Difference between revisions of "Talk:Escher Fractal Exploration"

From EscherMath
Jump to navigationJump to search
(A bit more to say.)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
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.
 
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)
 
[[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)

Revision as of 14:07, 2 March 2009

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. 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. Barta 14:07, 2 March 2009 (CST)