Fractal + Star = Fractar

Here’s a three-armed star made with three lines radiating at intervals of 120°:

Triangular fractal stage #1


At the end of each of the three lines, add three more lines at half the length:

Triangular fractal #2


And continue like this:

Triangular fractal #3


Triangular fractal #4


Triangular fractal #5


Triangular fractal #6


Triangular fractal #7


Triangular fractal #8


Triangular fractal #9


Triangular fractal #10


Triangular fractal (animated)


Because this fractal is created from a series of star, you could call it a fractar. Here’s a black-and-white version:

Triangular fractar (black-and-white)


Triangular fractar (black-and-white) (animated)
(Open in a new window for larger version if the image seems distorted)


A four-armed star doesn’t yield an easily recognizable fractal in a similar way, so let’s try a five-armed star:

Pentagonal fractar stage #1


Pentagonal fractar #2


Pentagonal fractar #3


Pentagonal fractar #4


Pentagonal fractar #5


Pentagonal fractar #6


Pentagonal fractar #7


Pentagonal fractar (animated)


Pentagonal fractar (black-and-white)


Pentagonal fractar (bw) (animated)


And here’s a six-armed star:

Hexagonal fractar stage #1


Hexagonal fractar #2


Hexagonal fractar #3


Hexagonal fractar #4


Hexagonal fractar #5


Hexagonal fractar #6


Hexagonal fractar (animated)


Hexagonal fractar (black-and-white)


Hexagonal fractar (bw) (animated)


And here’s what happens to the triangular fractar when the new lines are rotated by 60°:

Triangular fractar (60° rotation) #1


Triangular fractar (60°) #2


Triangular fractar (60°) #3


Triangular fractar (60°) #4


Triangular fractar (60°) #5


Triangular fractar (60°) #6


Triangular fractar (60°) #7


Triangular fractar (60°) #8


Triangular fractar (60°) #9


Triangular fractar (60°) (animated)


Triangular fractar (60°) (black-and-white)


Triangular fractar (60°) (bw) (animated)


Triangular fractar (60°) (no lines) (black-and-white)


A four-armed star yields a recognizable fractal when the rotation is 45°:

Square fractar (45°) #1


Square fractar (45°) #2


Square fractar (45°) #3


Square fractar (45°) #4


Square fractar (45°) #5


Square fractar (45°) #6


Square fractar (45°) #7


Square fractar (45°) #8


Square fractar (45°) (animated)


Square fractar (45°) (black-and-white)


Square fractar (45°) (bw) (animated)


Without the lines, the final fractar looks like the plan of a castle:

Square fractar (45°) (bw) (no lines)


And here’s a five-armed star with new lines rotated at 36°:

Pentagonal fractar (36°) #1


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #2


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #3


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #4


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #5


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #6


Pentagonal fractar (36°) #7


Pentagonal fractar (36°) (animated)


Again, the final fractar without lines looks like the plan of a castle:

Pentagonal fractar (36°) (no lines) (black-and-white)


Finally, here’s a six-armed star with new lines rotated at 30°:

Hexagonal fractar (30°) #1


Hexagonal fractar (30°) #2


Hexagonal fractar (30°) #3


Hexagonal fractar (30°) #4


Hexagonal fractar (30°) #5


Hexagonal fractar (30°) #6


Hexagonal fractar (30°) (animated)


And the hexagonal castle plan:

Hexagonal fractar (30°) (black-and-white) (no lines)


Performativizing the Polygonic #2

Suppose a café offers you free drinks for three days. You can have tea or coffee in any order and any number of times. If you want tea every day of the three, you can have it. So here’s a question: how many ways can you choose from two kinds of drink in three days? One simple way is to number each drink, tea = 1, coffee = 2, then count off the choices like this:


1: 111
2: 112
3: 121
4: 122
5: 211
6: 212
7: 221
8: 222

Choice #1 is 111, which means tea every day. Choice #6 is 212, which means coffee on day 1, tea on day 2 and coffee on day 3. Now look at the counting again and the way the numbers change: 111, 112, 121, 122, 211… It’s really base 2 using 1 and 2 rather than 0 and 1. That’s why there are 8 ways to choose two drinks over three days: 8 = 2^3. Next, note that you use the same number of 1s to count the choices as the number of 2s. There are twelve 1s and twelve 2s, because each number has a mirror: 111 has 222, 112 has 221, 121 has 212, and so on.

Now try the number of ways to choose from three kinds of drink (tea, coffee, orange juice) over two days:


11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33 (c=9)

There are 9 ways to choose, because 9 = 3^2. And each digit, 1, 2, 3, is used exactly six times when you write the choices. Now try the number of ways to choose from three kinds of drink over three days:


111, 112, 113, 121, 122, 123, 131, 132, 133, 211, 212, 213, 221, 222, 223, 231, 232, 233, 311, 312, 313, 321, 322, 323, 331, 332, 333 (c=27)

There are 27 ways and (by coincidence) each digit is used 27 times to write the choices. Now try three drinks over four days:


1111, 1112, 1113, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1131, 1132, 1133, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1331, 1332, 1333, 2111, 2112, 2113, 2121, 2122, 2123, 2131, 2132, 2133, 2211, 2212, 2213, 2221, 2222, 2223, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2311, 2312, 2313, 2321, 2322, 2323, 2331, 2332, 2333, 3111, 3112, 3113, 3121, 3122, 3123, 3131, 3132, 3133, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3231, 3232, 3233, 3311, 3312, 3313, 3321, 3322, 3323, 3331, 3332, 3333 (c=81)

There are 81 ways to choose and each digit is used 108 times. But the numbers don’t have represent choices of drink in a café. How many ways can a point inside an equilateral triangle jump four times half-way towards the vertices of the triangle? It’s the same as the way to choose from three drinks over four days. And because the point jumps toward each vertex in a symmetrical way the same number of times, you get a nice even pattern, like this:

vertices = 3, jump = 1/2


Every time the point jumps half-way towards a particular vertex, its position is marked in a unique colour. The fractal, also known as a Sierpiński triangle, actually represents all possible choices for an indefinite number of jumps. Here’s the same rule applied to a square. There are four vertices, so the point is tracing all possible ways to choose four vertices for an indefinite number of jumps:

v = 4, jump = 1/2


As you can see, it’s not an obvious fractal. But what if the point jumps two-thirds of the way to its target vertex and an extra target is added at the centre of the square? This attractive fractal appears:

v = 4 + central target, jump = 2/3


If the central target is removed and an extra target is added on each side, this fractal appears:

v = 4 + 4 midpoints, jump = 2/3


That fractal is known as a Sierpiński carpet. Now up to the pentagon. This fractal of endlessly nested contingent pentagons is created by a point jumping 1/φ = 0·6180339887… of the distance towards the five vertices:

v = 5, jump = 1/φ


With a central target in the pentagon, this fractal appears:

v = 5 + central, jump = 1/φ


The central red pattern fits exactly inside the five that surround it:

v = 5 + central, jump = 1/φ (closeup)


v = 5 + c, jump = 1/φ (animated)


For a fractal of endlessly nested contingent hexagons, the jump is 2/3:

v = 6, jump = 2/3


With a central target, you get a filled variation of the hexagonal fractal:

v = 6 + c, jump = 2/3


And for a fractal of endlessly nested contingent octagons, the jump is 1/√2 = 0·7071067811… = √½:

v = 8, jump = 1/√2


Previously pre-posted:

Performativizing the Polygonic

Rigging in the Trigging

Here’s a simple pattern of three triangles:

Three-Triangle Pattern


Now replace each triangle in the pattern with the same pattern at a smaller scale:

Replacing triangles


If you keep on doing this, you create what I’ll call a trigonal fractal (trigon is Greek for “triangle”):

Trigonal Fractal stage #3 (click for larger)


Trigonal Fractal stage #4


Trigonal Fractal stage #5


Trigonal Fractal #6


Trigonal Fractal #7


Trigonal Fractal #8


Trigonal Fractal (animated) (click for larger)


You can use the same pattern to create different fractals by rotating the replacement patterns in different ways. I call this “rigging the trigging” and here are some of the results:




You can also use a different seed-pattern to create the fractals:

Trigonal fractal (animated)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)



Trigonal fractal (anim)


Note: The title of this incendiary intervention is of course a paronomasia on the song “Frigging in the Rigging”, also known as “Good Ship Venus” and performed by the Sex Pistols on The Great Rock ’n’ Roll Swindle (1979).

Tright Treeing

Here is a very simple tree with two branches:

Two-branch tree


These are the steps that a simple computer program follows to draw the tree, with a red arrow indicating where the computer’s focus is at each stage:

Two-branch tree stage 1


2-Tree stage 2


2-Tree stage 3


2-Tree stage 4


2-Tree (animated)


If you had to give the computer an explicit instruction at each stage, the instructions might look something like this:

1. Start at node 1, draw a left branch to node 2 and colour the node green.
2. Return to node 1.
3. Draw a right branch to node 3 and colour the node green.
4. Finish.

Now try a slightly less simple tree with branches that fork twice:

Four-branch tree (static)


These are the steps that a simple computer program follows to draw the tree, with a red arrow indicating where the computer’s focus is at each stage:

4-Tree #1


4-Tree #2


4-Tree #3


4-Tree #4


4-Tree #5


4-Tree #6


4-Tree #7


4-Tree #8


4-Tree #9


4-Tree #10


4-Tree #11


4-Tree (animated)


If you had to give the computer an explicit instruction at each stage, the instructions might look something like this:

1. Start at node 1 and draw a left branch to node 2.
2. Draw a left branch to node 3 and colour it green.
3. Return to node 2.
4. Draw a right branch to node 4 and colour it green.
5. Return to node 2.
6. Return to node 1.
7. Draw a right branch to node 5.
8. Draw a left branch to node 6.
9. Draw a left branch to node 7 and colour it green.
10. Return to node 6.
11. Draw a left branch to node 8 and colour it green.
12. Finish.

It’s easy to see that the list of instructions would be much bigger for a tree with branches that fork three times, let alone four times or you. But you don’t need to give a full set of explicit instructions: you can use a program, or a list of instructions using variables. Suppose the tree has branches that fork f times. If f = 4, you will need an array variable level() with four values, level(1), level(2), level(3) and level(4). Now follow these instructions:

1. li = 1, level(1) = 0, level(2) = 0, ... level(f+1) = 0
2. level(li) = level(li) + 1
3. If level(li) = 1, draw a branch to the left and jump to step 7
4. If level(li) = 2, draw a branch to the right and jump to step 7
5. li = li - 1 (note that this line is reached if the tests fail in lines 3 and 4)
6. If li > 0, jump to step 2, otherwise jump to step 11
7. If li = f, draw a green node and jump to step 5
9. li = li + 1
10. Jump to step 2
11. Finish.

By changing the value of f, a computer can use those eleven basic instructions to draw any size of tree (I’ve left out details like changes in the length of branches and so on). When f = 4, the tree will look like this:

16-Tree (static)


16-Tree (animated)


With simple adjustments, the program can be used for other shapes whose underlying structure can be represented symbolically as a tree. The program is in fact a fractalizer, that is, it draws a fractal. So if you use a version of the program to draw fractals based on right-triangles, you can say you are “tright treeing” (tright = triangle-that-is-right).

Here is some tright treeing. Start with a simple isoceles right-triangle. It can be divided into smaller isoceles right-triangles by finding the midpoint of the hypotenuse, then repeating:

Right-triangle rep-2 stage 1


Right-triangle #2


Tright #3


Tright #4


Tright #5


Tright #6


Tright #7


Tright #7 (no internal lines)


You can distort the isoceles right-triangle in interesting ways by finding the midpoint of a side other than the hypotenuse, like this:

Right-triangle (distorted) #1


Distorted tright #2


Distorted tright #3


Distorted tright #4


Distorted tright #5


Distorted tright #6


Distorted tright #7


Distorted tright #8


Distorted tright #9


Distorted tright #10


Distorted tright #11


Distorted tright #12


Distorted tright #13


Distorted tright (animated)


Here’s a different right-triangle. When you divide it regularly, it looks like this:

Right-triangle rep-3 stage 1


Rep-3 Tright #2


3-Tright #3


3-Tright #4


3-Tright #5


3-Tright #6


3-Tright #7


3-Tright #8


3-Tright #9


3-Tright (one colour)


When you distort the divisions, you can create interesting fractals (click on images for larger versions):

Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright


Distorted 3-Tright (animated)


And when four of the distorted right-triangles (rep-2 or rep-3) are joined in a diamond, you can create shapes like these:

Creating a diamond #1


Creating a diamond #2


Creating a diamond #3


Creating a diamond #4


Creating a diamond (animated)


Rep-3 right-triangle diamond (divided)


Rep-3 right-triangle diamond (single colour)


Distorted rep-3 right-triangle diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond


Distorted 3-tright diamond (animated)


Distorted rep-2 right-triangle


Distorted 2-tright diamond


Distorted 2-tright diamond


Distorted 2-tright diamond


Distorted 2-tright diamond


Distorted 2-tright diamond (animated)


Horn Again

Pre-previously on Overlord-in-terms-of-Core-Issues-around-Maximal-Engagement-with-Key-Notions-of-the-Über-Feral, I interrogated issues around this shape, the horned triangle:

unicorn_reptile_static

Horned Triangle (more details)


Now I want to look at the tricorn (from Latin tri-, “three”, + -corn, “horn”). It’s like a horned triangle, but has three horns instead of one:

Tricorn, or three-horned triangle


These are the stages that make up the tricorn:

Tricorn (stages)


Tricorn (animated)


And there’s no need to stop at triangles. Here is a four-horned square, or quadricorn:

Quadricorn


Quadricorn (animated)


Quadricorn (coloured)


And a five-horned pentagon, or quinticorn:

Quinticorn, or five-horned pentagon


Quinticorn (anim)


Quinticorn (col)


And below are some variants on the shapes above. First, the reversed tricorn:

Reversed Tricorn


Reversed Tricorn (anim)


Reversed Tricorn (col)


The nested tricorn:

Nested Tricorn (anim)


Nested Tricorn (col)


Nested Tricorn (red-green)


Nested Tricorn (variant col)


The nested quadricorn:

Nested Quadricorn (anim)


Nested Quadricorn


Nested Quadricorn (col #1)


Nested Quadricorn (col #2)


Finally (and ferally), the pentagonal octopus or pentapus:

Pentapus (anim)


Pentapus


Pentapus #2


Pentapus #3


Pentapus #4


Pentapus #5


Pentapus #6


Pentapus (col anim)


Elsewhere other-engageable:

The Art Grows Onda — the horned triangle and Katsushika Hokusai’s painting The Great Wave off Kanagawa (c. 1830)

Appointment with Distality

distal, adj. Anat. Situated away from the centre of the body, or from the point of origin (said of the extremity or distant part of a limb or organ); terminal. Opp. to proximal. [← stem of dist- (in distant adj.) + -al, after dorsal, ventral, etc.] — Oxford English Dictionary

When a point jumps inside a triangle, moving halfway towards a randomly chosen vertex each time, a fractal known as the Sierpiński triangle appears:
chaos_triangle

Point jumping halfway towards random vertex of a triangle


chaos_triangle_bw

Point jumping inside triangle (black-and-white version)


But when a point moves at random in the same way inside a square, no fractal appears. Instead, the interior of the square gradually fills with a haze of pixels:
random_fill

Point jumping halfway towards random vertex of a square


Now trying imposing restrictions on the point jumping inside a square. If it can’t jump towards a vertex twice in a row, this fractal appears:
select_1_0

Ban consecutive jumps towards same vertex


select_1_0_bw

Ban consecutive jumps towards same vertex (black-and-white version)


Suppose the vertices are numbered from 1 to 4 and the point can’t jump towards the vertex one lower than the previously chosen vertex. That is, if it jumps towards vertex 3, it can’t jump next towards vertex 2, but it can jump towards vertices 1, 3, or 4 (if the vertex is 1, it’s banned from moving towards vertex 4, i.e. 1-1 = 0 = 4). Now this fractal appears:
select_1_1

Ban jump towards vertex v-1


select_1_1_bw


This is the fractal when the point can’t jump towards the vertex two places lower than the one it has just jumped towards:
select_1_2

Ban jump towards vertex v-2


select_1_2_bw


But if you can ban, you can also un-ban. Suppose the point jumps towards vertex v at time t and is then banned from jumping towards vertex v-2 at time t+1 unless it had jumped towards vertex v-1 at time t-1. This interesting fractal appears:
select_2_1_1_2

