Tag Archives: fractal geometry

Back to Frac

by in Arithmetic, Continued Fractions, Fractals, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s a second serendipitous fractal:

A serendipitous fractal on a fract-L

It looks like (and is related to) the limestone fractal and I found it similarly serendipitously. This time I was looking at continued fractions, a simple yet subtle and seductive way of representing non-integer numbers like 2/3 and 7/9 (or √2 and π). To generate a continued fraction from a/b < 1, you divide a/b into 1 and take away the integer part. Then you repeat with the remainder until nothing is left (or, as with irrationals like 1/√2 and 1/π, you've calculated long enough for your needs). The integers at each stage are the numbers of the continued fraction. Here is the working for contfrac(2/3), the continued fraction of 2/3:

int(1/(2/3)) = int(3/2) = int(1.5) = 1
3/2 – 1 = 1/2
int(1/(1/2)) = int(2) = 2
2 – 2 = 0

contfrac(2/3) = 1, 2

By working backwards with (1, 2), you can use the continued fraction to reconstruct the original number a/b. Start with a/b = 0/1:

1 / (0/1 + 2) = 1 / ((0+2*1)/2) = 1 / (2/1) = 1/2
1 / (1/2 + 1) = 1 / ((1+2*1)/2) = 1 / (3/2) = 2/3

And here’s the working for contfrac(7/9), the continued fraction of 7/9:

int(1/(7/9)) = int(9/7) = int(1.285714…) = 1
9/7 – 1 = 2/7
int(1/(2/7)) = int(7/2) = int(3.5) = 3
7/2 – 3 = 1/2
int(1/(1/2)) = int(2) = 2
2 – 2 = 0

contfrac(7/9) = 1, 3, 2

And here’s the reconstruction of 7/9 from its continued fraction, starting again with a/b = 0/1:

1 / (0/1 + 2) = 1 / ((0+2*1)/2) = 1 / (2/1) = 1/2
1 / (1/2 + 3) = 1 / ((1+2*3)/2) = 1 / (7/2) = 2/7
1 / (2/7 + 1) = 1 / ((2+7*1)/7) = 1 / (9/7) = 7/9

From that simple algorithm arise subtle and seductive things. Look at some continued fractions, cf(a/b), for a/b in simplest form (giving only the first few reciprocals, 1/b, because cf(1/b) = b). Interesting patterns appear, e.g. when a/b uses adjacent or nearly adjacent Fibonacci numbers:

