182
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − Line 5:
Line 4: + + +
no edit summary
Not a very satisfactory definition, as it misses out the all-important term "self-similar"
Not a very satisfactory definition, as it misses out the all-important term "self-similar"
From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fractal.html
From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Fractal.html
The bit about fractional dimensions needs to be added, because this extends the idea of dimensions quite considerably. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
The bit about fractional dimensions needs to be added, because this extends the idea of dimensions quite considerably. --[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
"The fractal nature of some plants has convinced many people that God must have designed the natural world" makes no sense whatsoever as an argument. If anything, I would have thought that it would have substantiated the case for the universe NOT being designed, since what occcurs in one place is simply replicated in another - this time on different scales. In any case, plants do NOT have a fractal structure. Some (not all) are self-similar on two (or possibly three) scales. Fractals are infinitely self-similar. At best this statement is an irrelevance, at worst it completely discredits the article . It should be removed.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 09:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)