Talk:Fractal

I believe that the article should be virtually blanked and rewriten (as of today it's imoprted wikipedia). Only the lead is acceptable. The rest is quite chaotic, superfluous, shallow and somehow arbitrary (as compared to an introductory university course, say). Of course, there are many interesting elements to be re-used, but the global structure shoud be reworked. I hope I will be able propose something better soon. Actually, any remarks/propositions are welcome. Just to let you know my tohughts (and plans!). Aleksander Halicz 07:24, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Go for it!!Gareth Leng 07:59, 24 January 2007 (CST)

So here we go. A few remarks on what I find wrong and how I think it could look like. Hopefully, this will make efforts of possible contributors coherent. Here is a proposition of the global structure:

• introduction - overview of ideas
• historical background

(obvoiusly, in these two descriptive sections I will desperately need help of copyeditors.)

• then a main section "Fractals by example", say. Even though contemporary theoretical approach to fractals somehow looks like this title suggests, the section should not be limited to just a handful of unrelated examples; we should describe some important families of fractals and mention some further development: multifractals, analysis on fractals etc.). I do not think that the Hausdorff dimension should be treated here in details (as this is the case in the present version), we could focus on its role in the theory instead (and Haudorff dimension has its own article).
• the second main section would be devoted to applications in physics and engineering (in mathematics possibly too). Fractals in nature and art should be mentioned as well (but maybe this has its place in the introduction - to be decided).

On the other hand, I feel that extensive list of generators as well as classification of related methodologies, as a quite separate and technical aspect ("how to") that "ballasts" the present version, should be moved to a separate article.

Still, any remarks are welcome. Aleksander Halicz 03:51, 25 January 2007 (CST)

WP sourced?

If any content from this article came from WP, please check the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box. If not--I am very impressed! --Larry Sanger 18:31, 14 February 2007 (CST)

It still contains WP text (I've made a dummy edit to check the box). However, probably this will change (the program outlined above and in some html comments in the article is under development). Check in some time ;) --Alex Halicz (hello) 01:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)

PS. A technical remark that I would like put on a wider forum: probably the box would work better if it could by default keep the status of the previous version (now, by default it is unchecked, so WP credits easily get lost).