cf(1/3) = 3 = cf(0.333333333…)
cf(2/3) = 1,2 = cf(0.666666666…)
cf(1/4) = 4 = cf(0.25)
cf(3/4) = 1,3 = cf(0.75)
cf(1/5) = 5 = cf(0.2)
cf(2/5) = 2,2 = cf(0.4)
cf(3/5) = 1,1,2 = cf(0.6)
cf(4/5) = 1,4 = cf(0.8)
cf(5/6) = 1,5 = cf(0.833333333…)
cf(2/7) = 3,2 = cf(0.285714285…)
cf(3/7) = 2,3 = cf(0.428571428…)
cf(4/7) = 1,1,3 = cf(0.571428571…)
cf(5/7) = 1,2,2 = cf(0.714285714…)
cf(6/7) = 1,6 = cf(0.857142857…)
cf(3/8) = 2,1,2 = cf(0.375)
cf(5/8) = 1,1,1,2 = cf(0.625)
cf(7/8) = 1,7 = cf(0.875)
cf(2/9) = 4,2 = cf(0.222222222…)
cf(4/9) = 2,4 = cf(0.444444444…)
cf(5/9) = 1,1,4 = cf(0.555555555…)
cf(7/9) = 1,3,2 = cf(0.777777777…)
cf(8/9) = 1,8 = cf(0.888888888…)
cf(3/10) = 3,3 = cf(0.3)
cf(7/10) = 1,2,3 = cf(0.7)
cf(9/10) = 1,9 = cf(0.9)
cf(2/11) = 5,2 = cf(0.181818181…)
cf(3/11) = 3,1,2 = cf(0.272727272…)
cf(4/11) = 2,1,3 = cf(0.363636363…)
cf(5/11) = 2,5 = cf(0.454545454…)
cf(6/11) = 1,1,5 = cf(0.545454545…)
cf(7/11) = 1,1,1,3 = cf(0.636363636…)
cf(8/11) = 1,2,1,2 = cf(0.727272727…)
cf(9/11) = 1,4,2 = cf(0.818181818…)
cf(10/11) = 1,10 = cf(0.909090909…)
cf(5/12) = 2,2,2 = cf(0.416666666…)
cf(7/12) = 1,1,2,2 = cf(0.583333333…)
cf(11/12) = 1,11 = cf(0.916666666…)
cf(2/13) = 6,2 = cf(0.153846153…)
cf(3/13) = 4,3 = cf(0.230769230…)
cf(4/13) = 3,4 = cf(0.307692307…)
cf(5/13) = 2,1,1,2 = cf(0.384615384…)
cf(6/13) = 2,6 = cf(0.461538461…)
cf(7/13) = 1,1,6 = cf(0.538461538…)
cf(8/13) = 1,1,1,1,2 = cf(0.615384615…)
cf(9/13) = 1,2,4 = cf(0.692307692…)
cf(10/13) = 1,3,3 = cf(0.769230769…)
cf(11/13) = 1,5,2 = cf(0.846153846…)
cf(12/13) = 1,12 = cf(0.923076923…)
cf(3/14) = 4,1,2 = cf(0.214285714…)
cf(5/14) = 2,1,4 = cf(0.357142857…)
cf(9/14) = 1,1,1,4 = cf(0.642857142…)
cf(11/14) = 1,3,1,2 = cf(0.785714285…)
cf(13/14) = 1,13 = cf(0.928571428…)
cf(2/15) = 7,2 = cf(0.133333333…)
cf(4/15) = 3,1,3 = cf(0.266666666…)
cf(7/15) = 2,7 = cf(0.466666666…)
cf(8/15) = 1,1,7 = cf(0.533333333…)
cf(11/15) = 1,2,1,3 = cf(0.733333333…)
cf(13/15) = 1,6,2 = cf(0.866666666…)
cf(14/15) = 1,14 = cf(0.933333333…)
cf(3/16) = 5,3 = cf(0.1875)
cf(5/16) = 3,5 = cf(0.3125)
cf(7/16) = 2,3,2 = cf(0.4375)

After investigating some of those patterns, I wondered what happened when you reversed the continued fraction cf(a/b) and used those reversed numbers backward (that is, used the numbers of cf(a/b) forward) to generate another and different a/b. And a/b will always be different unless cf(a/b) is a palindrome, like cf(5/12) = 2,2,2 or cf(5/13) = 2,1,1,2 or cf(4/15) = 3,1,3. Note that a continued fraction never ends in 1, so that when reversing, say, cf(5/8) = (1, 1, 1, 2), you need an adjustment from (2, 1, 1, 1) to (2, 1, 1+1) = (2, 1, 2). Here’s a little of what happens when you reverse cf(a1/b1) to generate a2/b2:

cf(1/2) = 2 → 2 = cf(1/2)
1/2 = 0.5 : 0.5 = 1/2
cf(1/3) = 3 → 3 = cf(1/3)
1/3 = 0.333333333 : 0.333333333 = 1/3
cf(2/3) = 1, 2 → 2, 1 → 3 = cf(1/3)
2/3 = 0.666666666 : 0.333333333 = 1/3
cf(3/4) = 1, 3 → 3, 1 → 4 = cf(1/4)
3/4 = 0.75 : 0.25 = 1/4
cf(2/5) = 2, 2 → 2, 2 = cf(2/5)
2/5 = 0.4 : 0.4 = 2/5
cf(3/5) = 1, 1, 2 → 2, 1, 1 → 2, 2 = cf(2/5)
3/5 = 0.6 : 0.4 = 2/5
cf(4/5) = 1, 4 → 4, 1 → 5 = cf(1/5)
4/5 = 0.8 : 0.2 = 1/5
cf(5/6) = 1, 5 → 5, 1 → 6 = cf(1/6)
5/6 = 0.833333333 : 0.166666666 = 1/6
cf(2/7) = 3, 2 → 2, 3 = cf(3/7)
2/7 = 0.285714286 : 0.428571428 = 3/7
cf(3/7) = 2, 3 → 3, 2 = cf(2/7)
3/7 = 0.428571429 : 0.285714286 = 2/7
cf(4/7) = 1, 1, 3 → 3, 1, 1 → 3, 2 = cf(2/7)
4/7 = 0.571428571 : 0.285714286 = 2/7
cf(5/7) = 1, 2, 2 → 2, 2, 1 → 2, 3 = cf(3/7)
5/7 = 0.714285714 : 0.428571429 = 3/7
cf(6/7) = 1, 6 → 6, 1 → 7 = cf(1/7)
6/7 = 0.857142857 : 0.142857143 = 1/7
cf(3/8) = 2, 1, 2 → 2, 1, 2 = cf(3/8)
0.375 : 0.375
cf(5/8) = 1, 1, 1, 2 → 2, 1, 1, 1 → 2, 1, 2 = cf(3/8)
0.625 : 0.375
cf(7/8) = 1, 7 → 7, 1 → 8 = cf(1/8)
0.875 : 0.125
cf(2/9) = 4, 2 → 2, 4 = cf(4/9)
0.222222222 : 0.444444444
cf(4/9) = 2, 4 → 4, 2 = cf(2/9)
0.444444444 : 0.222222222

And if you plot x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2) on a fract-L, that is, a graph whose horizontal and vertical arms represent 0 to 1, you get the fractal right at the beginning:

Fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2), where a2/b2 is generated from reversed(cf(a1/b1))

You need to use (a2/b2 * 2) because a2/b2 from reversed(cf(a1/b1)) is always <= 0.5, so using raw a2/b2 generates this graph:

Fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = a2/b2 (i.e. a2/b2 is unadjusted)

Why is it always true that a2/b2 <= 0.5? For two reasons. First, a/b > 0.5 always generate continued fractions that start with 1, like cf(2/3) = 1, 2 or cf(3/4) = 1, 3 or cf(3/5) = 1, 1, 2. Second, as previously mentioned, no continued fraction ends with 1. Therefore a reversed cf(a1/b1), where the final number, n > 1, moves to the beginning, will never begin with 1 and the a2/b2 generated from reversed(cf(a1/b1)) will always be less than 0.5 (or equal to it in the solitary case of cf(1/2) = 2).

Now let's look at the development of the fractal as a1/b1 uses larger and larger denominators:

Fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2) for a1/b1 <= 6/7

Fract-L for for a1/b1 <= 14/15

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 30/31

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 62/63

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 126/127

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 254/255

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 357/358

Fract-L for a1/b1 <= 467/468

Animated fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2) (animated at ezGif)

The fractal changes subtly when you restrict the b1 of a1/b1 in some way, say using multiples of 2, 3, 4, 5…:

Fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2) for b1 = n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8…

Fract-L for b1 = 2n = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10…

Fract-L for b1 = 3n = 3, 6, 9, 12, 15…

Fract-L for b1 = 4n

Fract-L for b1 = 5n

Fract-L for b1 = 6n

Animated fract-L for b1 = 1n..12n (animated at ezGif)

Finally, here are fract-Ls when b1 is a triangular or square or hexagonal number:

Fract-L for x = a1/b1 and y = (a2/b2 * 2) for triangular(b1) = 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28,…

Fract-L for square(b1) = 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49,…

Fract-L for hexagonal(b1) = 6, 15, 28, 45, 66, 91,…

Fract-L for octagonal(b1) = 8, 21, 40, 65, 96, 133,…

Elsewhere Other-Accessible…

• Back to Drac — a parallel pun for a pre-previous fractal
• I Like Gryke — a first look at the limestone fractal
• Lime Time — more on the fractal

Fractional Fractal Fract-Ls

by in Fractals, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

This is the surpassingly special Stern-Brocot sequence:

0, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 4, 1, 5, 4, 7, 3, 8, 5, 7, 2, 7, 5, 8, 3, 7, 4, 5, 1, 6, 5, 9, 4, 11, 7, 10, 3, 11, 8, 13, 5, 12, 7, 9, 2, 9, 7, 12, 5, 13, 8, 11, 3, 10, 7, 11, 4, 9, 5, 6, 1, 7, 6, 11, 5, 14, 9, 13, 4, 15, 11, 18, 7, 17, 10, 13, 3, 14, 11, 19, 8, 21, 13, 18, 5, 17, 12, 19, … (A002487 at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences)

And why is the sequence special? Because if you take successive pairs of the apparently arbitrarily varying numbers, you get every rational fraction in its simplest form exactly once. So 1/2, 2/3, 6/11 and 502/787 appear once and then never again. And so do 2/1, 3/2, 11/6 and 787/502. Et cetera, ad infinitum. If you map the Stern-Brocot sequence against the related Calkin-Wilk sequence, which has the same “all-simplest-fractions-exactly-once” properties, you can create this fractal, which I call a limestone fractal or gryke fractal:

Gryke fractal by mapping Stern-Brocot sequence against Calkin-Wilf sequence

The graph is what I call a Fract-L, because the lines for the x,y coordinates create an L. Each coordinate runs from 0 to 1, with the x set by the fraction from the Stern-Brocot sequence and the y set by the fraction from the Calkin-Wilf sequence (if a > b in a/b, use the conversion 1/(a/b) = b/a). But you can also find interesting patterns by mapping the Stern-Brocot sequence against itself. That is, you use two Stern-Brocot sequences that start in different places. Now, there are complicated ways to create the Stern-Brocot sequence using mathematical trees and sequential algorithms and so on. But there’s also an astonishingly simple way, a formula created by the Israeli mathematician Moshe Newman. If (a,b) is one pair of successive numbers in the sequence, the next pair (a,b) is found like this:

c = b
b = (2 * int(a/b) + 1) * b – a
a = c

This means that you can seed a Stern-Brocot sequence with any (correctly simplified) a/b and it will continue in the right way. If the two SB-sequences for x and y are both seeded with (0,1), you get this 45° line, because each successive a/b for (x,y) is identical:

Stern-Brocot pairs seeded with x ← (0,1) and y ← (0,1)

The further you extend the sequences, the less broken the 45° line will appear, because the points determined by a/b for x and y will get closer and closer together (but the line will never be solid, because any two rationals are separated by an infinity of irrationals). Now try offsetting the SB-sequences for x,y by using different seeds. Different fractal patterns appear, which all appear to be subsets (or fractions) of the limestone fractal above (see animated gif below):

Stern-Brocot pairs seeded with x ← (0,1) and y ← (1,1)

x ← (0,1) and y ← (1,2)

x ← (0,1) and y ← (1,3)

x ← (0,1) and y ← (2,3)

x ← (0,1) and y ← (3,4)

x ← (0,1) and y ← (6,7)

x ← (1,2) and y ← (1,9)

x ← (1,4) and y ← (1,6)

x ← (1,7) and y ← (1,8)

x ← (2,3) and y ← (4,5) — apparently identical to x ← (1,4) and y ← (1,6) above

x ← (26,25) and y ← (1,10)

Gryke fractal compared with Stern-Brocot-pair patterns (animated at ezGif)

And here’s what happens when the seed-fractions for x run from 1/3 to 12/13, while the seed-fraction for y is held constant at 1/23:

x ← (1,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (2,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (3,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (4,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (5,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (6,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (7,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (8,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (9,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (10,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (11,13) and y ← (1,23)

x ← (12,13) and y ← (1,23)

Animated gif for x ← (n,13) and y ← (1,23) (animated at ezGif)

Previously Pre-Posted

• I Like Gryke — a first look at the limestone fractal
• Lime Time — more on the fractal

The Wyrm Ferns

by in Aesthetics, Dragon Curves, Fractals, Geometry, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A fern is a fractal, a shape that contains copies of itself at smaller and smaller scales. That is, part of a fern looks like the fern as a whole:

Fern as fractal (source)

Millions of years after Mother Nature, man got in on the fract, as it were:

The Sierpiński triangle, a 2d fractal

The Sierpiński triangle is a fractal created in two dimensions by a point jumping halfway towards one or another of the three vertices of a triangle. And here is a fractal created in one dimension by a point jumping halfway towards one or another of the two ends of a line:

