Talk:Burning Ship fractal

Formula

$z_{n+1}=(|\operatorname {Re} \left(z_{n}\right)|+i|\operatorname {Im} \left(z_{n}\right)|)^{2}+c,\quad z_{0}=0$

It doesn't describe the functions 'Re' and 'Im', which should either have a link to its page, or a explanation on this page. -- Actually, now I see the point:

The absolute value of $z_{n}$ .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.8.90 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE() and IM() should be self-explanatory: these functions extract the real art and the imaginary part of z.

Maybe notably: IM() extracts only the number - without " i * ".

These functions are needed to set the real and the imaginary part independently to the absolute value.

Futher Questions about "+ c" and z0 = 0 see separate topic below.--Uli Cl (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelitsch Fractals

Why is this page linked? Only one of the pictures on that site seems to be a Burning Ship, and there is no relevant commentary or even descriptions of any of the pictures. - Rainwarrior 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I found the link to his papers on the Burning Ship buried at the bottom of the page. Is there a way we can make this link more obvious? - Rainwarrior 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since geocities is about to close I migrated the website to http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm which is indentical to the previous one http://www.geocities.com/tmichelitsch/Michelitsch_Fractals.html containing the first representations and the original paper cited above on the Burning Ship fractal. [User:fractalmichel|fractalmichel]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractalmichel (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan

The External link: Burning Ship fractal zoomer by Jetro Lauha may have a virus. I am running AVG which says so. Can anyone confirm this? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't confirm this but it seems like this page doesn't mention fractals at all. So I delete the link. bungalo (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Axis

Is the imaginary axis traditionally displayed inverted, with -i at the top and +i at the bottom? I believe all of the pictures are displayed in this way, as it lends to the idea of a burning ship, but the page fails to note this. Feneer (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. The description pages of all these images have that formula with the sign inverted (minus instead of plus). bungalo (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning Ship fractal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821220641/http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm to http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively large .gif

The animation is 32 meg. It's absurdly large and can expand horribly in a browser's memory (the gif animation can be expanded to individual frames and take up far more space). The youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S3lc2G3rWs) is far smoother and smaller. This is not the right use for a gif. 89.241.98.75 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

non-analytic mapping

What does this mean, that the mapping is non-analytic? What should be analyzed? There are many equations at the linked page "Cauchy-Riemann Equations". Which one is ignored?

Is this a problem? (some ugly distortions?) --Uli Cl (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ c is not explaned, z0 = 0 contradictory to code

1) In the formula, " + c" is not explaned. c is not a constant (what you might think). c is the point (x,y) which is tested by the iteration. You can see this, if you study the programming code. (search for "+x" after zx*zx-zy*zy and "+y" after abs(2*zx*zy) )
2) z₀ = 0 (in the introduction) contradicts with z₀ = c in the code. (search for the lines zx:=x and zy:=y before the iteration)
If you analyze this contradiction very deeply, you will discover that this is not a big problem. The start with "zx:=0 zy:=0" just causes one iteration more than the start "zx:=x zy:=y". Both works! But an article about mathematics should not have such an inconstistance.
I suggest to use the code zx:=0 zy:=0 which ist more similar to the mandelbrot set.--Uli Cl (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]