Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site aero.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!sinclair
From: sinclair@aero.ARPA (William S. Sinclair)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: Is the Mandelbrot set a fiction??
Message-ID: <423@aero.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 17:29:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: aero.423
Posted: Tue Sep 10 17:29:25 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 12:09:56 EDT
References: <418@aero.ARPA>
Reply-To: sinclair@aero.UUCP (William S. Sinclair)
Organization: The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA
Lines: 14
Summary: 


Someone pointed out to me that the Mandelbrot set is well defined, although on
a finite-precision machine it might be impossible to do the iterative
process to establish that a number is IN the set. Of course, there are many examples
of numbers NOT in the set. Rational arithmetic isn't much help; the numbers in
the fractions get big in a BIG hurry. To see what I mean, take the complex
number (1/3,0.). How do you show that it is in the set?

On a more practical note, is there a way to standardize the iterative process
such that all machines give the same answer for a number which can be expressed
exactly on those machines, for example (1/4,1/4)?
 
                                       Bill Sinclair


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com