Ban jump v-2 at t+1 unless jump v-1 at t-1


Here are some more fractals using the ban / un-ban technique:
select_2_1_various

Ban / un-ban various


select_2_1_0_1

Ban jump v+0 at t+1 unless jump v+1 at t-1


select_2_1_1_3

Ban jump v+1 at t+1 unless jump v+3 at t-1


select_2_1_2_0

Ban jump v+0 at t+1 unless jump v+2 at t-1


select_2_1_2_2

Ban jump v+2 at t+1 unless jump v+2 at t-1


select_1_2_various

Ban / un-ban various


You can also impose or lift bans based not on the vertex the point jumps towards, but on the distance the point jumps. For example, take the radius r of the circle circumscribing the square and divide it into four segments, 0 to ¼r, ¼r to ½r, ½r to ¾r, and ¾r to r. When the point is going to jump towards vertex v, test whether its jump will land in the same segment, measured from the center of the circle, as it currently occupies. If it does, ban the jump and choose another vertex. Or unban the vertex if the point occupied segment s + x at time t-1. Here are some of the fractals produced using this technique:
dist_2_1_various

Ban / un-ban based on distance jumped


dist_center_1_0

Ban jump into segment s+0 of 4


dist_center_1_1

Ban jump into segment s+1 from center


dist_center_1_2

Ban jump into segment s+2


dist_center_-2_1_2_2

Ban jump into s+2 at t+1 unless jump into s+2 at at t-1


dist_xy_1_0

Ban jump into s+0 from present point


dist_xy_1_2

Ban jump into s+2 from present point


dist_xy_1_3

Ban jump into s+3 from present point


dist_xy_2_1_1_0

Ban jump into s+0 at t+1 unless jump into s+1 at at t-1


It’s easy to think of variants on all these themes, but I’ll leave them as an exercise for the interested reader.

The Swing’s the Thing

Order emerges from chaos with a triangle or pentagon, but not with a square. That is, if you take a triangle or a pentagon, chose a point inside it, then move the point repeatedly halfway towards a vertex chosen at random, a fractal will appear:

triangle

Sierpiński triangle from point jumping halfway to randomly chosen vertex


pentagon

Sierpiński pentagon from point jumping halfway to randomly chosen vertex


But it doesn’t work with a square. Instead, the interior of the square slowly fills with random points:

square

Square filling with point jumping halfway to randomly chosen vertex


As I showed in Polymorphous Perverticity, you can create fractals from squares and randomly moving points if you ban the point from choosing the same vertex twice in a row, and so on. But there are other ways. You can take the point, move it towards a vertex at random, then swing it around the center of the square through some angle before you mark its position, like this:

square_sw90

Point moves at random, then swings by 90° around center


square_sw180

Point moves at random, then swings by 180° around center


You can also adjust the distance of the point from the center of the square using a formula like dist = r * rmdist, where dist is the distance, r is the radius of the circle in which the circle is drawn, and rm takes values like 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and so on:

square_dist_rm0_05

Point moves at random, dist = r * 0.05 – dist


square_dist_rm0_1

Point moves at random, dist = r * 0.1 – dist


square_dist_rm0_2

Point moves at random, dist = r * 0.2 – dist


But you can swing the point while applying a vertex-ban, like banning the previously chosen vertex, or the vertex 90° or 180° away. In fact, swinging the points converts one kind of vertex ban into the others.

square_ban0

Point moves at random towards vertex not chosen previously


square_ban0_sw405

Point moves at random, then swings by 45°


square_ban0_sw360

Point moves at random, then swings by 360°


square_ban0_sw697

Point moves at random, then swings by 697.5°


square_ban0_sw720

Point moves at random, then swings by 720°


square_ban0_sw652

Point moves at random, then swings by 652.5°


square_ban0_swing_va_animated

Animated angle swing


You can also reverse the swing at every second move, swing the point around a vertex instead of the center or around a point on the circle that encloses the square. Here are some of the fractals you get applying these techniques.
square_ban0_sw45_rock

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 45°, -45°


square_ban0_sw90_rock

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 90°, -90°


square_ban0_sw135_rock

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 135°, -135°


square_ban0_sw180_rock

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 180°, -180°


square_ban0_sw225

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 225°, -225°


square_ban0_sw315

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 315°, -315°


square_ban0_sw360_rock

Point moves at random, then swings alternately by 360°, -360°


square_swing_vx0_va_animated

Animated alternate swing


square_circle_sw45

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 45°


square_circle_sw67

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 67.5°


square_circle_sw90

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 90°


square_circle_sw112

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 112.5°


square_circle_sw135

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 135°


square_circle_sw180

Point moves at random, then swings around point on circle by 180°


square_circle_sw_animated

Animated circle swing


Tri Again (Again)

