Talk:Buddhabrot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Systems
Systems science Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to Systems science.
Systems rating: Start Class Mid importance  Field: Chaos theory
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.


Contents

[edit] Orientation

Why do the image captions explicitly state everywhere, whether a picture is rotated or not? The axes can be chosen arbitrarily anyway; the choice of the axes does not make one picture more correct or more original than any other. Or is it really stated anywhere, that the real axis should be horizontal and the imaginary one vertical?? I doubt it. — Pt (T) 21:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The convention in mathematics is always to have the real axis horizontal and the imaginary one vertical. You are right that it is arbitrary, but it is a pretty strong convention.


Maybe put up an image of the "certain depictions of the Buddha" for comparison? Subjectruin 10:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] picture of it upside down

add a picture of it upside down pleaseOxinabox1 11:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Butterbrot?

Is it a coincidence, that its name sound like Butterbrot (bread and butter) in German? I hardly could stop laughing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.5.192 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2005

Hehe, I was just about to post the same comment. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.158.195 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 February 2006
I went ahead and deleted it. --Zifnabxar 03:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools?

This article is kind of silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.75.106 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 3 April 2006

How so? All it is is a form of rendering. You also didn't need to make your little "utter crap" comment at the bottom either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.168.33 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 3 April 2006

[edit] Description needs to be clearer

I used to do a fair bit of fiddling with fractals, and I'm well versed with the rendering method for mandelbrots and julias...but I still don't really get the method for this one. I hate to think how a true layman would cope. Can someone attempt to elaborate a bit on the rendering method, perhaps by turning it into pseudocode or a simple algorithm? Stevage 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong, but I think that what's happening here is something like this: for each value of c you construct a m\times n matrix, each element representing the corresponding pixel in the image. Then for this c, everytime the succession hits a particular pixel, the corresponding element in the matrix is added one unit. In the end, you work with the set of matrices and a color algorithm to produce your coloring. Either way, I'm also very interesting in really understanding what's going on and I certainly think the article needs a clearer text. jοτομικρόν | Talk 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
All good, except for the "succession hits a particular pixel" and "corresponding element" bits. Can you elaborate? :) Stevage 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Again, I emphazise that I may be wrong. The succession (zn) hits a particular pixel (P) when n is such that the point zn is "within" that pixel, that is, if you wanted to paint the point zn on the screen, you would have to paint the pixel P because it is the best approximation to zn. By corresponding element I mean exactly the same: for each point, there is a matrix whose elements are in one-to-one correspondence to the screen pixels. That said, mi,j corresponds to pixel (i, j). Let's considerer c = 1 and a screen in which each pixel is 1 unit wide:
  • z1 = 1;
  • z2 = 2;
  • z3 = 5;
  • ... (it escapes to infinity).
So for this point's matrix, the element that correspond to the pixel that contains the point 1 + 0i (pixel (1, 0)) is incremented, as are those elements corresponding to the values 2 + 0i (2, 0), 5 + 0i (5, 0), etc. jοτομικρόν | Talk 17:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you are describing but do not understand how these matrices (one for each pixel) relate to the final render. Can someone explain?69.121.103.100 06:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The colour is based on the number of times a value z has "passed through" the pixel... more times is brighter. I'm not a mathematician myself, so it's hard for even me to explain... Evercat 23:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery

Does the phrase "Melinda Green (then Daniel Green)" refer to a single person? It's not clear from the wording at the moment.   — Lee J Haywood 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested as well.Javaisfun 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a single person. Daniel Green underwent a sex change and now goes by Melinda Green. (See this usenet post.) I have clarified this in the article. --Rayno 05:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference and explanation regarding Daniel in the article, but I am leaving it here for some measure of fairness, since it is "public knowledge". It is bad form to refer to someone as "Jill (used to be Jack)" especially if it adds nothing to the discourse and leaving it out would remove nothing. Lets be good sports about this. --Lionelbrits 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Melinda Green did not do what is claimed here, since she was not Melinda Green. The situation is no different than a reference to activities of a now-married woman before her name was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.140.171.5 (talk) 4 August 2007

The problem is that the usenet post I cited gives the name Daniel Green, so without some explanation it makes no sense. Evercat 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha?

To me it looks more like the head of a tiger, or a fox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dehagido (talk • contribs) 09:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

Previous researchers had come very close to finding the precise Buddhabrot technique. In 1988 Linas Vepstas relayed images of the Buddhabrot to Cliff Pickover for inclusion in Pickover's forthcoming book Computers, Pattern, Chaos, and Beauty. This led directly to the discovery of Pickover stalks. These researchers did not filter out non-escaping trajectories required to produce the ghostly forms typically reminiscent of Hindu art. Green first named it Ganesh, since an Indian co-worker "instantly recognized it as the god 'Ganesha' which is the one with the head of an elephant." The name Buddhabrot was coined later by Lori Gardi.

This is confusing. It makes it sound like they were looking for the Buddhabrot technique. I presume they were just trying things and they came close to producing the Buddhabrot but didn't. Also, it seems to suggest they sent Buddhabrot images even though it also implies that these aren't actually Buddhabrot images since it says Daniel/Melinda Green invented it and that they only came close i.e. it contradicts itself. Nil Einne 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)