Roger Bagula
2005-07-05 21:11:28 UTC
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Fractals Sierpinksi Triangle
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:46:39 +0100
From: Brendan O'Sullivan <***@esatclear.ie>
Organization: Esat Net Customer
Newsgroups: sci.math
I've encountered a problem with this question.
When I looked at s(2) of the Sierpinski triangle, I came out with the idea
that the fractal dimension is ln(9)/ln(4). The scaling factor being 1/4.
When it came to forming the IFS, I had 9 mappings.
While my friend looked at the same fractal and came out with the fractal
dimension as being ln(3)/ln(2). The scaling factor being 1/2 and his IFS
having 3 mappings.
Which of these is actually correct, does it vary with which iteration that
you look at or should one always revert back to the earliest iteration and
the scaling factor remains constant.
Brendan
Subject: Fractals Sierpinksi Triangle
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:46:39 +0100
From: Brendan O'Sullivan <***@esatclear.ie>
Organization: Esat Net Customer
Newsgroups: sci.math
I've encountered a problem with this question.
When I looked at s(2) of the Sierpinski triangle, I came out with the idea
that the fractal dimension is ln(9)/ln(4). The scaling factor being 1/4.
When it came to forming the IFS, I had 9 mappings.
While my friend looked at the same fractal and came out with the fractal
dimension as being ln(3)/ln(2). The scaling factor being 1/2 and his IFS
having 3 mappings.
Which of these is actually correct, does it vary with which iteration that
you look at or should one always revert back to the earliest iteration and
the scaling factor remains constant.
Brendan