Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als DOC, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

360 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als DOC, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- John Keel - The Complete Guide to Mysterious Beings
- Systemic Thinking (for a TOC Audience) March 2013
- A Jungian View of Astrology
- Rudin Real Complex Solutions
- Forced and Damped Pendulum - Butterfly effect
- A New Concept of the Universe by Walter Russell
- Astral Worship
- Experimental Synchronization of Two Resistively Coupled Duffing-type Circuits
- Mastering the Mixer
- Christopher Shaver- An Exploration of the Cantor Set
- African_Divination.pdf
- Liber 096
- How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate Your _Free_ Will - Scientific American
- The big dangers of 'big data' (Opinion)
- Taras Banakh, Oleg Verbitsky and Yaroslav Vorobets- Fermat's Spiral and the Line Between Yin and Yang
- Diana C. Skigin et al- Diffraction by fractal metallic supergratings
- First Class Slides
- MATH5011_Exercise__3.2013
- Cantor Sets
- A New Fractal-Based Miniaturized Dual Band Patch Antenna for RF Energy Harvesting

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 25

Of Arts, Science and Technology

Gulshan-e-Iqbal Campus

Department Of Physics

Synopsis On:

“Fractals”

M. Phil

2006

222

INTRODUCTION

A fractal is 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 [1]. The term was

coined by Benoit Mandelbrot 1975 and was derived from the Latin fractus meaning

broken or fractured.

Beautiful fractals, the butterfly effect and unpredictable systems were the images that

chaos conjured up in my imagination before I sat down and read about it. Within the

incredible diversity of chaotic systems; and the diversity is remarkable is presented and

explained. It is staggering to see the picture unfold, the gradual realization that the

scientific statement of the eighteenth century; that the universe runs according to a set of

immutable laws is unable to explain much of the behavior in even the simplest of

classical systems. Nature has laws and we can find them. Unfortunately, although

mathematics allows us to calculate the solutions to many difficult problems, we are still

left in an unordered world, where apparently simple motions, on closer inspection,

become unpredictable and hence unexplainable in the language of mathematics. It is

appropriate at this point to introduce the nature of chaos. Stewart is quick to point out that

since this branch of mathematics is still in its formative stages giving it a precise

definition is not possible or wise More roughly speaking, random behavior in a system

governed by laws. Where is the dividing line between order and chaos? The chapter 'The

Laws of Error, introduces another field of mathematics, Probability theory the

mathematics of chance. Mathematicians had found that analyzing the detailed workings

of large systems was too involved and complex. Probability theory grew out of a need to

simulate detail without actually having to examine it. As Stewart states:

"Mathematicians could calculate the motion of a satellite of Jupiter, but not that of a

snowflake in a blizzard."

Fractals are important part of chaos that joins the discussion at this point. They present us

with a language to describe what we see happening with chaos. A fractal, generally

speaking, is a geometric object, which continues to exhibit detailed structure over a wide

range of scales. Self-similarity exhibited again. Interestingly the method of describing the

detail level of a fractal is by allocating it a dimension, known as its Hausdorff dimension.

These dimensions tend to be fractional (hence fractal).

333

• Is too irregular to be easily described in

traditional Euclidean geometric language.

• is self-similar (at least approximatively or

stochastically)

• Has a Hausdorff Dimension is greater than its

Topological this requirement is not met by

space-filling curves such as the Hilbert Curve.

• Has a simple and recursive definition

Due to them appearing similar at all levels of magnification, fractals are often considered

to be infinitely complex. Obvious examples include clouds, mountain ranges and

lightning bolts. However, not all self-similar objects are fractals, for example the Real (a

straight Euclidean Line) is formally self-similar but fails to have other fractal

characteristics.

BACKGROUND

HISTORY

A Koch Snowflake the limit of an infinite construction that starts with a triangle and

recursively replaces each line segment with a series of four line segments that form a

triangular bump. Each time new triangles are added (an iterations, the perimeter of this

shape grows by a factor of 4/3 and thus diverges to infinity with the number of iterations.

The length of the Koch snowflake's boundary is therefore infinite, while its area remains

finite. For this reason, the Koch snowflake and similar constructions were sometimes

called "monster curves."

444

Objects that are now described as fractals were discovered and described centuries ago.

