Talk:Digital sundial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
An entry from Digital sundial appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 October 2006. |
 |
What, exactly, does this have to do with fractals or fractal geometry? Melchoir 21:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- The theorem. Well, can you imagine the set F described there? Normally, it's a fractal. It could be made precise in the article. --Beaumont (@) 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not everything complicated is a fractal. Are there sources for the mathematics? What do they say? Melchoir 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is a classical theorem in the fractal geometry... See Falconer "Fractal Geometry" cited in the fractal article. I shall copy it here, so thanks for your question. BTW, the current definition of what "fractal" is was inserted there on the basis of this monograph and I guess this is (one of) the best source(s). --Beaumont (@) 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, that seems in order. I know this article is a translation, but the redundant "See also" link and the nonexistent category seem a little too breathlessly excited on the fractal issue. I'll fix those up... Melchoir 08:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is a classical theorem in the fractal geometry... See Falconer "Fractal Geometry" cited in the fractal article. I shall copy it here, so thanks for your question. BTW, the current definition of what "fractal" is was inserted there on the basis of this monograph and I guess this is (one of) the best source(s). --Beaumont (@) 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not everything complicated is a fractal. Are there sources for the mathematics? What do they say? Melchoir 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Sundial
Shouldn't this be merged with Sundial? 124.82.2.241 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why? This seems quite well separated topic (theoretical basis, technical means) and, eventually, might get expanded here.--Beaumont (@) 20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Also, a seperate page probably has better marketing potential. 153.2.246.31 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problems with Math and Text?
One bit of math looks wrong to me, but I'm out of my field. Specifically, immediately under the "Theorem" subhead, where it says [0,pi) - this looks like mismatched brackets to me.
"Sockets of optical waveguides" doesn't mean much to me; is "sockets" correct here?
Peter Delmonte 00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- [0,pi) means the set of numbers between 0 and pi, but the [ indicates that 0 is included in the set, but the ) indicates that pi is not (ie everything from 0 up to but not including pi). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Dang! I knew that once! Thanks for the explanation. Peter Delmonte 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
