Then randomly pick any point inside the triangle and draw a dot. Let’s call it dot A. We pick the next dot as follows. Randomly choose one of the triangle’s three corners, and draw a dot B midway between that corner and dot A. Then just iterate; that is, randomly pick another corner of the triangle and draw a point that’s midway between that corner and dot B. Call it dot C. Repeat many times. The more the better. (CADD might help for drawing this, if you have access to a program.)
What can you say about the pattern of dots that emerges from this iterative process?
(My source shows what happens in an equilateral triangle, but claims something similar would emerge in any triangle.)
Does the triangle corner "randomly picked" have to be different from the immediately preceding random corner? If it does I get a fractal pattern that is quite hard to describe, made out butterfly shapes that are made of butterfly shapes.
Originally posted by iamatiger Does the triangle corner "randomly picked" have to be different from the immediately preceding random corner? If it does I get a fractal pattern that is quite hard to describe, made out butterfly shapes that are made of butterfly shapes.
My source says, "randomly pick another corner of the triangle."
Confessing that I have not done the construction myself, I am not sure how literally to take the word "another." Could it mean "other than the last one utilized"? Maybe. Not sure.
In broad terms, iamatiger has identified the pattern.
I will see if anyone can sharpen it some more by providing a name. The dots converge (as it were) to a pattern that was named after someone back in the 1900s. Can anybody identify the name? (I am doubtful that the mathematician in question discovered the pattern through this random dots method, though I can't rule that out.)
Was your picture:
a: Very sparse with some hexagons made out of tiny m's
b: Quite dense triangular fractal generated as follows:
{1} split triangle into 4 equilateral triangles, middle upside down triangle is empty except for a line around the border, for each of the other 3 triangles goto {1}.
For some reason that I do not understand b: is exactly the same as the pattern of odd/even numbers in pascals triangle:
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/532797/discrete-math-combinatorics-homework-help
If it looks like a) Then the rule was "choose a random different point from the last one", if it looks like (b) Then the rule was "choose a random point of the three".
Originally posted by iamatiger Was your picture:
a: Very sparse with some hexagons made out of tiny m's
b: Quite dense triangular fractal generated as follows:
{1} split triangle into 4 equilateral triangles, middle upside down triangle is empty except for a line around the border, for each of the other 3 triangles goto {1}.
For some reason that I do not understand b: is exactly t ...[text shortened]... ike (b) Then the rule was "choose a random point of the three".
I drew the pictures in excel.
(b) for the win!
My source's graphic looks just like the black & yellow image on your linked page.
The name I was looking for is found on that linked page, down near the bottom: "Sierpinski triangle."
(I have never used Excel to generate anything except for alphanumeric data within cells, so I am learning something new.)
I think it is because there is a triangle in the middle (of the triangle) that if a point is outside of, no line can be drawn that puts a point in the triangle. Then, because no line can start in that triangle, there is a triangle in each corner that cannot be reached, then because no lines can start in those triangles, there are other triangles than cannot be reached, and so-on.
The question (which I don't expect anyone knows the answer to) is, why is this EXACTLY the same pattern as the odd and even numbers make in pascals triangle???
Originally posted by Paul Dirac II (b) for the win!
My source's graphic looks just like the black & yellow image on your linked page.
The name I was looking for is found on that linked page, down near the bottom: "[b]Sierpinski triangle."
(I have never used Excel to generate anything except for alphanumeric data within cells, so I am learning something new.)[/b]
I suspected it was going to be the Sierpinski triangle, but I used rule a. and got the butterflies instead. There seems to be some strange attractor behaviour going on, there. When I change it to rule b. I do also get Sierpinski.
I think you can safely extend your proof for equilateral triangles by assuming that they're all topologically identical, by the way; the generator rules skew with the triangle.
Has anyone here seen a Menger cube? Or the Sierpinski tetrahedron, which is a cross between the two?
A pentagon is not bad, moving (sqrt(5)-1)/2 towards the chosen vertex
bluish dots are the "choose a different vertex" rule
http://postimg.org/image/6gfw4lek3/
Originally posted by iamatiger A pentagon is not bad, moving (sqrt(5)-1)/2 towards the chosen vertex
bluish dots are the "choose a different vertex" rule
http://postimg.org/image/6gfw4lek3/
Another beauty.
Going back to the triangle case, would it be easy to implement a non-equilateral triangle?
a qualitative one (rather than quantitative)
28 Jan '15 23:14
Back to Top