Ethnomathemetics like Ron Eglash's African Fractals describes pervasive fractal

geometry in indigenous African craft work. In 1525, the German Artist Albrecht Durer

published The Painter’s manual, in which one section is on "Tile Patterns formed by

Pentagons". The Durer’s pentagon largely resembled the Sierpiski carpet, but based on

pentagon instead of squares.

Leibniz and he even worked out many of the details. In 1872, Karl Weierstrass found an

example of a function with the nonintuitive property that it is everywhere continuous but

nowhere Differentiable — the graph of this function would now be called a fractal. In

1904, Helge von Koch, dissatisfied with Weierstrass’s very abstract and analytic

definition, gave a more geometric definition of a similar function, which is now called the

Koch Snowflake. In 1915, Walclaw Sierpinski constructed his triangle and one year later

his carpet. Actually, these fractals were described as curves, which is hard to realize with

the well-known modern constructions. The idea of self-similar curves was taken further

by Paul Pierre Levy who, in his 1938 paper Plane or Space Curves and Surfaces

Consisting of Parts Similar to the Whole, described a new fractal curve, the Levy’s curve.

Georg Cantor gave examples of Subset of the real line with unusual properties — these

Cantor sets are also now recognized as fractals. Iterated functions in the complex plane

had been investigated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Henri Poicare, Felix

Klein, Pierre Fatou and Gaston Julia. However, without the aid of modern computer

graphics they lacked the means to visualize the beauty of many of the objects that they

had discovered.

How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and Fractal dimension.

This built on earlier work by Lewis fry Richardson. In 1975, Mandelbrot coined the word

fractal to denote an object whose Hausdorff Dimension is greater than its Topological. He

illustrated this mathematical definition with striking computer-constructed visualizations.

These images captured the popular imagination; many of them were based on recursion,

leading to the popular meaning of the term fractal.

EXAMPLES

555

A relatively simple class of examples is given by the Cantor sets, Sierpinski triangle and

carpet, Mengor sponge, dragon curve, space-filling curve, Koch curve. Additional

examples of fractals include the Lyapunov fractal and the limit sets of Kleinian groups.

Fractals can be deterministic (all the above) or stochastic (that is, non-deterministic). For

example the trajectories of the Brownian motion in the plane have Hausdorff Dimension.

Chaotic dynamical systems are sometimes associated with fractals. Objects in the phase

space of a dynamical system can be fractals. Objects in the parameter space for a family

of systems may be fractal as well. An interesting example is the Mandelbrot set. This set

contains whole discs, so it has the Hausdorff dimension equal to its topological

dimension of 2 —but what is truly surprising is that the boundary of the Mandelbrot set

also has the Hausdorff dimension of 2 (while the topological dimension of 1), a result

proved by M. Shishikura in 1991. A closely related fractal is the Julia set.

SELF-SIMILARITY DIMENSION

The self-similarity dimension is a simplification of the Hausdorff dimension which can

be applied to exactly self-similar objects.

666

Sierpinski Triangle

The following analysis of the Koch Snowflake suggests how self-similarity can be used

to analyze fractal properties.

The total length of a number, N, of small steps, L, is the product NL. Applied to the

boundary of the Koch snowflake this gives a boundless length as L approaches zero. But

this distinction is not satisfactory, as different Koch snowflakes do have different sizes. A

solution is to measure, not in meter, m, nor in square meter, m², but in some other power

of a meter, mx. Now 4N(L/3)x = NLx, because a three times shorter steplength requires

four times as many steps, as is seen from the figure. Solving that equation gives x = (log

4)/(log 3) ≈ 1.26186. So the unit of measurement of the boundary of the Koch snowflake

is approximately m1.26186.

More generally, suppose that a fractal consists of N identical parts that are similar to the

entire fractal with the scale factor of L and that the intersection between parts is of the

example, the Hausdorff dimension of

777

and so on. Even more generally one may assume that each of N parts is similar to the

fractal with a different scale factor Li, i = 1...N. Then the Hausdorff dimension can be

calculated by solving the following equation in the variable s:

space (such as the complex plane). Examples of this type are the Mandelbrot set, Julia

set, the Burning ship fractal and the Lyapunov fractal.

Iterated function systems — These have a fixed geometric replacement rule. Cantor set,

sierpinski carpet, Sierpinski gaset, peano curve, Koch snowflake,Harter-Heighway

dragon curve, T-square, menger sponge, are some examples of such fractals.

example, trajectories of the Brownian motion, levy flight, fractal landscapes and the

Brownian tree. The latter yields so-called mass- or dendritic fractals, for example,

diffusion –limited aggregation or reaction-limited aggregation clusters.

CLASSIFICATION OF FRACTALS

Fractals can also be classified according to their self-similarity. There are three types of

self-similarity found in fractals:

Exact self-similarity

This is the strongest type of self-similarity; the fractal appears identical at different

scales. Fractals defined by iterated function systems often display exact self-similarity.

888

Quasi-self-similarity

This is a loose form of self-similarity; the fractal appears approximately (but not exactly)

identical at different scales. Quasi-self-similar fractals contain small copies of the entire

fractal in distorted and degenerate forms. Fractals defined by recurrence relations are

usually quasi-self-similar but not exactly self-similar.

Statistical self-similarity

This is the weakest type of self-similarity; the fractal has numerical or statistical

measures which are preserved across scales. Most reasonable definitions of "fractal"

trivially imply some form of statistical self-similarity. (Fractal dimension itself is a

numerical measure which is preserved across scales.) Random fractals are examples of

fractals which are statistically self-similar, but neither exactly nor quasi-self-similar.

FRACTALS IN NATURE

Approximate fractals are easily found in nature. These objects display self-similar

structure over an extended, but finite, scale range. Examples include clouds, snowflakes,

mountains, river networks, cauliflowers or broccoli and systems of blood vessels.

Trees and ferns are fractal in nature and can be modeled on a computer by using a

recursive algorithm. This recursive nature is obvious in these examples — a branch from

a tree or a frond from a fern is a miniature replica of the whole: not identical, but similar

in nature.

The surface of a mountain can be modeled on a computer by using a fractal: Start with a

triangle in 3D space and connect the central points of each side by line segments,

resulting in 4 triangles. The central points are then randomly moved up or down, within a

defined range. The procedure is repeated, decreasing at each iteration the range by half.

The recursive nature of the algorithm guarantees that the whole is statistically similar to

each detail.

999

(that is a number in the closed infinite interval [0, ∞]) associated to any metric space. It

was introduced in 1918 by the mathematician Felix Hausdorff.. Many of the technical

developments used to compute the Hausdorff dimension for highly irregular sets were

obtained by Abram Samoilvitch Besicovitch. For this reason, Hausdorff dimension is

sometimes referred to as Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension.

Hausdorff dimension gives another way to define dimension, which takes the metric into

account.

To define the Hausdorff dimension for X, we first consider the number N(r) of balls of

radius at most r required to cover X completely. Clearly, as r gets smaller N(r) gets larger.

Very roughly, if N(r) grows in the same way as 1/rd as r is squeezed down towards zero,

then we say X has dimension d. In fact the rigorous definition of Hausdorff dimension is

somewhat roundabout, since it first defines an entire family of covering measures for X. It

turns out that Hausdorff dimension refines the concept of topological dimension and also

relates it to other properties of the space such as area or volume.

101010

The Hausdorff dimension gives an accurate way to measure the dimension of an arbitrary

metric space; this includes complicated sets such as fractals.

counting the number of balls of some radius necessary to cover a given set. It is possible

to try to do this directly for many sets (leading to so-called box counting dimension), but

Hausdorff's insight was to approach the problem indirectly using the theory of measure

developed earlier in the century by Henri Lebesgue and constantin caratheodory. In order

to deal with the technical details of this approach, Hausdorff defined an entire family of

measures on subsets of X, one for each possible dimension s ∈ [0,∞). For example, if X=

R3, this construction assigns an s dimensional measure Hs to all subsets of R3 including

the unit segment along the x-axis [0,1] × {0} × {0}, the unit square on the x-y plane [0,1]

× [0,1] × {0} and the unit cube [0,1] × [0,1] × [0,1]. For s = 2, one would expect

The above example suggests that we can define a set A to have Hausdorff dimension s if

its s-dimensional Hausdorff measure is positive and finite; in fact we have to modify this

slightly. The Hausdorff dimension of A is the cutoff value s where below s the s-

dimensional Hausdorff measure is ∞ and above s it is 0. It is possible for the s

dimensional Hausdorff measure of an s dimensional set to be 0 or ∞. For instance R has

dimension 1 and its 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure is infinite.

appropriate for metric spaces. Define a family of metric outer measures on X using the

Method II construction of outer measures due to Munroe and described in the article outer

measures. Let C be the class of all subsets of X; for each positive real number s, let ps be

the function A → diam(A)s on C. Hausdorff outer measure of dimension s, denoted Hs is

the outer measure corresponding to the function ps on C.

111111

Where the infimum taken over sequences {Ai}i which cover E by sets each with diameter

≤ δ. Then

We can succinctly (though not in a very useful way) describe the value Hs(E) as the

infimum f all h > 0 such that for all δ > 0, E can be covered by countably many closed

sets of diameter ≤ δ and the sum of the s-th powers of these diameters is less than or

equal to h.

The function s → Hs(E) is non-increasing. In fact, it turns out that for all values of s,

except possibly one Hs(E) is either 0 or ∞. We say E has positive finite Hausdorff

dimension if, and only if, there is a real number 0<d< ∞ such that if s < d then Hs(E) = ∞

and if s > d, then Hs(E) = 0. If Hs(E)=0 for all positive s, then E has Hausdorff dimension

0. Finally, if Hs(E)=∞ for all positive s, then E has Hausdorff dimension ∞ In other

words,

The Hausdorff dimension is a well-defined extended real number for any set E and we

always have 0 ≤ d(E) ≤ ∞. It follows from the Lipschitz property of Hausdorff measure

that Hausdorff dimension is a Lipschitz invariant. Its relation to topological properties is

outlined below.

RESULTS

The Hausdorff outer measure Hs is defined for all subsets of X. However, we can in

general assert additivity properties, that is

for disjoint A, B, only when A and B satisfy some additional condition, such as both being

Borel sets (or more generally, that they are both measurable sets). From the perspective of

assigning measure and dimension to sets with unusual metric properties such as fractals,

however, this is not a restriction.

Theorem. Hs is a metric outer measure. Thus all Borel subsets of X are measurable and

Hs is a countably additive measure on the σ-algebra of Borel sets.

121212

Clearly, if (X, d) and (Y, e) are isomorphic metric spaces, then the corresponding

Hausdorff measure spaces are also isomorphic. It is more useful to note however that

Hausdorff measure even behaves well under certain bounded modifications of the

underlying metric. Hausdorff measure is a Lipschitz invariant in the following sense: If d

and d1 are metrics on X such that for some 0< C < ∞ and all x, y in X,

rescaling of usual m-dimensional Lebesgue measure λm which is normalized so that the

Lebesgue measure of the m-dimensional unit cube [0,1]m is 1. In fact, for any Borel set E,

Fractals often are spaces whose Hausdorff dimension strictly exceeds the topological. For

example, the Cantor set (a zero-dimensional topological space) is a union of two copies

of itself, each copy shrunk by a factor 1/3; this fact can be used to prove that its

Hausdorff dimension is ln2 / ln3, which is approximately 0.63 Sierpinski is a union of

three copies of itself, each copy shrunk by a factor of 1/2; this yields a Hausdorff

dimension of ln3 / ln2, which is approximately 1.58.

Space filling curves like the Peano and the Sierpinski by definition have Hausdorff

dimension 2.

The trajectory of Brownian motion in dimension 2 and above has Hausdorff dimension 2

almost surely.

DIMENSION

131313

for X which is defined recursively. It is always an integer (or +∞) and is denoted

dimtop(X).

Moreover

where Y ranges over metric spaces homeomorphic to X. In other words, X and Y have the

same underlying set of points and the metric dY of Y is topologically equivalent to dX.

These results were originally established by Edward szpilrain (1907-1976). The treatment

in Chapter VIII of the Hurewicz and Wallman reference is particularly recommended.

SELF-SIMILAR SETS

Many sets defined by a self-similarity condition have dimensions which can be

determined explicitly. Roughly, a set E is self-similar if it is the fixed point of a set-

valued transformation ψ, that is ψ(E) = E, although the exact definition is given below.

The following is Theorem 8.3 of the Falconer reference below:

Theorem.

Suppose

are contractive mappings on Rn with contraction constant rj < 1. Then there is a unique

non-empty compact set A such that

This follows from Banach’s contractive mapping fixed point theorem applied to the

complete metric space of non-empty compact subsets of Rn with the Hausdorff distance.

To determine the dimension of the self-similar set A (in certain cases), we need a

technical condition called the open set condition on the sequence of contractions ψi which

is stated as follows: There is a relatively compact open set V such that

141414

where the sets in union on the left are pair wise disjoint.

Theorem.

Suppose the open set condition holds and each ψi is a similitude that is a composition of

an isometry and dilation around some point. Then the unique fixed point of ψ is a set

whose Hausdorff dimension is s where s is the unique solution of

Note that the contraction coefficient of a similitude is the magnitude of the dilation.

We can use this theorem to compute the Hausdorff dimension of the Sierpinski triangle

(or sometimes called Sierpinski gasket). Consider three non-collinear points a1, a2, a3 in

the plane R2 and let ψi be the dilation of ratio 1/2 around ai. The unique non-empty fixed

point of the corresponding mapping ψ is a Sierpinski gasket and the dimension s is the

unique solution of

Taking natural logarithms of both sides of the above equation, we can solve for s, that is:

mapping

151515

where s is the Hausdorff dimension of E. This is clear in the case of the Sierpinski gasket

(the intersections are just points), but is also true more generally:

Theorem.

Under the same conditions as the previous theorem, the unique fixed point of ψ is self-

similar.

MAKING A FRACTAL

Step One

Connect the midpoints of each side.

Shade out the triangle in the center. Think of this as cutting a hole in the triangle.

Step Two

Draw another equilateral triangle with sides of 4 triangle lengths each. Connect the

midpoints of the sides and shade the triangle in the center as before.

161616

Notice the three small triangles that also need to be shaded out in each of the three

triangles on each corner - three more holes.

Step Three

Draw an equilateral triangle with sides of 8 triangle lengths each. Follow the same

procedure as before, making sure to follow the shading pattern. You will have 1 large, 3

medium, and 9 small triangles shaded.

Step Four

How about doing this one on a poster board? Follow the above pattern and complete the

Sierpinski Triangle.

A really interesting characteristic of the Koch Snowflake is its perimeter. Ordinarily,

when we increase the perimeter of a geometric

figure, we also increase its area. If you have a square with a huge perimeter, it also has a

huge area. But wait till we see what happens here!

1. Divide a side of the triangle into three equal parts and remove the middle section.

2. Replace the missing section with two pieces the same length as the section we

removed.

3. Do this to all three sides of the triangle.

171717

Question 1: If the perimeter of the equilateral triangle that we start with is 9 units, what

is the perimeter of the other figures?

Perimeter = 9 units

Perimeter = ? Units

Perimeter = ? Units?

Hint: Think of the original triangle with sides of three parts,

and the next figure with sides of four parts.

Question 2: Is there a pattern here? The perimeter of each figure is ___ times the

perimeter of the figure before.

Question 3: If the original triangle has a perimeter of 9 units,

How many iterations would it take to obtain a perimeter of 100 units? (Or as close to 100

as you can get.)

Question 4: Now think of doing this many, many times. The perimeter gets huge! But

does the area? We say the area is bounded by a circle surrounding the original triangle. If

we continued the process oh, let's say, infinitely many times, the figure would have an

infinite perimeter, but its area would still be bounded by that circle.

In the Koch Snowflake, an infinite perimeter encloses a finite area. The perimeter of the

Koch Snowflake gets bigger and bigger with each step. But what about the area? Imagine

drawing a circle around the original figure. No matter how large the perimeter gets, the

area of the figure remains inside the circle. Could we actually calculate the area?

181818

If we don’t like to draw and experiment with the figures, we may print and use this

triangle grid paper to help us with the drawing.

1. Divide a side of the triangle into three equal parts and remove the middle section.

2. Replace the missing section with two pieces the same length as the section we

removed.

3. Do this to all three sides of the triangle.

Notice the second iteration of the Koch Snowflake above. Notice that the original triangle

(yellow) is still contained in the Koch Snowflake with three smaller triangles (red) added

in the first iteration, and twelve even smaller triangles (blue) added in the second

iteration. So finding the area of the Koch Snowflake is just an addition problem. we find

the area of the original triangle, add the area of the three red triangles for the first

iteration, and add the twelve blue triangles for the second iteration.

Let's use the triangles of our grid to measure the area. The original yellow triangle has 81

triangles inside. So we'll say its area is 81. What is the area of each red and each blue

triangle? Let's organize all our data into a table.

Iteration No. Total Area

triangle added added

-- 81

1 9 3 27 108

191919

2 1 12 12 120

Each "Area of one triangle" is 1/9 the previous one. Each "No. of triangles added" is 4

times the previous one. Let's predict the next steps from the rule we notice above.

Area of 1 No. of triangles Amount of area

Iteration No. Total Area

triangle added added

-- 81

1 9 3 27 108

2 1 12 12 120

3 1/9 48 5.33 125.33

4 1/81 192 2.37 127.7

5 1/729 768 1.05 128.75

6 1/6561 3072 .4682 129.21

7 1/59049 12288 .2081 129.43

8 1/531441 49152 .0924 129.522

Observe what is happening. The Snowflake is still growing in area but more and more

slowly. It is converging on some number, getting closer and

. The Anti-Snowflake

Let's make another fractal. It's an interesting variation on the Koch Snowflake.

Directions:

Step One. Start with a large equilateral triangle. If you use the triangle grid paper, make

the sides of your triangle 9 grid triangles long (or some other multiple of 3).

1. Divide one side of the triangle into three parts and remove the middle section.

202020

2. Replace it with two lines the same length as the section you removed, just like in

the Koch Snowflake. But this time, instead of turning the section out to form a

snowflake, turn them inside the triangle

3. Do this to all three sides of the triangle.

Step Three. Repeat the process with the "triangles" inside the pinwheel.

Original Triangle

First Iteration

Second Iteration

212121

And one more time...

Fourth Iteration

FRACTAL BENEFITS

Fractal Dimension

A point has no dimensions - no length, no width, no height.

That dot is obviously way too big to really represent a point. But we'll live with it, if

we all just agree what a point really is.

A line has one dimension - length. It has no width and no height, but infinite length.

Again, this model of a line is really not very good, but until we learn how to draw a

line with 0 width and infinite length, it'll have to do.

Space, a huge empty box, has three dimensions, length, width, and depth, extending to

infinity in all three directions.

222222

Obviously this isn't a good representation of 3-D. Besides its size, it's just a hexagon

drawn to fool you into thinking it's a box.

Fractals can have fractional (or fractal) dimension. A fractal might have dimension of

1.6 or 2.4. How could that be? Let's investigate below.

Just as the images above weren't very good pictures of a point, line, plane, or space,

the drawing meant to be the Sierpinski Triangle has limitations. Remember as we

continue that fractals are really formed by infinitely many steps. So there are infinitely

many smaller and smaller triangles inside the figure, and infinitely many holes (the

black triangles).

Let's look further at

what we mean by

dimension. Take a self-

similar figure like a line

segment, and double its

length. Doubling the

length gives two copies

of the original segment.

figure, this time a square

1 unit by 1 unit. Now

multiply the length and

width by 2. How many

copies of the original

size square do you get?

Doubling the sides gives

four copies.

232323

Take a 1 by 1 by 1 cube

and double its length,

width, and height. How

many copies of the

original size cube do

you get? Doubling the

side gives eight copies.

Figure Dimension No. of Copies

Line segment 1 2 = 21

Square 2 4 = 22

Cube 3 8 = 23

Do you see a pattern? It appears that the dimension is the exponent - and it is! So when

we double the sides and get a similar figure, we write the number of copies as a power of

2 and the exponent will be the dimension.

Line Segment 1 2 = 21

Square 2 4 = 22

Cube 3 8 = 23

Doubling Similarity d n = 2d

We can use this to figure out the dimension of the Sierpinski triangle because when you

double the length of the sides, you get another Sierpinski Triangle similar to the first.

Start with a Sierpinski triangle of 1-inch sides. Double the length of the sides. Now how

many copies of the original triangle do you have? Remember that the black triangles are

holes, so we can't count them.

