View source for Talk:Escher Fractal Exploration

These are not fractals (especially the first two).  Also, the connection to Escher is pretty weak.  I'd suggest this be renamed.

On top of that, some of the text needs rewriting.  Shouldn't be using "I" here, and more problematic is that these patterns are not fractals.
[[User:Bryan|Bryan]] 10:43, 2 March 2009 (CST)

A fractal by definition is a pattern with a recursive definition. So even though this is extremely simple, I would say that this is a fractal. Further more this is straight form Visions of Symmetry and was an experiment by Escher when he was delving into these smaller and smaller type prints. So yes there definitely is an Escher connection. [[User:Barta|Barta]] 14:07, 2 March 2009 (CST) 

I was thinking a bit more about your question, and I guess the problem is that the square shapes are in that group of self similar objects that fail to be fractals due to the fact that they can be described in euclidean terms? Or another way to think about it is that they have regular dimension, not fractal dimension. I realized that we do not have anything resembling a rigorous definition of a fractal anywhere. And those subtleties may be a bit beyond the scope of the class? Not sure what to do. [[User:Barta|Barta]] 10:34, 4 March 2009 (CST)