A 1d fractal

In one dimension, the fractality of the fractal isn’t obvious. But you can try draggin’ out (or dragon out) the fractality of the fractal by ferning the wyrm, as it were. Suppose that after the point jumps halfway towards one or another of the two points, it’s rotated by some angle around the midpoint of the two original points. When you do that, the fractal becomes more and more obvious. In fact, it becomes what’s called a dragon curve (in Old English, “dragon” was wyrm or worm):

Fractal with angle = 5°

Fractal 10°

Fractal 15°

Fractal 20°

Fractal 25°

Fractal 30°

Fractal 35°

Fractal 40°

Fractal 45°

Fractal 50°

Fractal 55°

Fractal 60°

Fractal 0° to 60° (animated at ezGif)

But as the angle gets bigger, an interesting aesthetic question arises. When is the ferned wyrm, the dragon curve, at its most attractive? I’d say it’s when angle ≈ 55°:

Fractal 50°

Fractal 51°

Fractal 52°

Fractal 53°

Fractal 54°

Fractal 55°

Fractal 56°

Fractal 57°

Fractal 58°

Fractal 59°

Fractal 60°

Fractal 50° to 60° (animated)

At angle >= 57°, I think the dragon curve starts to look like some species of bristleworm, which are interesting but unattractive marine worms:

A bristleworm, Nereis virens (see polychaete at Wikipedia)

Finally, here’s what the ferned wyrm looks like in black-and-white and when it’s rotating:

Fractal 0° to 60° (b&w, animated)

Fractal 56° (rotating)

Fractal 56° (b&w, rotating)

Double fractal 56° (b&w, rotating)

Previously Pre-Posted (Please Peruse)…

• Curvous Energy — a first look at dragon curves
• Back to Drac’ — another look at dragon curves

Squaring the Triangle

by in Circles, Fractals, Geometry, Mathematics, Sierpiński triangle, Triangles and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

It’s an interesting little exercise in elementary trigonometry to turn the Sierpiński triangle…

A Sierpiński triangle

…into its circular equivalent:

A Sierpiński trisc

You could call that a trisc, because it’s a triangle turned into a disc. And here’s triangle-and-trisc in one image:

Sierpiński triangle + Sierpiński trisc

But what’s the square equivalent of a Sierpiński triangle? This is:

Square from Sierpiński triangle

You can do that directly, as it were:

Sierpiński triangle → square

Or you can convert the triangle into a disc, then the disc into a square, like this:

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → square

Now try converting the triangle into a pentagon:

Pentagon from Sierpiński triangle

Sierpiński triangle → pentagon

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → pentagon

And a hexagon:

Hexagon from Sierpiński triangle

Sierpiński triangle → hexagon

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → hexagon

But you can also convert the Sierpiński trisc back into a Sierpiński triangle, then into a Sierpiński trisc again:

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → triangle → trisc

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → triangle → trisc (animated at Ezgif)

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → triangle → trisc (b&w)

Sierpiński triangle → trisc → triangle → trisc (b&w) (animated at Ezgif)

After triangles come squares. Here’s a shape called a T-square fractal:

T-square fractal

And here’s the circular equivalent of a T-square fractal:

T-square fractal → T-squisc

T-square fractal + T-squisc

If a disc from a triangle is a trisc, then a disc from a square is a squisc (it would be pentisc, hexisc, heptisc for pentagonal, hexagonal and heptagonal fractals). Here’s the octagonal equivalent of a T-square fractal:

Octagon from T-square fractal

As with the Sierpiński trisc, you can use the T-squisc to create the T-octagon:

T-square fractal → T-squisc → T-octagon (color)

Or you can convert the T-square directly into the T-octagon:

T-square fractal to T-octagon fractal

But using the squisc makes for interesting multiple images:

T-square fractal → T-squisc → T-octagon (b&w)

T-square fractal → T-squisc → T-octagon → T-squisc

T-square fractal → T-squisc → T-octagon → T-squisc (animated at Ezgif)

The conversions from polygon to polygon look best when the number of sides in the higher polygon are a multiple of the number of sides in the lower, like this:

Sierpiński triangle → Sierpiński hexagon → Sierpiński nonagon

Scout the Routes

by in Chaos Game, Fractals, Geometry, Mathematics, Squares and tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Triangles? Yes. Squares? No. If you scout the routes with a triangle, you get a beautiful fractal. If you scout the routes with a square, you don’t. Here’s what you get with a triangle:

A Sierpiński triangle

But how do you scout the routes? (That phrase works best in the American dialects where “scout” rhymes with “route”.) Simple: you mark the final positions reached when a point traces all possible ways of jumping, say, eight times 1/2-way towards the vertices of a polygon. Here’s an animation of a point scouting the routes of eight jumps towards the vertices of a triangle (it starts each time at the center):

Creating a Sierpiński triangle by scouting the routes (animated at Ezgif)

If you scout the routes with a square, you don’t get a fractal. Instead, the interior of the square fills evenly (and boringly) with the end-points of the routes:

Scouting the routes with a square (animated at Ezgif)

But you can create fractals with a square if you out routes as you scout routes. That is, if you exclude some routes and don’t mark their end-points. One way to do this is to compare the proposed next jump-vertex (vertex-jumped-towards) with the previous jump-vertex. For example, if the proposed jump-vertex, jv[t], is the same as the previous jump-vertex, jv[t-1], you don’t jump towards jv[t] or you jump towards it in a different way. The test is jv[t] = jv[t-1] + vi. If vi = 0 and you jump towards the clockwise neighbor of jv when the test is true, you get a fractal looking like this:

vi = 0, action = jv → jv + 1

Here’s the fractal if you jump towards the clockwise-neighbor-but-one when the test is true:

vi = 0, action = jv + 2

Now try varying the vi of the jv[t-1] + vi:

vi = 2, action = jv + 2

vi = 2, action = jv + 1

vi = 3, action = jv + 1

Or what about jumping in a different way towards jv when the test is true? If you jump 2/3 of the way rather 1/2, you get his fractal:

vi = 2, action = jump 2/3

And if you jump 4/3 of the way (i.e., you overshoot the vertex jv), you get this fractal:

vi = 0, action = jump 4/3rds to vertex

vi = 0, jump 4/3 (guide-square removed)

vi = 2, jump 4/3rds (guide-square removed)

And in this fractal the point jumps 2/3 of the way to the center of the square when the test is true:

vi = 2, action = jump 2/3rds of way to center of square

But why apply only one test to jv[1] and use only when one alternative jump? If jv[t] = jv[t-1] + 1 or jv[t] = jv[t-1] + 3, jv[t] becomes jv[t]+1 or jv[t]+3, respectively, you get this fractal:

vi = 1, jv + 1; vi = 3, jv + 3

Here are more fractals created by single and double tests:

vi = 1, jv + 1

vi = 0, jump 2/3

vi = 0, jump towards center 2/3rds

vi = 1, jump-center 2/3

vi = 2, jump 1/3; vi = 3, jump 1/1 (i.e, 1)

vi = 0, jv + 2; vi = 2, jump-center 1/2

vi = 0, jv + 2; vi = 2, jump-center 2/3

vi = 0, jv + 2; vi = 2, jump-center 4/3

vi = 0, jv + 1; vi = 2, jump 2/3

vi = 0, jv + 2; vi = 2, jump 2/3

vi = 0, jump 4/3; vi = 2, jv + 2

vi = 0, jump 2/3; vi = 2, jv + 1

vi = 0, jump 4/3; vi = 1, jv + 2

vi = 0, jump 2/3; vi = 2, jump 1/3

vi =0, jump 1/3; vi = 2, jump 2/3

vi = 0, jump 0/1 (i.e, 0); vi = 2, jump 1/3

Lime Time

by in Arithmetic, Circles, Fractals, Geometry, Integer Sequences, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What do you get if you list every successive pair of entries in this sequence?

