Sorry I even spoke about this really, all my mathematic knowledge can
balance well on the head of a pin, unless compared to others in my family or
friends but not compared to many of you here.

Bob

Peter Popov <pet### [at] usanet> wrote in message
news:J3U1OFKMRB7+SjAPKXKXnGnLGBi3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:19:41 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aolcom>
> wrote:
>
> >Guess you mean the two ends (-x and +x) that are fragmented into mere
> >speckles instead of staying solid like the rest.
> >I really don't have any answer, just want to clarify this for others.
> >I rotated it 0*y instead of 80*y so it could be seen better where it goes
> >bad.  From what I've seen of the 'julia_fractal' it is prone to some
> >calculation precision errors (maybe) or more likely raytraced surface
> >difficulties, I guess you'd say, tending have some part appear like this,
> >though that doesn't mean there isn't a solution necessarily.
> >'iteration', if higher tends to scatter the surface more although
dropping
> >it lower doesn't ever help since you lose the fractaling.  Raising
precision
> >doesn't seem the anwer.
> >What's happening in your case must be that the sqr function is failing at
> >those points. Maybe the mathematically inclined will have some
observations.
>
> Bob,
>
> What you're seeing is not fractal dust caused by high iteration
> settings. Also, the sqr function is a square, not a square root, and
> it is defined for any set of numbers I can think of (from natural
> numbers to octonions and 64-dimensional complex numbers). What we're
> seeing in this image is a root solver problem similar to the specks
> one can see on sphere_sweeps, isosurfaces, complex blobs etc.
> Unfortunately, there's no 'sturm' keyword for the julia fractal
> solver. I dug into the code this morning to no avail, I'll have
> another dive tonight.
>
>
> Peter Popov
> ICQ: 15002700

Post a reply to this message