Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lorenz attractor projection

Lorenz attractor


Lorenz attractor. Given the canonical parameters of the system (kind of reference case, used in majority of articles about the system) and minimalistic projection, there aren't many degrees of freedom left to play with. I think here they are used well.

Appears in Chaos theory and Lorenz attractor, created by me.


 * Nominate and support. - Wikimol 11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC) - (both alternatives) --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What do the different hues represent? Debivort 23:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If the colour of the trajectory changes time to time it is easier to follow it. And, IMO, looks better. Othervise nothing. --Wikimol 00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think it is a nice aspect - and just wanted to clarify. Debivort 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is it possible to get the program that you used to draw the lines antialiased? enochlau (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, would you be able to draw it much bigger (4x maybe?) and downsample. Either way, it might look better if it weren't so pixelised. enochlau (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. By writing the antialiasing code - don't know if it counts is as yes or no :-)
 * 2. That would be easier, but has its own problems. Now the original is 2048x2048 and looks reasonable when downscaled to anything between ~300 - ~1300. In smaller versions individual lines are hard to distinguish. If the original was 8kx8k, the lines will look nice and will be distinguishable at 4kx4k. When downscaled to 1kx1k, lightness of individual line would decrease 10 times, it will be hardly observable ang whole picture would be very dim. The way how to get around this would be to make the program draw thicker lines or play with the source image.
 * I'm not going to do either now. The question can be transformed to "what resolution is enough". If the original was 8kx8k, the pixelation would be at 8kx8k. IMO the picture is ok at 1k x 1k, and 1k x 1k is enough for current WP usage. I could have uploaded the version downscaled to 1k x 1k as the final product (or I can save it as alternative) -  but I like it better to make availiable the "source" as well.
 * If improvement, I would go for conceptual one - exporting the trajectory to some vector format (the longer internal float represenation, the better :-). Pieces of trajectory between points can be saved as polynomial curves (derivates are ready availiable). Bitmap image would be than generated e.g. by some postscript renderer... with resolutions up to ~ precision of computation, e.g. 1 mega x 1 mega pixel :-) If lacking things to play with, I'll eventually try to create such "ultimate Lorenz picture" -but - sorry - not now.  --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't decide what to make of this nomination. I am unable to support because I haven't got a clue whether this diagram or whatever it is makes a significant contribution to an article or not.  The words Lorenz attractor certainly occur in both articles linked above, but does this picture help explain the concept?  Not to me it doesn't.  The article Lorenz attractor restricts itself to technical definitions apparently for those who are already familiar with all these concepts and doesn't communicate anything to the intelligent lay reader (not this one, anyway) &mdash; and that is the level an encyclopaedic article should aim at, in my opinion.  What exactly is this illustrating?  Having read Chaos theory a couple of times I now understand what a phase diagram is and how it can be a fascinating way to spot a pattern in otherwise apparently uncoordinated patterns of behaviour / development but the bit about strange attractors still left me scratching the head.  I wouldn't like to oppose a nomination just because I don't understand it, but even so if why this image is a significant contribution can't be explained in terms I find intelligible then I suspect the subject itself may be too esoteric ever to have a meaningful FP. ~ Veledan • Talk 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Regardless of the quality of the associated article, this image is very illustrative of the concept. As I understand it from my math undergrad days, this is the Lorenz attractor. Debivort 03:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Veledan, read the attractor article first. If you understand the concept of attractor, it shouldn't be hard to understand main surprise of Lorenz attractor, and meaning of the picture. It's not esotheric at all, its simply kind of trajectory. Or more exactly "picture of the trajectory" - like if you would have a barrel of colour in your car and paint a line all the way you go. Now, this is line in phase space - you don't have to understand that concept to appreciate the picture. What you should understand is the trajectory is in fact in 3 dimmensional space, and the picture is projection to 2-dimmensional plane. Now, i you compare with trajectories of things like you, planes, pendulum... you should see the trajectory of Lorenz system is somehow very complex, yet simple ...strage.
 * I agree the article is not in the best possible shape - its not that hard topic after all - but I cannot agree every article has to communicate it's main points to every intelligent lay reader and be self-contained in this aspect. Articles can assume the reader understands (or is able to found using wikilinks) some basic concepts needed for the explanantion. For example, in article telemark skiing it is reasonable to assume its reader has some idea what a ski or a ski binding is. In article about Gauge theory it is reasonable to assume understanding of e.g. Lagrangian. IMO in case of Lorenz attractor one such reasonable assumptions is understanding of attractor --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is difficult. Yes, it's the attractor, all right - I remember seeing a similar image in Scientific American, years ago. But the aliasing of this image prevents me from supporting - if you can get a version with good anti-aliasing, I'll reconsider. --Janke | Talk 06:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Treat the 1024x1024 downscaled version as "the image". --Wikimol 11:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, where is that 1x1k image? The thumbnail gets me to a approx 600x600, and clicking that goes to the 2x2k. They all look badly pixelated in Firefox. --Janke | Talk 16:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Chaos never looked so good. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2005-12-30 04:26


 * Oppose, looks only good as a thumbnail. Did anyone besides Janke check out the fullsize? A pic like this should be done in SVG anyway, you'd get the antialiased lines for free. --Dschwen 08:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm working on an SVG version of a lorenz attractor which will not look pixelated. This is a work in progress, colors can and will be changed (changing hue with time as well). --Dschwen 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support SVG. --Dschwen 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Can't open easily in standard browser = I'm not bothering and neither will 90% of other users. --Deglr6328 01:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I already commented on your talk page, I cannot let this FUD stand here uncommented. MediaWiki converts it to png for viewing. Higher res and zoom in will be available for people with high res displays and modern browsers in the future. --Dschwen 09:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why its fud at all. I can't easily open the full resolution image in either IE or Firefox, therefore I won't support it. --Deglr6328 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Firefox 1.5 natively supports SVG. And a vectorbased format is just a little more farsighted. Anyway my FUD comment was a bit snappy, please excuse me. Peace, out. --Dschwen 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - while SVG is superior format for the image (wow, I discovered its so simple :-) its 2kx2k rendering by Wikimedia servers doesn't IMO look any better than the PNG image criticized for pixellation. Higher resoltuion SVG renderings look good only for those who are able to do it themselves. Images are interlinked so those who would use in some resolution-critical application can now easily find the SVG.
 * I believe both alternatives are illustrative and eye-catching as bitmap in resolutions commonly used on Wikipedia pages, so it won't hurt if both are featured. On the other hand IMO it would be a bit sad if both are rejected, one because of pixellation and not beeing SVG and the other for beeing SVG :-( According to WP:FP there are only 2 feautered pictures in matemathics and 4 in physics, so I would like to recommned those voting oppose to reconsider if their technical criteria aren't too strict. --Wikimol 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, you are right. Apparently MediaWiki only renders it for the size given in the SVG source (500x500 in this case) and calculates other size by scaling the bitmap. I guess thats a matter of computing power. --Dschwen 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Raven4x4x 03:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

