|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 25, 2005 21:40:58 GMT
Bottom line - it is stupid to be mean and many have died because of someone's stupid decisions. And George Bush is a mean-spirited idiot.
Q. What is the formula* and function of the Mandelbrot set?
* the base equation that is.
|
|
stev0
Moving
He's an utter creep and he drives me 'round the bend
Posts: 517
|
Post by stev0 on Jul 25, 2005 23:59:03 GMT
zt+1 = z tk + C, where k=2 and z0=0+0i.
(And yes, even though I did cut and paste that was a bitch to edit in the sub and sup tags)
The function is to make pretty pictures (Ha! What a punster I am!)
Q: Multi-part question - Did she make you cry? Make you break down, shatter your illusion of love? Is it over now? Do you know how to pick up the pieces and go home?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 26, 2005 1:40:07 GMT
z t+1 = z tk + C, where k=2 and z 0=0+0i. (And yes, even though I did cut and paste that was a bitch to edit in the sub and sup tags) The function is to make pretty pictures (Ha! What a punster I am!) I admire when people look stuff up and actually read. That is a correct, albeit more specific, answer. I was only asking for the base formula of Z=Z 2 + C. ( Z begins as zero and iterates as the equation is repeated. A new 'Z' is created with each iteration that is equal to the previous 'Z' squared + 'C' - the constant, which you have included as an example. This constant can be plugged in by quantifying the complex number you wish to extrapolate. It does result in some pretty pictures - or 'fractals' more specifically. This is an expression of fractal geometry. These images will duplicate to infinity (theoretically) as you delve into the image (if you plug a working formula into a computer). It can also be compared in nature to DNA. i.e. how a tree can order leaves to reproduce.....or help describe how cloud patterns form. It is a geometry of no straight lines or angles, yet there is a method to explaining the random (seeming) patterns in nature. BTW - This formula ( Z=Z 2 + C) may prove to be more profound than E=mc 2A. Yes Q. How does spongy sclerenchyma differ from palisade sclerenchyma? (this is a trick question *assures self of un-nerdiness*) (sorry for the pompous questions - just trying to balance some of the lighter trivia. LOOK IT UP! ;D) Cathy knows this one I bet.
|
|
genesismalachi23
Reaching Out
thank you atomjack for thee avatar! (visit thee site) http://www.fusionanomaly.net ye shan't regret!
Posts: 233
|
Post by genesismalachi23 on Jul 26, 2005 6:17:31 GMT
Q. How does spongy sclerenchyma differ from palisade sclerenchyma? this might not be correct but E am off E meds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A: The upper and lower epidermis are covered with a waxy cuticle to prevent water loss. The mesophyll consists of a palisade layer of tall cells just under the upper epidermis, and chains of spongy mesophyll cells with air spaces between them in the lower part of the leaf. The tall palisade cells are packed with chloroplasts and are the site of most of the photosynthesis in the leaf; they are located in the upper part of the leaf where sunlight penetrates most fully. Spongy mesophyll contains air for gas exchange with cells of the leaf. Carbon dioxide from air is the source of carbon for synthesis of carbohydrates, and oxygen gas is a waste product of photosynthesis with thanks to: faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/jwahlert/bio1003/pstructure.htmlQ: how does thee mandlebrot set differ from thee Golden mean? (hint) members.fortunecity.com/templarser/friction.html
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 26, 2005 11:08:05 GMT
Q. How does spongy sclerenchyma differ from palisade sclerenchyma? this might not be correct but E am off E meds!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A: The upper and lower epidermis are covered with a waxy cuticle to prevent water loss. The mesophyll consists of a palisade layer of tall cells just under the upper epidermis, and chains of spongy mesophyll cells with air spaces between them in the lower part of the leaf. The tall palisade cells are packed with chloroplasts and are the site of most of the photosynthesis in the leaf; they are located in the upper part of the leaf where sunlight penetrates most fully. Spongy mesophyll contains air for gas exchange with cells of the leaf. Carbon dioxide from air is the source of carbon for synthesis of carbohydrates, and oxygen gas is a waste product of photosynthesis with thanks to: faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/jwahlert/bio1003/pstructure.htmlYou don't know parenchyma from sclerenchyma! What you have cited is correct, however. Q: how does thee mandlebrot set differ from thee Golden mean? (hint) members.fortunecity.com/templarser/friction.html[/quote]A. The Mandlebrot set is a formula used to explain irregular shapes. The Fibonacci numbers within the Golden Mean (I know this one from architecture and art history) help identify how our perception of truth and beauty can have a mathematical basis through more universally recogonized concepts. These numbers correlate to the formula (listed in the above-cited link) when identifying the most aesthetically pleasing art and architecture....basically the 'perfect rectangle or congruent symmetry/asymmetry. However fractail geometry is fundamental in explaining 'Chaos Theory. Whereby the apogee and perigee of orbiting objects or unique and seemingly unexpainable patterns can be described in mathematical terms. So the short answer is The Golden mean deals with the ordered repetition of angles and congruity whilst Mandelbrot involves the formulated extrapolation of the truth in numbers of more oddly shaped objects that are unique (such as snowflakes etc) You may notice the Golden mean is used in 'Photoshop' and other picture editing tools on your computer. There is math in even our perception of beauty. The angular shape of childbearing hips or classic cheekbones are subliminal calculations done by our brains, for example, when we are pursuing a (female) partner. This works even when we are plastered. It may, however, require the Mandlebrot formulas's to explain how we find unique beauty within another. Q. Compare the music of Kate Bush to the concepts within the Mandelbrot set.