242424

Doubling the sides gives us three copies, so 3 = 2d, where d = the dimension.

But wait, 2 = 21, and 4 = 22, so what number could this be? It has to be somewhere

between 1 and 2, right? Let's add this to our table.

Line Segment 1 2 = 21

Sierpinski's Triangle ? 3 = 2?

Square 2 4 = 22

Cube 3 8 = 23

Doubling Similarity d n = 2d

So the dimension of Sierpinski's Triangle is between 1 and 2. Do you think you could

find a better answer? Use a calculator with an exponent key (the key usually looks like

this ^ ). Use 2 as a base and experiment with different exponents between 1 and 2 to see

how close you can come. For example, try 1.1. Type 2^1.1 and you get 2.143547. I'll bet

you can get closer to 3 than that. Try 2^1.2 and you get 2.2974. That's closer to 3, but you

can do better.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Mandelbrot, B. B. (1982). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman and

Company.

2. Falconer, Kenneth (2003). Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and

Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., xxv.

3. Barnsley, Michael F., and Hawley Rising. Fractals Everywhere. Boston:

Academic Press Professional, 1993.

4. Falconer, Kenneth. Techniques in Fractal Geometry. John Willey and Sons, 1997.

5. Jürgens, Hartmut, Heins-Otto Peitgen, and Dietmar Saupe. Chaos and Fractals:

New Frontiers of Science. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

6. Benoit B.MedelBrot The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H. Freeman

and Co., 1982.

7. Peitgen, Heinz-Otto, and Dietmar Saupe, eds. The Science of Fractal Images.

New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.

8. Clifford A pickover, ed. Chaos and Fractals: A Computer Graphical Journey - A

10 Year Compilation of Advanced Research. Elsevier, 1998.

9. Jesse Jones, Fractals for the Macintosh, Waite Group Press, Corte Madera, CA,

1993.

252525

by Sophia Gill-Hoffstadt, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1991., cloth.

paperback.

11. Sprott, Julien Clinton (2003). Chaos and Time-Series Analysis. Oxford University.

- John Keel - The Complete Guide to Mysterious BeingsHochgeladen vonTracer Tong
- Systemic Thinking (for a TOC Audience) March 2013Hochgeladen vonGary Bartlett
- A Jungian View of AstrologyHochgeladen vonstilbone
- Rudin Real Complex SolutionsHochgeladen vonAYAN
- Forced and Damped Pendulum - Butterfly effectHochgeladen vonDionysios Zelios
- A New Concept of the Universe by Walter RussellHochgeladen vonJason Verbelli
- Astral WorshipHochgeladen vonEmma
- Experimental Synchronization of Two Resistively Coupled Duffing-type CircuitsHochgeladen voncvolos
- Mastering the MixerHochgeladen vonlantis929
- Christopher Shaver- An Exploration of the Cantor SetHochgeladen vonNine000
- African_Divination.pdfHochgeladen vonMike Vittner
- Liber 096Hochgeladen vonpsychicspider
- How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate Your _Free_ Will - Scientific AmericanHochgeladen vonJohn Talmadge
- The big dangers of 'big data' (Opinion)Hochgeladen voncombsajklzvmnbl
- Taras Banakh, Oleg Verbitsky and Yaroslav Vorobets- Fermat's Spiral and the Line Between Yin and YangHochgeladen vonGremnDL
- Diana C. Skigin et al- Diffraction by fractal metallic supergratingsHochgeladen vonKonnasder
- First Class SlidesHochgeladen vonAbhishek Khanna
- MATH5011_Exercise__3.2013Hochgeladen vonDefri Ahmad Lagu Lamo
- Cantor SetsHochgeladen vonKK-bookslover
- A New Fractal-Based Miniaturized Dual Band Patch Antenna for RF Energy HarvestingHochgeladen vonSika Shrestha
- carlos-reynoso-chaos-and-complexity-tools-for-archaeology.pdfHochgeladen vonMario VF
- not2Hochgeladen vonAsk Bulls Bear
- 0505185-2Hochgeladen vonМария Ева Кортес Романова
- Statistical Decision Theory for Quantum Systems - Holevo.pdfHochgeladen vonMichael
- 2011-0021 22 Research Methodology (1)Hochgeladen vonJonny Viray
- PTSP (1)Hochgeladen vondevinamuljono
- UD_Complex_2019_I_FractalsDynamicalSystems.pdfHochgeladen vonMarco Alzate
- Porosity and Specific Surface Area Measurements for Solid MaterialsHochgeladen vonDr. Peter Klobes
- natural-order.docxHochgeladen vonMicah Santon
- Analysis of Koch Snowflake Fractal Antenna for Multiband Application IJERTV3IS041857 (2)Hochgeladen vondinesh patnaik

