Jump to content

- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#52 Buffy


    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 04 June 2017 - 11:09 AM

I strongly suggest you look up fractals .


No dear, I don't have to look up fractals. I have been studying them for decades.


Fractals , in life have the ability to reproduce the whole .


While that's an inartfully stated and sorta true, it's also irrelevant to what you've been asked here and it's become rather obvious you are having trouble enunciating what it is you actually do want to convey. That's unfortunate. 


This thread has not contributed much to anyone's understanding of anything and is being moved because of your unwillingness to address any of the objections posed. Oh well.



It was a joke to the extent in the context of the views that speech, :phones:


#53 exchemist



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2851 posts

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:34 AM

Kaboom! Yep. "No True Scotsman"....



The problem here is that you've got your own definition of "Fractal" which no one else shares.



Both animate and inanimate objects can be described using fractal formulae. This is generally accepted by everyone and yes, crystals and mountains and shorelines are all canonical examples of them.


The original fractal, the Mandelbrot set, is *static*. While it's algorithm is iterative, it does not grow or change. For a given numerical range in R, and given resolution, it's values are absolutely unchanging.


So, no, fractals have nothing to do with "change" or "life."


Now you can make up words, but if you take words and change their meaning to the point where they are recognizable, you're no longer doing "communication."


Honestly, Humpty Dumpty had a pretty lonely life.



The question is, which is to be master — that's all, :phones:


Yes, Hamish McDonald, with his copy of the Glasgow Herald, all right. 


But you won't get this through river's, sorry, current's skull. :)