Talk:Burning Ship fractal

Formula
$$z_{n+1} = (|\operatorname{Re} \left(z_n\right)|+i|\operatorname{Im} \left(z_n\right)|)^2 + c, \quad z_0=0$$

It doesn't describe the functions 'Re' and 'Im', which should either have a link to its page, or a explanation on this page. -- Actually, now I see the point:

The absolute value of $$ z_{n} $$. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.8.90 (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * RE and IM should be self-explanatory: these functions extract the real art and the imaginary part of z.
 * Maybe notably: IM extracts only the number - without " i * ".
 * These functions are needed to set the real and the imaginary part independently to the absolute value.
 * Futher Questions about "+ c" and z0 = 0 see separate topic below.--Uli Cl (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Michelitsch Fractals
Why is this page linked? Only one of the pictures on that site seems to be a Burning Ship, and there is no relevant commentary or even descriptions of any of the pictures. - Rainwarrior 12:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I found the link to his papers on the Burning Ship buried at the bottom of the page. Is there a way we can make this link more obvious? - Rainwarrior 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since geocities is about to close I migrated the website to http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm which is indentical to the previous one http://www.geocities.com/tmichelitsch/Michelitsch_Fractals.html containing the first representations and the original paper cited above on the Burning Ship fractal. [User:fractalmichel|fractalmichel]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fractalmichel (talk • contribs) 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Trojan
The External link: Burning Ship fractal zoomer by Jetro Lauha may have a virus. I am running AVG which says so. Can anyone confirm this? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't confirm this but it seems like this page doesn't mention fractals at all. So I delete the link. bungalo (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Imaginary Axis
Is the imaginary axis traditionally displayed inverted, with -i at the top and +i at the bottom? I believe all of the pictures are displayed in this way, as it lends to the idea of a burning ship, but the page fails to note this. Feneer (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The description pages of all these images have that formula with the sign inverted (minus instead of plus). bungalo (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Burning Ship fractal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821220641/http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm to http://michelitsch-fractals.webs.com/Michelitsch_Fractals.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Excessively large .gif
The animation is 32 meg. It's absurdly large and can expand horribly in a browser's memory (the gif animation can be expanded to individual frames and take up far more space). The youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S3lc2G3rWs) is far smoother and smaller. This is not the right use for a gif. 89.241.98.75 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

non-analytic mapping
What does this mean, that the mapping is non-analytic? What should be analyzed? There are many equations at the linked page "Cauchy-Riemann Equations". Which one is ignored?

Is this a problem? (some ugly distortions?) --Uli Cl (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

+ c is not explaned, z0 = 0 contradictory to code
1) In the formula, " + c" is not explaned. c is not a constant (what you might think). c is the point (x,y) which is tested by the iteration. You can see this, if you study the programming code. (search for "+x" after zx*zx-zy*zy and "+y" after abs(2*zx*zy) ) 2) z0 = 0 (in the introduction) contradicts with z0 = c in the code. (search for the lines zx:=x and zy:=y before the iteration) If you analyze this contradiction very deeply, you will discover that this is not a big problem. The start with "zx:=0 zy:=0" just causes one iteration more than the start "zx:=x zy:=y". Both works! But an article about mathematics should not have such an inconstistance. I suggest to use the code zx:=0 zy:=0 which ist more similar to the mandelbrot set.--Uli Cl (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)