- Sahi Bukhari MukhtasarHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- many_bodyHochgeladen vonmydeardog
- Quantum Hall EffectHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Matter WavesHochgeladen vonapi-3825838
- Chaos Magick CondensedHochgeladen vonSparky
- Elementary Condensed Matter Physics - NetoHochgeladen vonapi-3734736
- Synopsis on WaveHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Synopsis on HEATHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Synopsis ElectronicsHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Physics HeatHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- mcqon electricityandelectronicsHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- mcqon electricityandelectronicsfinalHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- MagnetismHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Ch 8for smsHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Essential PhysicsHochgeladen vonpticicaaa
- Classical MechanicsHochgeladen vonapi-27096633
- The Feynman Complete Lectures on Physics Vol 2--536 PagesHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Preparation Guide for GRE PhysicsHochgeladen vonapi-3855409
- Ancient and Modern PhysicsHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- UET WOrkshop on Nano TechHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Tunneling EffectHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Thesis on Quantum Hall Effect AhmerHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- SYNOPSIS AHMER on Quantum Hall EffectHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Quantum DotsHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Physics Confuses MeHochgeladen vonapi-3759956
- Perturbation TheoryHochgeladen vonapi-3759956

- Excel Vba Print Range to PDFHochgeladen vonJimmy
- nahavandi_lead5_ppt_10 - rHochgeladen vonGrey Black
- Catalog Ktc 200pag(en) Debu024enHochgeladen vonalinmf3
- Introduction to Methods of Approximation in Physics and AstronomyHochgeladen vonJosé Antonio Vidriales
- Yarnconditioning 150612160000 Lva1 App6891Hochgeladen vondineshv74
- IdeasTap meets Magnum.pdfHochgeladen vonvimbo
- Expt. No. 2 - Diode Clipper and Clamper CircuitsHochgeladen vonAmit Jharbade
- Class3 ScienceHochgeladen vonproodoot
- FInal Exam ReviewHochgeladen vonSwathi Shetty
- REL316-4.pdfHochgeladen vonKhaled Galal Ahmed
- Nvidia Quadro Control Panel Quick Start GuideHochgeladen vonLailatul Maghfiroh
- 2013_10_12 Six Sigma an Overview_StudentsHochgeladen vonالمدربة فداء جاد الله
- VampiresHochgeladen vonJackson Michael
- The Communist Mnifesto - SummaryHochgeladen vonNaiza Mae Binayao
- TrendMDHochgeladen vons
- Aggregate CalculatorHochgeladen vonmsohaibaziz
- Gate MathsHochgeladen vonPappuji
- Abstract n Executive SummaryHochgeladen vonDhruv Patel
- studies in new testament church leadership - paulHochgeladen vonDavid A Green BD
- Testimony FDNY 1-10-11Hochgeladen vonAzi Paybarah
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux-6Hochgeladen vonlamsal123
- Hype Cycle for the Telecommu 260996 (1)Hochgeladen vonEnrique de la Rosa
- Logging equipment applied during geothermal well drilling.docxHochgeladen vonKebede A. Gutema
- Muhammad Asif- Systems LibrarianHochgeladen vonasifch_lums
- Awkward posture - ergonomicsHochgeladen vonMohd Zubairy Ergonomist
- Mormonism - BeliefsHochgeladen vonLawrence Garner
- 19 Thesis Project SlidesHochgeladen vonManda Ramesh Babu
- Strategic Management Analysis Module Guide (Intake 3)Hochgeladen vonShoaib Ahmed
- COMFORTSTREEKAhmadHochgeladen vonAhmad malik
- Study Centres 2018-19Hochgeladen vonNaveenkumar Neelam