|
|
W.HI.P
Moving
On the edge of the labyrinth
Posts: 561
|
Post by W.HI.P on Jul 27, 2005 2:34:16 GMT
Now that's not a question
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 27, 2005 2:36:51 GMT
Now that's not a question O.K. fair enough...then....Can you compare the music of Kate Bush to the unique tapestry of the constructs of Chaos theory? Now that's a question.
|
|
W.HI.P
Moving
On the edge of the labyrinth
Posts: 561
|
Post by W.HI.P on Jul 27, 2005 2:57:18 GMT
That's a question. It would give me an oportunity to go into something i want to get into regarding Kate. But since I have limited knowledge regarding the comparison, and the fact that I'm sure Genesis is dying to answer this one, I'll leave it to him, and find another window to shed my understanding of Catherine.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 27, 2005 2:59:58 GMT
That's a question. It would give me an oportunity to go into something i want to get into regarding Kate. But since I have limited knowledge regarding the comparison, and the fact that I'm sure Genesis is dying to answer this one, I'll leave it to him, and find another window to shed my understanding of Catherine. Look it up. Use your imagination. Maybe point out (for example) how unique, intricate and sometimes delicate Kate's music is - like a snowflake.
|
|
W.HI.P
Moving
On the edge of the labyrinth
Posts: 561
|
Post by W.HI.P on Jul 27, 2005 3:13:16 GMT
I did look it up ... Ok... the music of Kate Bush vs the unique tapestry of the constructs of Chaos theoryFor one, the unique tapestry of the constructs of Chaos theory is understood by more people than the music of Kate BushThey do share complexities, but Catherine's music is magic and the other is science. Catherine's music is made up of words, notes, emotions, affirmations & chantings which the chaos theory dosen't share. Oh yeah, and I musn't forget the delicate snowflakes! Hey, it's better than nothing... I could have said a simple yes.. or no! Q. Are you in love?
|
|
|
Post by matanchik on Jul 27, 2005 7:04:35 GMT
A: right now, no
Q: what are your talents?
|
|
stev0
Moving
He's an utter creep and he drives me 'round the bend
Posts: 517
|
Post by stev0 on Jul 27, 2005 10:31:32 GMT
I have the Power of Sarcasm (which I only use for Good), I can play Google like a Strativarius (a talent which I already used on this very board twice in the past 24 hours to answer questions), I can poke around a PC well enough to impress folks who don't know the difference between a disc drive and a toaster, and I can do things with my tongue that can't be mentioned in a family-friendly board.
Q: What format did you first purchase The Sensual World on (vinyl, CD, etc.)?
|
|
|
Post by matanchik on Jul 27, 2005 12:24:42 GMT
I can do things with my tongue that can't be mentioned in a family-friendly board. i won't call this place a family-friendly board unless your'e in a family of kate fans
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Jul 28, 2005 0:52:51 GMT
For one, the unique tapestry of the constructs of Chaos theory is understood by more people than the music of Kate BushI'd probably dispute that statement. The bliss of magic should not be cheapened by finding a way to describe it.
|
|
Sheila
Moving
Life is a minestrone served up with parmesan cheese.
Posts: 701
|
Post by Sheila on Jul 29, 2005 14:33:38 GMT
I'd probably dispute that statement. The bliss of magic should not be cheapened by finding a way to describe it. Huh? Then what is this message board for?
|
|