. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Error in fractal animation

The frames of this animation flip horizontally after the second frame and it makes things confusing (and inaccurate). It's a great animation otherwise, but I don't know how to fix it. I left a note on the creator's page, but he has not been active recently. I hope someone can make it right. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The animation has been fixed/reverted. Big thanks to Tó campos. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Inventor of fractals at Fractal art

Could watchers of this article please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Fractal art#Dr. Bahman Kalantari. Apparently if you don't like the addition of improperly sourced claims that Kalantari invented fractals in 2002 you have an agenda. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Differentiability

Hello everybody Seeing as fractals are - at least - a bit difficult to understand for many non-specialists, I am very much a proponent of making this article seem less cryptic. Seeing as there has been a lot of work done this far, might I continue the process by making a suggestion? :-) Concerning differentiation, some readers (stumbling on this article) may be familiar with the idea of differentiable functions, and they may also be familiar with the idea that a given function can be non-differentiable at either one point or many points. Remember, differentiability is - so to say - the effect of both continuity and congruency; for a function to be differentiable in a certain point (or over a certain interval), it must be both continuous and congruent in that point (or over that interval)... What could possibly be very or slightly confusing to the casual reader, might be the description of fractals as being "continuous but not differentiable". May I suggest that the description be expanded to "always continuous but never congruent, and therefore not differentiable"? On the one hand, I imagine that a reader, who already knows something about differentiable functions, may be surprised, this situation ought to be addressed... On the other hand, a reader who knows nothing about differentiation at all, may be confused... So, is it okay, to make the proposed expansion? What is your opinion?Jaloqin (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO "continuous but not differentiable" seems clear enough, but feel free to try and include congruence and see how it works out, seems like a more familiar term (assuming you refer to the geometric meaning). Nice suggestion! M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 23:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what "congruence" means in this context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've looked around other articles on Wikipedia; and maybe the notion of congruence would confuse the matter slightly more. In this context "congruence" would have the connotation of "smooth" as opposed to "fractured", whence comes "fractal". So now I'm not sure... Let me think about this.