1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 4, 1, 5, 2, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 1, 6, 5, 6, 1, 7, 2, 7, 3, 7, 4, 7, 5, 7, 6, 7, 1, 8, 3, 8, 5, 8, 7, 8, 1, 9, 2, 9, 4, 9, 5, 9, 7, 9, 8, 9, 1, 10, 3, 10, 7, 10, 9, 10, 1, 11, 2, 11, 3, 11, 4, 11, 5, 11, 6, 11, 7, 11, 8, 11, 9, 11, 10, 11, 1, 12, 5, 12, 7, 12, 11, 12, 1, 13, … — A038568 at the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequence

You get the rational fractions ordered by denominator in their simplest form: 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/4, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5… There are no pairs like 2/4 and 5/35, because those can be simplified: 2/4 → 1/2; 15/35 → 3/7. You can get the same set of rational fractions by listing every successive pair in this sequence, the Stern-Brocot sequence:

1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 4, 3, 5, 2, 5, 3, 4, 1, 5, 4, 7, 3, 8, 5, 7, 2, 7, 5, 8, 3, 7, 4, 5, 1, 6, 5, 9, 4, 11, 7, 10, 3, 11, 8, 13, 5, 12, 7, 9, 2, 9, 7, 12, 5, 13, 8, 11, 3, 10, 7, 11, 4, 9, 5, 6, 1, 7, 6, 11, 5, 14, 9, 13, 4, 15, 11, 18, 7, 17, 10, 13, 3, 14, 11, 19, 8, 21, 13, 18, 5, 17, 12, 19, … — A002487 at the OEIS

But the fractions don’t come ordered by denominator this time. In fact, they seem to come at random: 1/2, 1/3, 2/3, 1/4, 3/5, 2/5, 3/4, 1/5, 4/7, 3/8, 5/7, 2/7, 5/8… But they’re not random at all. There’s a complicated way of generating them and a simple way. An amazingly simple way, I think:

Moshe Newman proved that the fraction a(n+1)/a(n+2) can be generated from the previous fraction a(n)/a(n+1) = x by 1/(2*floor(x) + 1 – x). The successor function f(x) = 1/(floor(x) + 1 – frac(x)) can also be used. — A002487, “Stern-Brocot Sequence”, at the OEIS

In another form, the Stern-Brocot sequence is generated by what’s called the Calkin-Wilf Tree. Now suppose you use the Stern-Brocot sequence to supply the x co-ordinate of an L-graph whose arms run from 0 to 1. And you use the Calkin-Wilf Tree to supply the y co-ordinate of the L-tree. What do you get? As I described in “I Like Gryke”, you get this fractal:

Limestone fractal

I call it a limestone fractal or pavement fractal or gryke fractal, because it reminds me of the fissured patterns you see in the limestone pavements of the Yorkshire Dales:

Fissured limestone pavement, Yorkshire Dales (Wikipedia)

But what happens when you plot the (x,y) of the Stern-Brocot sequence and the Calkin-Wilf Tree on a circle instead? You get an interestingly distorted limestone fractal:

Limestone fractal on circle

You can also plot the (x,y) around the perimeter of a polygon, then stretch the polygon into a circle. Here’s a square:

Limestone fractal on square

⇓

Limestone square stretched to circle

And here are a pentagon, hexagon, heptagon and octagon — note the interesting perspective effects:

Limestone fractal on pentagon

⇓

Limestone pentagon stretched to circle

Limestone fractal on hexagon

⇓

Limestone hexagon stretched to circle

Limestone fractal on heptagon

⇓

Limestone heptagon stretched to circle

Limestone fractal on octagon

⇓

Limestone octagon stretched to circle

And finally, here are animations of limestone polygons stretching to circles:

Limestone square stretched to circle (animated at EZgif)

Limestone pentagon to circle (animated)

Limestone hexagon to circle (animated)

Limestone heptagon to circle (animated)

Limestone octagon to circle (animated)

Previously Pre-Posted (Please Peruse)

• I Like Gryke — a first look at the limestone fractal

I Like Gryke

by in Arithmetic, Fractals, Geometry, Mathematics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sometimes I find fractals. And sometimes fractals find me. Here’s a fractal that found me:

Limestone fractal #1

I call it a limestone fractal or pavement fractal or gryke fractal, because it reminds me of the fissured patterns you see in the limestone pavements of the Yorkshire Dales:

Fissured limestone pavement, Yorkshire Dales (Wikipedia)

The limestone blocks are called clints and the larger fissures between them are called grykes, with kamenitza and karren (from Slavic and German, respectively) for smaller pits and grooves:

Limestone linguistics (Dales Rocks)

Here’s the me-finding fractal again, in a slightly different version:

Limestone fractal #2

How did it find me? Well, I wasn’t looking for fractals, but looking at fractions. Farey fractions and Calkin-Wilf fractions, to be precise. They can both be represented as bifurcating trees, like this:

Calkin-Wilf tree (Wikipedia)

Both trees produce all the irreducible rational fractions — but in a different order. That’s why they create a fractal (rather than a 45° line). By following the same path in both bifurcating trees, I generated parallel sequences of Farey and Calkin-Wilf fractions, then used the Farey fractions to represent x in a 1×1 square and the Calkin-Wilf fractions to represent y (where the Calkin-Wilfs, a/b, were greater than 1, I simply a/b → b/a). When you do that (or use Stern-Brocot fractions instead of the Farey fractions), you get the limestone fractal.

I think it looks better in the second version (which is the one that found me, in fact). For LF #2, I was using standard binary numbers to generate the parallel sequences, so the leftmost digit was always 1 and final step of the tree-search was always in the same direction. Here’s LF #2 as black-on-white rather than white-on-black:

Limestone fractal #2 (black-on-white)

And here is the formation of LF #1 as an animated gif:

Growth of limestone fractal (animated at ezGIF)

And if that’s a me-finding fractal, what about me-found fractals? Here’s one:

The Hourglass Fractal (animated gif optimized at ezGIF)

Hourglass fractal

I can say “I found that fractal” because I was looking for fractals when it appeared on the screen. And re-appeared (and re-re-appeared), because I’ve found it using different methods.

Elsewhere Other-Accessible

• Hour Power — more on the hourglass fractal

Trigging Triangles

by in Fractals, Geometry, Mathematics, Triangles and tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A fractal is a shape in which a part looks like the whole. Trees are fractals. And lungs. And clouds. But there are man-made fractals too and probably the most famous of them all is the Sierpiński triangle, invented by the Polish mathematician Wacław Sierpiński (1882-1969):

Sierpiński triangle

There are many ways to create a Sierpiński triangle, but one of the simplest is to trace all possible routes followed by a point jumping halfway towards the vertices of an equilateral triangle. If you mark the endpoint of the jumps, the Sierpiński triangle appears as the routes get longer and longer, like this:

Point jumping 1/2 way towards vertices of an equilateral triangle (animated)

Once you’ve created a Sierpiński triangle like that, you can play with it. For example, you can use simple trigonometry to stretch the triangle into a circle:

Sierpiński triangle to circle stage #1

Sierpiński triangle to circle #2

Sierpiński triangle to circle #3

Sierpiński triangle to circle #4

Sierpiński triangle to circle #5

Sierpiński triangle to circle #6

Sierpiński triangle to circle #7

Sierpiński triangle to circle #8

Sierpiński triangle to circle #9

Sierpiński triangle to circle #10

Sierpiński triangle to Sierpiński circle (animated)

But the trigging of the triangle can go further. You can expand the Sierpiński circle further, like this:

Sierpiński circle expanded

Or shrink the Sierpiński triangle like this:

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle stage #1

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle #2

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle #3

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle #4

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle #5

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle #6

Shrinking Sierpiński triangle (animated)

You can also create new shapes using the jumping-point technique. Suppose that, as the point is jumping, you adjust its position outwards into the circumscribed circle whenever it lands within the boundaries of the governing triangle. But if the point lands outside those boundaries, you leave it alone. Using this adapted technique, you get a shape like this:

Adjusted Sierpiński circle

And if the point is swung by 60° after it’s adjusted into the circle, you get a shape like this:

Adjusted Sierpiński circle (60° swing)

Here are some animated gifs showing these shapes rotating in a full circle at various speeds:

Adjusted Sierpiński circle (swinging animation) (fast)

Adjusted Sierpiński circle (swinging animation) (medium)

Adjusted Sierpiński circle (swinging animation) (slow)