When I started to look at rep-tiles, or shapes that can be divided completely into smaller copies of themselves, I wanted to find some of my own. It turns out that it’s easy to automate a search for the simpler kinds, like those based on equilateral triangles and right triangles.
(Please open the following images in a new window if they fail to animate)
Previously pre-posted (please peruse):
“And in the global climate of the early 90s, it’s perhaps not surprising that the ANC bent to the neoliberal flood tide, putting its Freedom Charter calls for public ownership and redistribution of land on the back burner.” — Mandela has been sanitised by hypocrites and apologists, Seamus Milne, The Guardian, 12/xii/2013.
Previously pre-posted (please peruse):
A hexagon can be divided into six equilateral triangles. An equilateral triangle can be divided into a hexagon and three more equilateral triangles. These simple rules, applied again and again, can be used to create fractals, or shapes that echo themselves on smaller and smaller scales.
Previously pre-posted (please peruse):
“Brion knew it wasn’t William’s fault. But in terms of the general popular culture not recognizing the importance of his contribution, there was a little bitterness.” — phantasmagoric freethinker Genesis P-Orridge interrogates issues around Brion Gysin and William S. Burroughs.
Elsewhere other-posted:
1/29[b=2] = 0·0000100011010011110111001011… (l=28)
1/29[b=3] = 0·0002210102011122200121202111… (l=28)
1/29[b=5] = 0·00412334403211… (l=14)
1/29[b=7] = 0·0145536… (l=7)
1/29[b=11] = 0·04199534608387[10]69115764[10]2723… (l=28)
1/29[b=13] = 0·05[10]9[11]28[12]7231[10]4… (l=14)
1/29[b=17] = 0·09[16]7… (l=4)
1/29[b=19] = 0·0[12]89[15][13][14]7[16]73[17][13]1[18]6[10]9354[11]2[11][15]15[17]… (l=28)
1/29[b=23] = 0·0[18]5[12][15][19][19]… (l=7)
1/29[b=29] = 0·1 (l=1)
1/29[b=31] = 0·1248[17]36[12][25][20]9[19]7[14][29][28][26][22][13][27][24][18]5[10][21][11][23][16]… (l=28)
1/29[b=37] = 0·1[10]7[24]8[34][16][21][25][19]53[30][22][35][26][29][12][28]2[20][15][11][17][31][33]6[14]… (l=28)
1/29[b=41] = 0·1[16][39][24]… (l=4)
1/29[b=43] = 0·1[20][32][26][29][28]7[17][34]4[19][11][37]2[41][22][10][16][13][14][35][25]8[38][23][31]5[40]… (l=28)
1/29[b=47] = 0·1[29]84[40][24][14][27][25][43][35][30][37][12][45][17][38][42]6[22][32][19][21]3[11][16]9[34]… (l=28)
1/29[b=53] = 0·1[43][45][36][29][12][42]… (l=7)
1/29[b=59] = 0·2… (l=1)
1/29[b=61] = 0·26[18][56][48][23]8[25][14][44][10][31][33][39][58][54][42]4[12][37][52][35][46][16][50][29][27][21]… (l=28)
1/29[b=67] = 0·2[20][53]9[16][11][36][64][46][13][57][50][55][30]… (l=14)
1/29[b=71] = 0·2[31][58][53][61][14][48][68][39][12][17]9[56][22]… (l=14)
1/29[b=73] = 0·2[37][55][27][50][25][12][42][57][65][32][52][62][67][70][35][17][45][22][47][60][30][15]7[40][20][10]5… (l=28)
1/29[b=79] = 0·2[57][16][27][19]5[35][32][54][38][10][70][65][29][76][21][62][51][59][73][43][46][24][40][68]8[13][49]… (l=28)
1/29[b=83] = 0·2[71][45][65][68][57][20]… (l=7)
1/29[b=89] = 0·36[12][24][49]9[18][36][73][58][27][55][21][42][85][82][76][64][39][79][70][52][15][30][61][33][67][46]… (l=28)
1/29[b=97] = 0·3[33][43][46][80][26][73][56][83][60][20]6[66][86][93][63][53][50][16][70][23][40][13][36][76][90][30][10]… (l=28)
Papyrocentric Performativity Presents:
• Brit Grit – Granite and Grit: A Walker’s Guide to the Geology of British Mountains, Ronald Turnbull (Francis Lincoln 2011)
• Singh Summing Simpsons – The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets, Simon Singh (Bloomsbury 2013)
• Go with the Quo – Status Quo: Still Doin’ It – The Official Updated Edition, compiled by Bob Young, edited by Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt (Omnibus Press 2013)
• Breeding Bunnies – The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the Extraordinary Number of Nature, Art and Beauty, Mario Livio (Headline Review 2003) (posted @ Overlord of the Über-Feral)
• Brit Bot Book – Reader’s Digest Field Guide to the Wild Flowers of Britain, J.R. Press et al, illustrated Leonora Box et al (1981) (@ O.o.t.Ü.-F.)
Or Read a Review at Random: RaRaR
I feel odd when I consider this possibility: that all my thoughts are strictly determined, no more under my control than a straw in a gale or a stone in an avalanche. It seems paradoxical to have strictly determined thoughts about strictly determined thoughts. But is it? And is strict determinism fatal for finding the truth? I don’t think so. In fact, I think that strict determinism is essential for truth. But irrelevant associations get in the way of our understanding this. If our thoughts are determined, they seem like automatic trains running on rigid tracks. We might want to go to the station marked “Truth”, but if the switches are set wrong, the train will never get there. Or it will thunder through and never stop.
Continue reading The Brain in Train…
A square can be divided into four right triangles. A right triangle can be divided into a square and two more right triangles. These simple rules, applied again and again, can be used to create fractals, or shapes that echo themselves on smaller and smaller scales.
Stand and see, some sun o’clock,
Wet flame devour the headland rock.
The Golden Ratio: The Story of Phi, the Extraordinary Number of Nature, Art and Beauty, Mario Livio (Headline Review 2003)
A good short popular guide to perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most irrational, of all numbers: the golden ratio or phi (φ), which is approximately equal to 1·6180339887498948482… Prominent in mathematics since at least the ancient Greeks and Euclid, phi is found in many places in nature too, from pineapples and sunflowers to the flight of hawks. Livio catalogues its appearances in both maths and nature, looking closely at the Fibonacci sequence and rabbit-breeding, before going on to debunk mistaken claims that phi also appears a lot in art, music and poetry. Dalí certainly used it, but da Vinci, Debussy and Virgil almost certainly didn’t. Nor, almost certainly, did the builders of the Parthenon and pyramids. Finally, he examines what has famously been called (by the physicist Eugene Wiegner) the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics: why is this human invention so good at describing the behaviour of the Universe? Livio quotes one of the best short answers I’ve seen:
Human logic was forced on us by the physical world and is therefore consistent with it. Mathematics derives from logic. That is why mathematics is consistent with the physical world. (ch. 9, “Is God a mathematician?”, pg. 252)
It’s not hard to recommend a book that quotes everyone from Johannes Kepler and William Blake to Lewis Carroll, Christopher Marlowe and Jef Raskin, “the creator of the Macintosh computer”, whose answer is given above. Recreational mathematicians should also find lots of ideas for further investigation, from fractal strings to the fascinating number patterns governed by Benford’s law. It isn’t just human beings who look after number one: as a leading figure, 1 turns up much more often in data from the real world, and in mathematical constructs like the Fibonacci sequence, than intuition would lead you to expect. If you’d like to learn more about that and about many other aspects of mathematics, hunt down a copy of this book.
Elsewhere other-posted:
• Roses Are Golden – φ and floral homicide
Overlord In Terms of Core Issues Around Maximal Engagement with Key Notions of the Über-Feral 