simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)
simont ([personal profile] simont) wrote2002-11-14 05:23 pm

Pretty swirly things

I've just put up a web page of pretty swirly fractals, one of which is animated and thus doubly swirly. Anyone who's into that sort of thing, have a look at http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/newton/. Gets a bit mathematical in places; read the maths if you care, skip down to the pretty pictures if you don't :-)

(Yes, as it happens, I have been spending a lot of today waiting for long test runs to finish. How can you tell?)

[identity profile] kaet.livejournal.com 2002-11-15 11:38 am (UTC)(link)
Thanks!

My main concern was that I thought it was obvious with the extra dimensions and if there's no way to do it in three, I shouldn't waste time trying to warp my brain around it.

I'd come across this bijection definition, but I thought that the two things were equivalent (given everyone 'knows' that's what topological deformation is). I shall endeavour to abandon it, :). It makes more sense when you're dealing with immersions anyway, I think, to think of them as 1-to-1 mappings of neighbourhoods rather than the screwy one about intersections in n-2 dimensions, or whatever it is, so the deformation thing probably gives up even the advantage of being more intuitive when you get to more involved stuff, anyway.

I had also suspected that it was that my brain wasn't warped enough to untie the knot in three, :). Some of those shapes are just, just not natural, :).