Talk:Minkowski-Bouligand dimension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Physics
	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-Class)

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.

[edit] Initial one

Hmmm ... there should be a page on this, but the initial one consisted of nothing but (interesting-looking) references. Charles Matthews 18:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I've added in a definition, but am not so familiar with the fractals side of things and so it still needs more work. Also one may need to set up a whole bunch of redirects... Terry 17:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ack. I've discovered that there is a lot of overlap between what I just wrote here and the article on box-counting dimension. Now we need to merge... sigh Terry 18:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

merged from Talk:Box-counting dimension:

Box-counting dimension is not identical with Hausdorff dimension; this redirect is inappropriate, therefore.Charles Matthews 18:01, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is, however, identical with Minkowski-Bouligand dimension, which also goes under a variety of other names... we should probably merge these two articles now. Terry 18:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll do it, I hope I might have time the weekend. Gadykozma 18:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a crack at it already... but it might still be worth someone else looking over it and making sure it is OK. Terry 03:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very nice job. Thanks. Gadykozma 00:55, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that the packing dimension is different from the Minkowski dimension, I refer you to chapter 3.4 of Falconers "Fractal Geometry; Mathematical Foundations and Applications". I will edit this tommorow if I have the time. Andy

[edit] Category: Entropy?

Removing from category:Entropy. Unlike fractal dimension, this article doesn't even mention Renyi entropy. -- Jheald 15:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Packing dimension

Packing dimension is not the same as Minkowski dimension. Packing dimension of a set A is the infimum of all numbers s for which P(A,ε)ε^s converges to zero where P(A,ε) is the packing number. For general sets, the Hausdorff dimension is at most the Minkowski dimension which is at most the packing dimension, but no two have to be equal for any set. For self-similar sets, they are identical, I believe, but I'll need to check a reference. Jazzam 16:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my bad. The packing number can be used to compute the Minkowski dimension. I meant to say that there is an actual dimension called packing dimension distinct from Minkowski and Hausdorff dimension, where the inequalities mentioned above are still true, but it is constructed in a different manner. The way you define it is as follows: the upper packing dimensions are, respectively,

$\overline{\mbox{dim}}_{P}(A)=\inf\{\sup_{i}\overline{\mbox{dim}}_{M}A_{i}:A=\bigcap A_{i}\}$

and the $A i$ are bounded. Lower packing dimension is defined similarly, only using lower Minkowski dimension instead of upper. Sorry for the confusion about how to construct it. My reference is Mattila's "Geometry of Sets and Measures." Also, I said before that the dimensions may all be equal for self-similar sets. This is true as long as the self-similar set satisfies the open set condition. Jazzam 18:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)