ron@oscvax.UUCP (08/27/87)
The Ontario Science Centre is having a temporary exhibition in the fall and one part of this exhibition deals with fractals. As the show grows closer I am often asked for a definition of a fractal. My attempts usually result in a lot of hand-waving and showing of pretty pictures. I usually end up giving properties that are common among a lot of fractals such as highly irregular, self-similar, non-differentiable, etc. The definition that Mandelbrot uses in The Fractal Geometry of Nature is: "A fractal is by definition a set for which the Hausdorff Besicovitch dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension". Needless to say this is not something we can use on the unsuspecting public. Does anybody out there want to try and come up with a definition for a fractal which is understandable to quasi-intelligent people? Thanks for listening, -- Ron Janzen Ontario Science Centre, Toronto ...!{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!oscvax!ron
lewisd@homxc.UUCP (D.LEWIS) (09/02/87)
In article <508@oscvax.UUCP>, ron@oscvax.UUCP (Ron Janzen) writes: > I usually end up giving properties that are common among a lot of > fractals such as highly irregular, self-similar, non-differentiable, > etc. The definition that Mandelbrot uses in The Fractal Geometry of > Nature is: > > "A fractal is by definition a set for which the Hausdorff Besicovitch > dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension". > > Needless to say this is not something we can use on the unsuspecting > public. Does anybody out there want to try and come up with a > definition for a fractal which is understandable to quasi-intelligent > people? I think that you're on the right track with "self-similar." Perhaps also try "partial-dimensional." Make the comparision between a straight line and a space-filling curve, perhaps, and point out the similarity of fractals to such curves. -- David B. Lewis {ihnp4!}homxc!lewisd 201-615-5306 Eastern Time, Days.