Talk:Buddhabrot
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.135.5.192 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 18 December 2005.
- Hehe, I was just about to post the same comment. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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
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).
- 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:
- All good, except for the "succession hits a particular pixel" and "corresponding element" bits. Can you elaborate? :) Stevage 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- 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)
- 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)
-
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)
