How to Fold a Julia Fractal
acko.net
acko.net
The way this is presented is very similar to how most math-folk I know picture these concepts in their head. This is probably one of the toughest things for beginners, who don't understand that (most) math-folk think in pictures like this and not in symbols.
For example, starting at around Slide 29 in the first visualization, the author actually paints a picture of a branch cut[2] without using that term.
Likewise, starting at around Slide 12 of the last visualization, the author hints at the special relationship between complex numbers and differentiation in the complex plane. The jargon-y stuff involved here are holomorphic functions[3], the Cauchy-Riemann equations[4], and the very surprising-but-central theorem of complex analysis: Cauchy's integral theorem[5].
[1]: Functions from ℂ to ℂ are "hard" to reason about because there
are 4 dimensions involved, at least if you're picturing ℂ as a
2-dimensional plane.
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_point#Branch_cuts
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holomorphic_function
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy-Riemann_equations
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cauchy%27s_integral_theoremI remember the Julia fractal in particular because it was so beautiful, and it was around this part of the course -- maybe 75% of the way through -- that the fractals and like topics started to blow my mind. Our professor showed us this video that zoomed in on a Julia fractal, something like this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gruJ0S3TTtI, and I remember watching it all day at work the next day. I also searched for images of the most beautiful Julias to make as my desktop background, of course.
Not only were they beautiful but so symbolic, as this article captures: Julia fractals are part of chaos theory, which holds that even determinate, logical systems can nevertheless manifest completely unpredictable and nonrecurrent behavior. It's a straightforward equation that gets you these beautiful -- and utterly terrifying, ceaseless, dreamlike -- images, when mapped in a certain way. For me, that's a really beautiful concept because with "Enlightenment" mathematics, Newton and Leibniz and co, you got this concept of a determinate universe, which could therefore also be known and predicated in advance. Yet chaos theory shows that even determinate systems can be impossible to know, refusing to allow the complexity and variety of that which exists to boil down into a boring pattern of predictable and even controllable outcomes.
Not nearly as pretty, but if you'd like to read more about complex numbers, here's a slide show I put together a while back:
How to explain Euler's identity using triangles and spirals https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1oMNjkDp-LieSGnZEwNpc...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5017078 (4 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5036235 (50 comments)
http://acko.net/blog/zero-to-sixty-in-one-second/
All of their MathBox-powered articles are wonderfull really.
Only to a prescriptivist[1] trying to keep the language static. "Cromulent" is slowly making its way into descriptivist[1] dictionaries and is recognized about as often as any other new word, so it just as much a "real" word as other new words ("email", "google" (transitive verb), "truthiness").
> the correctness of using a singular they
The alternative is gendered pronouns which have several problems[2].
/* I'm not trying to nitpick your post; I just thought these two Tom Scott clips were fun and relevant to these grammar issues. */
Also, the videos you referenced are great :)
I also tend to use it sometimes despite knowing the gender of the person I am referring to. This seems reasonable to me, because I don't see any reason why it is important to always specify the person's gender, when I don't need to specify who the person is, and doing so allows me to refer to someone without specifying a gender, should any situation occur where that would be useful, without anyone commenting on my word choice, because I would already be in the habit of sometimes leaving it out.
I was lucky that someone explained me complex numbers when I was 15 (I also had wanted to plot Mandelbrot fractals for a long time, but back then I didn't even have the Internet to help me), using a very visual approach similar to the featured article. That is, multiplication by -1 is the same as a 180 degree rotation around the zero ... so what would happen if we decided we could rotate by 90 degrees?
So I took a similar approach. Then I remembered this article about "folding Julia fractals", the visualizations in this article were a great supplement to the graphs and scribbles we made on paper, exploring the weird world of complex numbers.
I did a little video interview with him to show off his work (cause, you know, I was kinda proud): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR6klRdtjsg -- It's in Dutch and I'm not a very good interviewer, also no editing (and yes I should've held my phone horizontally, sorry).
But the best part was two weeks later, I kinda feared I had dumped too much information onto him at once (especially given I also had to explain the distributive rule), I asked him if he had made any improvements or additions; "Yeah, I had to wait at the dentist's this week, and I had Processing for Android (APDE) on my phone, so I wrote the Julia version of the Mandelbrot zoomer" ... Oh, if only I had have a powerful pocket computer when I was 12!!! (so jealous!)
I feel stupid for not being able to visualize complex numbers before.
When he talks about "folding" the Julia set, I immediately thought of this picture of some fractions http://i.imgur.com/wxz2a3t.png from this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4225v1
Thanks, amazing blogpost / webapp :)