I didn’t expect to find the hourglass fractal playing with squares. I even less expected it playing with triangles. Isosceles right triangles, to be precise. Then again, I found it first playing with the L-triomino, which is composed of three squares. And an isosceles triangle is half of a square. So it all fits. This is an isosceles right triangle:
isosceles_right_triangle

Isosceles right triangle


It’s mirror-symmetrical, so it looks the same in a mirror unless you label one of the acute-angled corners in some way, like this:

right_triangle_chiral_1

Right triangle with labelled corner


right_triangle_chiral_2

Right triangle reflected


Reflection is how you find the hourglass fractal. First, divide a right triangle into four smaller right triangles.

right_triangle_div4

Right triangle rep-tiled


Then discard one of the smaller triangles and repeat. If the acute corners of the smaller triangles have different orientations, one of the permutations creates the hourglass fractal, like this:

right_triangle_div4_1

Hourglass #1


right_triangle_div4_2

Hourglass #2


right_triangle_div4_3

Hourglass #3


right_triangle_div4_4

Hourglass #4


right_triangle_div4_5

Hourglass #5


right_triangle_div4_6

Hourglass #6


right_triangle_div4_7

Hourglass #7


right_triangle_div4_8

Hourglass #8


right_triangle_div4_9

Hourglass #9


right_triangle_div4_123_010

Hourglass animated


Another permutation of corners creates what I’ve decided to call the crane fractal, like this:
right_triangle_div4_123_001

Crane fractal animated


right_triangle_div4_123_001_static

Crane fractal (static)


The crane fractal is something else that I first found playing with the L-triomino:

l-triomino_234

Crane fractal from L-triomino


Previously pre-posted:

Square Routes
Tri Again

Performativizing the Polygonic

Maths is a mountain: you can start climbing in different places and reach the same destination. There are many ways of proving the irrationality of √2 or the infinitude of the primes, for example. But you can also arrive at the same destination by accident. I’ve found that when I use different methods of creating fractals. The same fractals appear, because apparently different algorithms are actually the same underneath.

But different methods can create unique fractals too. I’ve found some new ones by using what might be called point-to-point recursion. For example, there are ten ways to select three vertices from the five vertices of a pentagon: (1, 2, 3), (1, 2, 4), (1, 2, 5), (1, 3, 4), (1, 3, 5), (1, 4, 5), (2, 3, 4), (2, 3, 5), (2, 4, 5), (3, 4, 5). Find the midpoint of the first three-point set, (1, 2, 3). Then select two vertices to go with this midpoint, creating a new three-point set, and find the midpoint again. And so on. The process looks like this, with the midpoints shown for all the three-point sets found at each stage:

v5_p3_stage1

vertices = 5, choose sets of 3 points, find mid-point of each

v5_p3_stage2

v5_p3_stage3


At stage 5, the fractal looks like this:

v5_p3_static

v = 5, p = 3


Note that when pixels are used again, the colour changes. That’s another interesting thing about maths: limits can sometimes produce deeper results. If these fractals were drawn at very high resolution, pixels would only be used once and the colour would never change. As it is, low resolution means that pixels are used again and again. But some are used more than others, which is why interesting colour effects appear.

If the formation of the fractal is animated, it looks like this (with close-ups of even deeper stages):
v5_p3


