Article View: sci.fractals
Article #465Re: Life, GIPPP #2, and an example of pixel counting gone awry ?
From: Gerald Edgar
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 18:56
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1993 18:56
54 lines
2981 bytes
2981 bytes
In article <1qnj79$h7f@network.ucsd.edu> fisher@inls1.ucsd.edu (Yuval Fisher) writes: > > > In the spirit of wasting (in this case >not so much) time and so on, I have written up a little program which does >pixel counting to estimate the "length" of a Cantor set. This program >seems to converge to the wrong length in some cases. I think this puts the >onus on the pixel counters of the world to explain the problems in this >code and why these don't occur for pixel-counting the area of M. It is, no >doubt, due to some oversight, misunderstanding, confusion, or sheer >clumsiness on my part. Or maybe not. > >In this simple case, the actual measure can be estimated, and the pixel >counting portion of the program appears to converge to the wrong result. >The comments at the top of the code explain what is being done and how to >modify the code and so on. I want to thank Jay Hill for many useful >comments and observations. > This is an interesting approach. But I think the problem is not with the bit counting, but with your estimates of the "true" measure. If the infinite product in question converges too slowly, then taking 50,000 factors will not give you a very good approximation. I tried it with this: #define prop(i) (1.0/(double)(4*(i+2)*(i+2))) An exact value can be computed for the infinite product (i=0 to infinity) (1-prop(i)). The value is 2/pi = 0.637; this is from the infinite product for thesine function. Your program yields: Pixel Counting gives 513 out of 1024 = 0.500976562500000000 which may not be close to 0.637, but even after 50,000 factors, Estimate is 0.848835521687477002 is even worse. ----------------------- A problem for calculus students: How many factors in the infinite product would be required to be sure the answer is correct to 2 significant figures? -- Gerald A. Edgar Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY The Ohio State University telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office) Columbus, OH 43210 -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1qpjtl$g51@function.mps.ohio-state.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mailReferences:
<1qnj79$h7f@network.ucsd.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ed18,2c37ed05fbc7f3bd X-Google-Attributes: gid10ed18,public X-Google-Thread: ff06e,2c37ed05fbc7f3bd X-Google-Attributes: gidff06e,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-04-19 04:52:59 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mail From: edgar@math.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) Newsgroups: sci.fractals,bit.listserv.frac-l Subject: Re: Life, GIPPP #2, and an example of pixel counting gone awry ? Date: 17 Apr 1993 14:56:53 -0400 Organization: The Ohio State University, Dept. of Math. Lines: 54 Message-ID: <1qpjtl$g51@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> References: <1qnj79$h7f@network.ucsd.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu