|
 |
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 03:19:41 -0600, "omniVERSE" <inv### [at] aol com>
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
|
|