Here are some more examples:

v4c_p2_static

v = 4 + central point, p = 2 (cf. Fingering the Frigit)

v4c_p2

v = 4c, p = 2 (animated)


v4_p3_static

v = 4, p = 3

v4_p3


v5_p4_static

v = 5, p = 4

v5_p4


v5c_p3_static

v = 5 + central point, p = 3

v5c_p3


v5c_p4

v = 5c, p = 4


v5c_p5

v = 5c, p = 5


v6_1_p6

v = 6 + 1 point between each pair of vertices, p = 6


v6_p2

v = 6, p = 2


v6_p3_static

v = 6, p = 3

v6_p3


v6_p4

v = 6, p = 4


v6c_p2_static

v = 6c, p = 2 (cf. Fingering the Frigit)

v6c_p2


v6c_p3_static

v = 6c, p = 3

v6c_p3


v6c_p4

v = 6c, p = 4


v7_p3

v = 7, p = 3


v7_p4_static

v = 7, p = 4

v7_p4


v7_p5_static

v = ,7 p = 5

v7_p5


v7_p4

v = 7c, p = 4


v3_1_p2

v = 3+1, p = 2


v3_1_p3

v = 3+1, p = 3


v3_1_p4

v = 3+1, p = 4


v3_2_p5

v = 3+2, p = 5


v3c_1_p2

v = 3c+1, p = 2


v3c_1_p4

v = 3c+1, p = 4


v3c_p2

v = 3c, p = 2


v3c_p3

v = 3c, p = 3


v4_1_p3

v = 4+1, p = 3


v4_1_p4

v = 4+1, p = 4


v4_1_p5

v = 4+1, p = 6


v4_1_p6

v = 4+1, p = 2


v4c_1_p4

v = 4c+1, p = 4


v4c_p3_static

v = 4c, p = 3

v4c_p3


v5_1_p4_va

v = 5+1, p = 4 (and more)


v5_p2

v = 5, p = 2


Polymorphous Perverticity

As I’ve explained before on Overlord of the Über-Feral, the planet’s premier purveyor of polygonic performativity (probably (possibly (perspectivistically))), it works with triangles and pentagons, but not with squares. And what is “it”? A simple procedure in which you create a polygon, choose a point inside it, then repeatedly move half-way towards a vertex chosen at random, marking each new position as you go.

pol3_4_5

When the polygon has three vertices, you get a Sierpiński triangle. When it has five, you get what might be called a  Sierpiński pentagon. When it has four, you get nothing. Or rather: you get everything, because the whole interior of the square gradually fills with points. But, as I’ve also explained before, there’s a simple way to change this. You can adapt the procedure so that a vertex can’t be chosen twice in a row, and so on.

When the rule is “No vertex twice in a row”, you get this fractal (colours change as a pixel is selected again):

pol4_0

But you can also use what might be a vertex increment, or vi, whereby you disallow vertices that are next to the previously chosen vertex, or two positions away, and so on. When the rule is “No vertex twice in a row”, the disallowed vertex is (v + 0), that is, vi = 0. If vi = 2 and the rule is disallow(v + 2), this fractal appears (when vi = 1, there’s no fractal):

pol4_2

v = 4, vi = 2

pol4_2_anim


You can extend these rules to apply not just to the previously chosen vertex, but also to the vertex chosen before that. Here are some fractals produced by the rule disallow(v[1] + vi[1], v[2] + vi[2]), where v[1] is the vertex previously chosen and v[2] is the vertex chosen before that:

pol4_1_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 2

pol4_1_2_anim


pol4_2_0

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 0

pol4_2_0_anim

pol4_2_0_white


pol4_2_1

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 1

pol4_2_1_anim


pol4_2_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 2

pol4_2_2_anim


And here are some fractals produced by the rule disallow(v[1] + vi[1], v[2] + vi[2], v[3] + vi[3]):

pol4_1_1_0

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 0

pol4_1_1_0_anim


pol4_1_1_2

v = 4, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 2

pol4_1_1_2_anim


Applying these rules to pentagons rather than squares doesn’t produce such a dramatic difference, because the original procedure – choose any vertex at random, taking no account of previous choices – produces a fractal when v = 5, as noted above, but not when v = 4. Nevertheless, here are some fractals for v > 4:

pol5_0

v = 5, vi = 0


pol5_1

v = 5, vi = 1

pol5_1_anim


pol5_2

v = 5, vi = 2

pol5_2_anim


pol5_0_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 0, vi[2] = 0


pol5_1_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 0


pol5_2_0

v = 5, vi[1] = 2, vi[2] = 0

pol5_2_0_anim


pol5_1_1

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1

pol5_1_1_anim


pol5_1_1_1

v = 5, vi[1] = 1, vi[2] = 1, vi[3] = 1


pol5_va2

v = 5, vi = various


pol6_1

v = 6, vi = 1

pol6_1_anim