Talk:Digital sundial

link to fractals
What, exactly, does this have to do with fractals or fractal geometry? Melchoir 21:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The theorem. Well, can you imagine the set F described there? Normally, it's a fractal. It could be made precise in the article. --Beaumont (@)  21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not everything complicated is a fractal. Are there sources for the mathematics? What do they say? Melchoir 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a classical theorem in the fractal geometry... See Falconer "Fractal Geometry" cited in the fractal article. I shall copy it here, so thanks for your question. BTW, the current definition of what "fractal" is was inserted there on the basis of this monograph and I guess this is (one of) the best source(s). --Beaumont  (@)  08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems in order. I know this article is a translation, but the redundant "See also" link and the nonexistent category seem a little too breathlessly excited on the fractal issue. I'll fix those up... Melchoir 08:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I know it has been six years since the first comment here, but looking at the patent for the digital clock, it is clearly not a fractal design. A fractal geometry would probably be useful for making solid numbers, but the designers get away with a simpler design by using numbers built out of vertical stripes with gaps between them. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet another 11 years later, let me plus the last comment in this Ent-paced discussion: the digital sundial illustrating the current version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_sundial&oldid=1092842974 uses a design that is non-fractal, and moreover that does not satisfy the conclusion of Falconer's theorem: the (complement of) the projection consists in thin lines, whose total measure is close to 0, so very far from the actual digit shapes that the brain recognizes from these lines. The vivid brightness of sun also helps in seeing them. Arnaud Chéritat (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Falconer's theorem should be explicitly cited as such since it is not obvious, or the theorem should be presented with a proof (See [] for example). I think that a full description of Falconer's math might deserve its own article. --Coldnebo (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge with Sundial
Shouldn't this be merged with Sundial? 124.82.2.241 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? This seems quite well separated topic (theoretical basis, technical means) and, eventually, might get expanded here.--Beaumont (@)  20:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a seperate page probably has better marketing potential. 153.2.246.31 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Math and Text?
One bit of math looks wrong to me, but I'm out of my field. Specifically, immediately under the "Theorem" subhead, where it says [0,pi) - this looks like mismatched brackets to me.

"Sockets of optical waveguides" doesn't mean much to me; is "sockets" correct here?

Peter Delmonte 00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * [0,pi) means the set of numbers between 0 and pi, but the [ indicates that 0 is included in the set, but the ) indicates that pi is not (ie everything from 0 up to but not including pi). – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dang! I knew that once! Thanks for the explanation. Peter Delmonte 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A 3D Printed digital sundial on Thingiverse
There is something to print on https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1068443. (although, I not sure it is useful to print the inside) -- Xofc (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)