🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar15.063023.6605@dsd.es.com> rthomson@dsd.es.com (Rich Thomson) writes:
>In article <1991Mar14.113902.97@bsu-ucs.uucp>
>	00lhramer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Leslie Ramer) writes:
>>I would much rather use Newton's method to find the square root or any other
>>root for that matter. [...]
>
>Well Newton's method has some interesting properties of its own (as
>I'm sure many readers of comp.theory.dynamic-sys are aware).
>
>>Now the only problem is a starting value.  A decent starting value is 1.
>
>If you play with Newton's method long enough you come to realize that,
>in general, picking a starting value isn't always obvious.  In
>general, you pick a starting value that is "close" to the desired root
>of the function.  If you have no idea where the roots of the function
>lie, then you may be in trouble.  Newton's method may fail to
>converge.  In fact, many interesting fractal images have been computed
>for simple functions like z^3 = 0, with z being a complex number.
>
> [stuff deleted]

In the pretty inserts following page 114 of James Gleick's book "Chaos" there
is a picture of the complex boundaries of the attractors in Newton's method
for the zeroes of x^4-1=0.  Beautiful graphics.

-- 
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp