4/22/2013

This universe is like a ripe fruit appearing from the activity of

the cit [consciousness]. There is a branch of a tree bearing innumerable
such fruit. There is a tree having thousands of such branches. There is a
forest with thousands of such trees. There is a mountainous territory having
thousands of such forests. There is a solar system containing thousands of
such territories. There is a universe containing thousands of such solar
systems. And there are many such universes contained within what is like
an atom within an atom. This is what is known as cit or the subtle sun
which illumines everything in the world. All the things of the world take their
rise in it. Amidst all this incessant activity, the cit is ever in undisturbed
repose.

Now we introduce ways to quantify fractals.
We shall see that measuring a shape in the wrong dimension gives results that at first
seem peculiar.
Measuring in a dimension too low gives infinity: a filled-in square has infinite length.
Measuring in a dimension too high gives zero: a filled-in square has zero volume.
We motivate our study of dimensions, we look carefully at some
peculiar aspects of measurement.
Ineffective Ways to Measure
A familiar method of measuring the length of a curve is to
approximate the curve by straight line segments; add the lengths of
the line segments.
Smaller line segments should give a better approximation, and
we look for a limiting value of the lengths of the line segments, as we
use smaller and smaller line segments.

So what are we to make of the calculation, that the Koch curve has infinite length
(1-dimensional measure) and zero area (2-dimensional measure)?

Does this mean the dimension of the Koch curve lies between 1 and 2? How is this
possible? What could it mean?

First, we apply this to a situation where it works: finding the length Heartened by this success, we try the same approach to compute the length of
(circumference) of a circle. the Koch curve.

We know how to measure the length of a straight line.
For a reasonably smooth curve we can try to measure the length of the curve by
approximating it with straight line segments.
Using segments of length d, suppose N such segments are needed to
approximate the curve. Then the length of the curve, measured at scale d, is
L(d) = Nd
For example, let us approximate a circle of radius 1 by straight line segments.
First, we approximate the Koch curve by the straight line segment between its
endpoints. Call the length of this line segment L0.
For example, we might say L0 = 1 meter. Whatever it is, the length of the Koch
curve is greater than 1.
Now add three points between the original endpoints, obtaining four line
segments, each of length 1/3.
The collection of these segments has length L1 = 4/3.
We see the length of the Koch curve is greater than 4/3
Continue: between each pair of points, add three more points. This gives
a collection of sixteen segments, each of length 1/9
Taken together, the collection has length L2 = 16/9 = (4/3)2.

the polygonal approximations

with 3 through 20 sides. graph of the lengths of the polygons
approximating the circle, for 20 through 100 sides.

1
 4/22/2013

Here's an interesting corollary to the infinite length of the Koch curve.

n length of a segment number of segments Ln Not only does the Koch curve itself have infinite length, but measured along the
curve, the length of any pair of points in the Koch curve is infinite.
0 1 1 L0 = 1
1 1/3 4 L1 = 4/3
2 1/9 = 1/32 16 = 42 L2 = 16/9 = (4/3)2
To make these computations concrete, note that if the original L0 is 1 meter, then
3 1/27 = 1/33 64 = 43 L3 = 64/27 = (4/3)3
... ... ... ...
number of segments length of the curve
length of a segment
n 1/3n 4n Ln = (4/3)n
L24 3.5(10-12) m 281, 474, 976, 710, 656 1 km

The length of the Koch curve is greater

than each Ln, so greater than every 115, 792, 089, 237, 316,
number. That is, the Koch curve has infinite 195, 423, 570, 985, 008,
length. 687, 907, 853, 269, 984,
L128 8.5(10-62) m 1 light year
665, 640, 564, 039, 457,
584, 007, 913, 129, 639,
936

Area of the Koch curve Replace each small triangle by four still smaller triangles. We see these triangles
have base and height 1/3 those of the previous triangles.
We'll try to compute the area of the Koch curve by covering it with isosceles
triangles (suggested by the general shape of the Koch curve). Thus these triangles have area 1/9 that of the previous triangles, and so (1/9)2 that
of the original triangle.
Using smaller and smaller triangles should give a better estimate of the area of the
Koch curve. The areas of these triangles sum to
First, cover the Koch cuve with a single triangle. A2 = ((3)/12)(16/81) = ((3)/12)(4/9)2.

This triangle has base length 1 and altitude sqrt(3)/6 (from the Pythagorean
theorem),
hence area
A0 = (3)/12.
Certainly, the area of the Koch curve is less than A0.

Now replace this single triangle with four smaller triangles.

For each small triangle the base has been shrunk by 1/3
and the altitude by 1/3, so the area of each is 1/9 that of
the original triangle.
Thus the sum of the areas of these four triangles is
A1 = ((3)/12)(4/9).

General Pattern We have seen that trying to measure the length of the Koch curve gives infinity,
number of while trying to measure the area of the Koch curve gives zero.
n area of a triangle An
triangles
Neither is a useful result. Here we shall introdce a more general measure that
0 (3)/12 1 A0 = (3)/12 leads to the idea of box-counting dimension.
1 ((3)/12)(1/9) 4 A1 = ((3)/12)(4/9)
Instead of approximating the Koch curve with line segments or triangles, we
A2 = ((3)/12)(16/81)
2 ((3)/12)(1/81) = ((3)/12)(1/9)2 16 = 42 could cover it with squares
= ((3)/12)(4/9)2
... ... ... ...
n ((3)/12)(1/9)n 4n An = ((3)/12)(4/9)n

Certainly, smaller squares will pick up more detail

of the Koch curve, and will give a better
approximation of the curve. Suppose we need
The area of the Koch curve is less than N(r) squares of side length r
each An, so we see the Koch curve has to cover the curve. Then
zero area. N(r)r approximates the length of the curve, and
N(r)r2 approximates the area of the curve.
For several examples, we shall find the pattern of
how N(r) changes with r. This will tell us
something about the complexity of the shape.

2
 4/22/2013

Box-Counting Dimension of a Line Segment Box-Counting Dimension of a (Filled-In) Square

Covering a line segment with smaller and smaller boxes we see the pattern in Covering a filled-in square with smaller and smaller boxes we see the pattern
the table on the right shown in the table on the right.

N(1) = 1
N(1) = 1
N(1/2) = 2 = 1/(1/2)
N(1/2) = 4 = 1/(1/4) = (1/(1/2))2
N(1/4) = 4 = 1/(1/4)
N(1/4) = 16 = 1/(1/16) = (1/(1/4))2
N(1/8) = 8 = 1/(1/8)
N(1/8) = 64 = 1/(1/64) = (1/(1/8))2
and so in general
and so in general
N(r) = 1/r.
N(r) = (1/r)2.

For more complicated shapes, the relation between N(r) and 1/r may be
a power law, N(r) = k(1/r)d.

Definition of Box-Counting Dimension Solving for d and taking the limit as r 0 gives
db = lim r 0Log(N(r))/Log(1/r)
For different side lengths r we count N(r), the smallest number of boxes of side
length r needed to cover the shape. (Note as r 0 we have 1/r , so Log(1/r) and Log(k)/Log(1/r) 0.)
How does N(r) depend on r? If the limit exists, it is called the box-counting dimension, db, of the shape.

If the shape is 1-dimensional, such as the line segment, we have
seen N(r) = 1/r.
If the shape is 2-dimensional, such as the (filled-in) unit square, we
have seen N(r) = (1/r)2.
If the shape is 3-dimensional, such as the (filled-in) unit cube, we
expect N(r) = (1/r)3.
For more complicated shapes, the relation between N(r)
and 1/r may not be so clear.
If we suspect that N(r) is approximately k(1/r)d, a power
law relation, how can we find d? Taking Log of both sides
of N(r) = k(1/r)d, we obtain
Log(N(r)) = Log(k) + Log((1/r)d) = dLog(1/r) + Log(k)
with the expectation that the approximation becomes
better for smaller r.
This limit may be slow to converge; an alternate approach
is to notice
Log(N(r)) = dLog(1/r) + Log(k)
is the equation of a straight line with slope d and y-
intercept Log(k).
So plotting Log(N(r)) vs Log(1/r), the points should lie
approximately on a straight line with slope db. This is
the log-log approach to finding the box-counting
dimension.

Box-Counting Dimension of a Gasket
Covering a Gasket with smaller and smaller boxes we see the pattern illustrated in
the table on the right
N(1) = 1
N(1/2) = 3
N(1/4) = N((1/2)2) = 9 = 32
N(1/8) = N((1/2)3) = 27 = 33
and in general
N((1/2)n) = 3n.
Here is the Log-Log plot to estimate the box-counting dimension of the gasket.
In this case, the pattern is simple enough that we can find the exact value of the
dimension.
Plotting the points in the
table, we obtain the graph. So the box-counting
dimension of the
The points lie on a straight
line of slope about 1.59 gasket is about 1.59.

db = limrn0Log(N(rn)) / Log(1/rn)

(Log(1/r0), Log(N(r0)))
(Log(1/r1), Log(N(r1)))
(Log(1/r2), Log(N(r2)))
(Log(1/r3), Log(N(r3)))
(Log(1/r4), Log(N(r4)))
...
= limnLog(N(rn)) / Log(1/rn)
= (Log(1), Log(1)) = (0, 0) From the relation
= (Log(2), Log(3)) = (0.301, 0.477) N((1/2)n) = 3n we
can compute the = limnLog(N((1/2)n)) / Log(1/((1/2)n))
= (Log(4), Log(9)) = (0.602, 0.954) exact value of db for = limnLog(3n) / Log(2n)
= (Log(8), Log(27)) = (0.903, 1.432) the gasket.
= limn(nLog(3)) / (nLog(2))
= (Log(16), Log(81)) = (1.204, 1.908)
... ... = Log(3) / Log(2) 1.58996

3
 4/22/2013

Box-Counting Dimension of the Koch Curve Here is the Log-Log plot to estimate the box-counting dimension of the Koch curve.
In this case, the pattern is simple enough that we can find the exact value of the
Covering the Koch curve with smaller and smaller boxes we see the pattern dimension.
illustrated in the table on the right.
we see they lie on a
straight line of slope
N(1/3) = 3 about 1.26
So the box-counting
N(1/9) = N((1/3)2) = 12 = 34 dimension of the
N(1/27) = N((1/3)3) = 48 = 342 Koch curve is about
1.26.
and in general
N((1/3)n) = 34n-1
db = limrn0Log(N(rn)) / Log(1/rn)

= limnLog(N(rn)) / Log(1/rn)

(Log(1/r0),Log(N(r0))) = (Log(1), Log(1)) = (0,0) From the relation = limn:Log(N((1/3)n)) / Log(1/((1/3)n))

N((1/3)n) = 34n-1 we
(Log(1/r1),Log(N(r1))) = (Log(3), Log(4)) = (0.477, 0.602) can compute the exact = limnLog(34 n-1) / Log(3n)

(Log(1/r2),Log(N(r2))) = (Log(9), Log(12)) = (0.954, 1.079) value of db for the = limn((n-1)Log(4) + Log(3)) / (nLog(3))

(Log(1/r3),Log(N(r3))) = (Log(27), Log(48)) = (1.431, 1.681) gasket. = limn(nLog(4) - Log(4) + Log(3)) / (nLog(3))

(Log(1/r4),Log(N(r4))) = (Log(81), Log(192)) = (1.908, 2.283)

= limn(nLog(4))/(nLog(3)) + (-Log(4) + Log(3))/(nLog(3))
...
= Log(4)/Log(3) 1.26186

Box-Counting Dimension of the Cantor Set What happens when we measure an object in the wrong dimension?
The Cantor Middle Thirds set is generated by the IFS The reason for the useless results we got when we tried to measure the area and length of the Koch curve is this.

Trying to measure in a dimension lower than an object gives infinity (Imagine the length of infinitely thin thread needed to cover up a filled-
T1(x) = x/3 T2(x) = x/3 + 2/3 in square.) and

To compute the box-counting dimension of the Cantor set, we cover it with smaller trying to measure in a dimension higher than an object gives zero. (Think of the volume of a filled-in square. How much water can it hold?)
and smaller boxes, taking the box scaling based on the natural size structure of the For the Koch curve, the dimension lies between 1 and 2, so we should not be surprised that its length is infinite and its area zero.
fractal. That is, we use boxes of side length 1/3, 1/32, 1/33, ... . To emphasize this point, recall that using boxes of side length rn 0 as n ,

we measure the length of a shape by N(rn)rn as n , and

N(1/3) = 2
we measure the area by N(rn)rn2 as n .
N(1/9) = N((1/3)2) = 4 = 22 So to measure a shape in dimension d, we might expect to use

N(1/27) = N((1/3)3) = 8 = 23 N(rn)rnd as n .

and in general Here are some graphs, using the Koch curve data, for different values of d.

N((1/3)n) = 2n.

The pattern is db = limnLog(N((1/3)n)) / Log(1/((1/3)n))

simple enough that The curves support the
we can find = limnLog(2n) / Log(3n) fact that the Koch curve
the exact value of dimension lies betwen
the dimension. = limn(nLog(2))/(nLog(3)) 1.2 and 1.3

= Log(2)/Log(3) 0.62989

Box-Counting Dimension of the Product of a Cantor Set and a Line Segment

From the observation N(1/3n) = 3n2n, we can compute the box-
Now consider a fractal that is a Cantor set in the x-direction and a line segment counting dimension.
in the y-direction. db = lim nLog(N((1/3)n)) / Log(1/((1/3)n))
This type of construction is called the product of the Cantor set and the line = lim nLog(3n2n) / Log(3n) Note this is the sum of the box-
segment. counting dimension of the line
= lim n(Log(3n) + Log(2n)) / (nLog(3))
segment and the Cantor set.
To compute the box-counting = lim n(nLog(3) + nLog(2)) / (nLog(3))
dimension of this fractal, cover it with
smaller and smaller boxes, keeping in = 1 + Log(2)/Log(3)
mind that we take the boxes to be
squares.
Square isn't essential. The important
point is that the diameter of the
shapes goes to 0.

N(1/3) = 6 = 3121
N(1/9) = N((1/3)2) = 36 and in
= 94 = 3222 general
N((1/3)n) = 3n2n.

4
 4/22/2013

Box-Counting Dimension of the Product of a Sierpinski Gasket and a Line

With this, the calculation is fairly
Segment
straightforward.
N(1) = 2 = 1 + 1
N(1/2) = 5 = 31 + 21
db = limn Log(N((1/2)n)) / Log(1/((1/2)n))
N(1/4) = 13 = 9 + 4 = 32 + 22
= limnLog(3n + 2n) / Log(2n)
N((1/2)n) = 3n + 2n.
= limnLog(3n(1 + (2/3)n)) / Log(2n)

= limn(Log(3n) + Log((1 + (2/3)n)) / Log(2n)

= limnLog(3n) / Log(2n)

because limnLog((1 + (2/3)n) = Log(1) = 0

= limn(nLog(3)) / (nLog(2))
The straightforward approach may appear to run into some trouble. = Log(3)/Log(2)
Specifically, how can we simplify
Log(3n + 2n)
Note this is the larger of the box-counting dimension of the
when the Log does not behave nicely with respect to sums? line segment (db = 1) and the Gasket (db = Log(3)/Log(2)).
The trick is to turn the sum into a product:
3n + 2n = 3n(1 + (2/3)n)

A Common Mistake
We could compute the slope by finding the
We want to show the side-elevation view of the building (in blue) is a fractal. best-fitting line, but some examples
(incorrectly) compute slopes for each pair
To do this, we cover the image with boxes of points.
of several sizes, count the boxes, and do a
log-log plot of the number of boxes.
If the points are close to a straight line, the slope of
the line is the box-counting dimension. If the first and second (1.724 - 1.230)/(.301 - 0) = 1.641
dimension is not a whole number, the shape must be second and third (2.262 - 1.724)/(.602 - .301) = 1.787
a fractal, because only fractals have non-integer
first and third (2.262 - 1.230)/(.602 - 0) = 1.714
dimensions.
These numbers are not close to 2, so the
shape must be a fractal.

WRONG WRONG WRONG As we saw in the example of the gasket and line
segment example, if a shape consists of several pieces, the dimension of the
shape is the largest of the dimensions of the pieces.
This shape contains filled-in rectangles, having dimension 2, so the whole shape
rn N(rn) 1/rn Log(1/rn) Log(N(rn)) has dimension 2.
1 17 1 0 1.230 What went wrong with the calculation? Not nearly small enough boxes were used.
1/2 53 2 .301 1.724 Box-counting ratios can be very slow to converge to the dimension.
1/4 183 4 .602 2.262

Practice Problems Dimensions

Box counting,
Similarity,
Hausdorff,
Packing,
Minkowski, ..
Box-Counting Dimension Review

We cover a shape with boxes of side lengths r1, r2, r3, ..., with r1 > r2 > r3 > ... , with the hope that smaller boxes will
pick up finer details.

Count the numbers N(r1), N(r2), N(r3), ... of these boxes. We hypothesize a power-law scaling

N(ri) = k(1/ri)d
Taking log of both sides and simplifying, we obtain
log(N(ri)) = dlog(1/ri) + log(k)

the equation of a straight line, with log(N(ri)) on the y-axis and log(1/ri) on the x-axis.

If the power-law scaling is correct, the points will lie on a straight line, and the slope of that line id the box-counting
dimension db.

If we can find a formula for N(ri), then we can find db by taking the limit

db = limri 0log(N(ri))/log(1/ri)

5
 4/22/2013

Similarity Dimension To emphasize this common pattern, and to give a short-cut for computing the
dimension of a self-similar shape, we define the similarity dimension.
For exactly self-similar fractals, with all pieces scaled by the same factor,
calculation of the box-counting dimension can be simplified greatly. For a self-similar shape made of N copies of itself, each scaled by a similarity with
Later we shall see that the Moran equation generalizes this computation to self- contraction factor r, the similarity dimension is
similar fractals where different pieces are scaled by different factors.
ds = Log(N)/Log(1/r).
For self-similar fractals such as the Koch curve and the Sierpinski gasket, the
This formula can be generalized to account for the posibility that different pieces
box-counting dimension is easiest to compute if the box sizes are taken to be
are scaled by similarities with different contraction factors. We shall see the more
powers of the scaling factor, 1/3 for the Koch curve and 1/2 for the Sierpinski
general formula is the Moran
Note equation.
this fractal and the Sierpinski
gasket.
gasket
The similarity dimension have the box-counting
equals same similaritydimension, but the box-counting
dimension is defineddimension.
for a widerNot surprisingly,
variety of shapes.dimension
For example, we observed the gasket can be covered with 3n boxes of side
alone need not distinguish one fractal
length 1/2n, so the box-counting dimension computation is Then why mention the similarity dimension at all?
from another.
It is much easier to compute than the box-counting dimension.
db = lim n Log(3n)/Log((2n))
= lim n (nLog(3))/(nLog(2))
= Log(3)/Log(2). The shape can be decomposed into
Note n cancels out of the computation. This is not an accident, but a consequence N = 3 pieces, each scaled by a factor
of the self-similar scaling. of r = 1/2, so ds = Log(3)/Log(2).

This observation can be exploited to simplify the computation of the dimension, in

the case of self-similar fractals.

The shape can be decomposed The shape can be decomposed

into N = 7 pieces, each scaled by into N = 4 pieces, each scaled by
a factor of r = 1/3, so a factor of r = 1/2, so
ds = Log(7)/Log(3). ds = Log(4)/Log(2) = 2

This shows 2-dimensional shapes need not be smooth surfaces.

To emphasize the scaling, each piece is surrounded by

the unit square, scaled by r = 1/4.
What is the similarity dimension of this fractal? Applying
the formula ds = Log(N)/Log(1/r), we obtain
This shape is called the Sierpinski
tetrahedron ds = Log(4)/Log(4) = 1.
This is the dimension of a line, yet this fractal doesn't look Can appropriate
at all like a line. repositioning of the
However, note the formula for ds does not depend on pieces make this
the placement of the pieces, only on their number and dimension calculation
size. match our intuitions?
So suppose we move some of the pieces (without Let us see.
introducing any overlaps).

Here is an example of a self-similar fractal whose dimension we can't compute

from the similarity dimension formula.

For self-similar fractals made of N copies, each scaled by

the same factor r, the similarity dimension ds is given by
ds = Log(N)/Log(1/r).
Now consider the fractal shown

we see it is made of three

pieces scaled by r = 1/2 and
one piece scaled by r = 1/4

The similarity dimension equation can be applied only when the all the pieces are
scaled by the same amount.
Yet many self-similar fractals are made of pieces scaled by different amounts. Now Because different r values are involved, the similarity
we learn to compute the similarity dimension of these more general self-similar dimension formula cannot be applied. What can we do?
fractals.

The Moran Equation

6
 4/22/2013

Derivation of the Moran equation.

Unique Solution
We re-express the similarity dimension formula in a way that allows us to compute To show the Moran equation
dimensions of fractals made of different size pieces 1 = r1d + ... + rNd.

We need to rewrite the similarity dimension formula

has a unique solution, assuming 0 < r1 < 1, ..., and 0 < rN < 1, consider the function
ds = Log(N)/Log(1/r) f(d) = r1d + ... + rNd.
so the scaling factors of each piece (each is r in the cases to which this formula can be applied) can be separated from one
another. Then we could change the individual values of r into different values ri. First, note
For example, here is the
Writing d = ds, f(0) = r10 + ... + rN0 = 1 + ... + 1 = N.
d = Log(N)/Log(1/r) So long as each of the graph of f(d) vs d for N = 4,
can be rewritten as Second, note r1 = r2 = r3 = 1/2, and r4 =
ri satisfies 0 < ri < 1,
dLog(1/r) = Log(N)
the Moran equation has f(d) 0 as d . 1/4.
Pulling the d inside the Log
Log((1/r)d) = Log(N) a unique solution, This is because each ri satisfies 0 < ri < 1, so
and exponentiating both sides and that solution is the
(1/r)d = N
each rid 0 as d .
similarity dimension d = ds
That is, Third, the graph of f(d) is strictly decreasing.
1 = Nrd
and so To see this, observe the derivative is
1 = rd + ... + rd
f '(d) = r1dln(r1) + ... + rNdln(rN)
where we have one r for each of the N copies of the fractal in the decomposition.
Replacing each copy of r with ri, we see the similarity dimension d must satisfy
Because 0 < ri < 1, each ln(ri) < 0, so f '(d) < 0.
Note that the graph of y = f(d) crosses the horizontal line y =1 at
1 = r1d + ... + rNd.
This is the Moran equation. d = 1.72368... .
This is the similarity dimension of a fractal with these scalings.

Solving the Moran Equation

For some values of ri the Moran equation can be solved exactly, but often we this fractal can be decomposed into three
must solve it numerically. pieces with r1 = r2 = r3 = 1/2, and one
0.5d + 0.5d + 0.5d + 0.25d =1 with r4 = 1/4

This instance of the Moran equation can be solved analytically when we

note 1/4 = (1/2)2. Then the Moran equation
3(1/2)d + (1/4)d = 1
can be written as
3(1/2)d + ((1/2)2)d = 1

Interchanging the exponents of the second term of the left side we obtain

3(1/2)d + ((1/2)d)2 = 1 Thus the Moran equation is

Writing
(1/2)d = x, 3(.5d) + .25d = 1.
the Moran equation becomes the quadratic equation
As we saw earlier,
3x + x2 = 1.
The quadratic formula gives d = Log((-3 + (13))/2)/Log(1/2) 1.72368 ... .
x = (-3 (13))/2.
Recalling x = (1/2)d, which is positive, we have
x = (-3 + (13))/2
and so
d = Log((-3 + (13))/2)/Log(1/2).

This approach can be adopted to any situation in which all the scaling factors are (integer) powers of one of the scaling factors.

this fractal can be decomposed into four pieces

this fractal can be decomposed into three pieces
with r1 = r2 = r3 = r4 = 1/4, and one with r5 = 1/2.
with r1 = r2 = r3 = 1/3, and one with r4 = 2/3.

Thus the Moran equation is

Thus the Moran equation is
4((1/4)d) + (1/2)d = 1.
3(.333d) + .667d = 1.
Taking x = (1/2)d, we see (1/4)d = x2 and the Moran equation becomes the quadratic
Because the ri are not integer powers of the same
equation
number, we must use the numerical method. With this, we
4x2 + x = 1 obtain
The quadratic formula gives d 1.65196 ... .
x = (-1 (17))/8
Taking the positive solution for x and solving x = (1/2)d, we find
d = Log((-1 + (17))/8)/Log(1/2) 1.35702 ... .

7

Box-counting and similarity dimension are two of a multitude of variations on the
notion of dimension.
Another, the mass dimension, is based on the idea of how the mass of an
object scales with the object's size (assuming unchanged density).
Power Law Relations
Relations of the form f(x) = kxh are called power law relations.
Science is filled with power laws. For instance,
Hooke's law for springs: F(x) = -kx
Newton's law of gravitation: F(r) = GMmr-2
the allometry of animal metabolic rates:
metabolic rate = k(weight)3/4. It turns out this is a bit of a surprise.
Allometric rates
Very roughly, the surface area, A, of an animal scales as its linear size, L, squared:
A L2
by which we mean there is a constant k1 with A = k1L2
Similarly, the mass, M, of an animal scales as M = k2L3
Heat dissipation occurs across the surface, so the total metabolic rate of an animal is
proportional to L2, hence to M2/3.
The metabolic rate per unit mass then is proportional to M-1/3, or so argued Rubner in
1883.
By themselves, power laws do not imply fractal structure.
For example, the Stellpflug formula relating weight and radius of pumpkins is
weight = kradius2.78
yet no one would say a pumpkin is a fractal.
A pumpkin is a roughly spherical shell enclosing an empty cavity; a pumpkin
certainly isn't made up of smaller pumpkins.
Rather, this is the scaling relation between the thickness of the shell and the size of
the pumpkin.
Here are two examples where a power law does give a dimension.
Crumpled paper is a fractal.
Clusters of peas are not
fractal.
4/22/2013
The mass dimension, dm, of an object is defined by
(1) locating a point P inside the object (near the middle) and
(2) denoting by M(r) the amount of mass of the object inside the circle (sphere if the
object lies in space instead of in the plane) of radius r and centered at P.
If this power law relation M(r) = krd holds over some range of r values, then the
mass dimension dm = d.
Assuming the shape has finite extent, the power relation holds only for a range of
r values.
When r becomes too large, the entire object is contained inside the circle of
radius r and M(r) no longer changes as r increases.
When r becomes too small, we are in the realm of atoms, quarks, superstrings,
who knows what? There is no reason to exect the power law relation to hold on
scales smaller than the forces that sculpt the object.
There are other dimensions - Hausdorff, packing, Minkowski, ... many
more. Each has advantages and disadvantages. For simple sets, all agree.
But beyond these, the subject becomes a thicket difficult to penetrate.
Pulse rate is related to metabolic rate per unit mass, so smaller animals should have faster
pulse rates and larger animals slower. Indeed, this is observed, familiar even. A mouse's heart
beats very rapidly, a whale's heart very slowly. Add in the observation that most mammal
hearts beat 1 to 2 billion times during the animal's life and we understand that in the absence
of external perturbation (early death due to predation or disease, for example), a mouse has a
shorter life than a person, who in turn has a shorter life than a whale.
This makes perfect sense, but careful measurements by Kleiber in 1932 revealed something
different: for most animals, over a range of sizes spanning 21 orders of magnitude, the
metabolic rate per unit mass varies as M-1/4 rather than as M-1/3.
Adding to the interest of this question, plants exhibit this M-1/4 metabolic scaling law. Also, other
biological variables exhibit power law scalings with mass. Life-span scales as M1/4, age of first
reproduction as M3/4, the time of embryonic development as M-1/4, and the diameters of tree
trunks and of aortas as M3/8, for example.
The reason for the observed M-1/4 scaling is not understood, but several explanations have
been proposed. One is based on the observation that the diffusion does not occur across a
smooth 2-dimensional surface, but across the fractal boundary of the lungs. Because the
dimension of the lungs is d > 2, the metabolic rate scales as Ld, so as Md/3. Then the metabolic
rate per unit mass scales as Md/3 - 1. Because d > 2, d/3 - 1 > -1/3. Measurements of the
dimension of the lungs suggest a metabolic rate/unit mass of about -1/4.
Crumple pieces of paper of
different sizes and measure
the diameters of the paper
balls.
One experiment gave the
results on the left.
Plotting Log(mass) vs
Log(diam), we see the
points fall almost along a
straight line of slope 2.5.
This data supports a power law relation of the form
mass = kdiam 2.5
Crumpling the paper introduces spaces of a range of sizes. There is a hierarchy
of space sizes, a few large, many small.
Consequently, a crumpled paper ball is a fractal.
You have been manufacturing fractals as long as you've been crumpling paper
and tossing it in the wastebasket.
8
 4/22/2013

Weigh out different amounts of dried peas. Interpreting dimension

Wrap each amount in plastic wrap, in an
approximately spherical shape and Dimension measures roughness, or visual complexity, or how well the object fills the space
measure the diameters of the clusters.
it inhabits. Here we see a family of fractals, starting with a straight line (N = 4 pieces, each
One experiment gave the results on the
left. scaled by r = 1/4), of dimension 1, and ending with a filled-in triangle (N = 4 pieces, each

Plotting Log(mass) vs Log(diam), we see scaled by r = 1/2), of dimension 2. In this family of fractals, we keep N = 4, and step r from
the points fall almost along a straight line of 0.25 to 0.5 in increments of 0.025. As their dimension increases, the Koch curve relatives
slope 3.0.
come closer to filling in a solid region of the plane.

This data supports a power law relation of the form

mass = kdiam 3
On the other hand, the peas pack tightly. Although there are spaces between
the peas, the spaces are all about the same size.
There is no hierarchy of structures that characterize fractals.
Unlike crumpled paper, clusters of peas are not fractal.

we consider some algebraic relations between dimensions of shapes and the

dimensions of their pieces, at least in some special cases. Also, we consider some How is the dimension of the intersection of
examples of computing dimensions in physical settings. A and B related to the dimensions A and
B?
Here are some of the algebraic properties of dimensions: how the dimensions Typically, the dimension of the intersection
of fractals are related to the dimensions of their unions, products, and is the sum of the dimensions, minus the
intersections. dimension of the space in which A and B
live.
How is the dimension of the product of A
Typically, two lines, A and B, in the plane intersect in a point. Observe
and B related to the dimensions A and
B? Typically, the dimension of the product dim(plane) = 2, dim(A) = 1, dim(B) = 1, and dim(A B) = 0
is the sum of the dimensions.
so
dim(A B) = dim(A) + dim(B) - dim(plane)

Although the proof is quite complicated, the intersection result extends to fractal shapes:
How is the dimension of the union of A and
if A and B are subsets of n-dimensional space, then
B related to the dimensions A and
B? Typically, the dimension of the union is
the maximum of the dimensions. dim(A B) = dim(A) + dim(B) - n

Example Suppose A is a gasket with dimension d(A) = log(3)/log(2) = 1.58496, and Compute the box-counting dimension of the product of a Sierpinski gasket and a
B is a Cantor set with dimension d(B) = log(2)/log(3) = 0.63093. unit line segment.
What cube side lengths should be used? What is the pattern relating N(r) and r?

We select cubes of side lengths 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... , 1/2n, ...
noting the scaling of the gasket.
d = lim nEach square
Log(N(1/2 n)) covering part
/ Log(1/(1/2n))of the gasket is the top face of

cube covering part of the product.

= lim nLog(3n2n) / Log(2n)
Certainly, some placements of the Cantor set will miss the gasket completely. For cubes of side length 1/2n, each cube covering part of
= lim n( Log(3n) / Log(2n) + Log(2n) / Log(2n) )
However, typically the top face gasket is the top of a column of 2n cubes
= (Log(3) / Log(2))
covering the+ product.
1
d(A B) = 1.58496 + 0.63093 - 2 = 0.21589.

Because we need 3n squares of side 1/2n to

cover the gasket, we need 3n2n cubes of side
length 1/2n to cover the product. That is,
N(1/2n) = 3n2n

9
 4/22/2013

Some examples of calculating dimensions of natural objects. For example, the graph below illustrates the number N of earthquakes per year of
magnitude exceeding m in southern California for the period 1932-1972. The circle
Can dimension express the evolutionary complexity of sea shells, the roughness of represents the expected rate of great earthquakes in southern California. The data
coastlines and mountains, the distribution of earthquakes? predict about one per century.

Earthquakes
The Gutenberg-Richter Law is an empirical relation
log(N) = -bm + a
between the magnitude m and the number N of earthquakes of magnitude
exceeding m.
Straightforward calculations convert this to a power law.
N = Br-2b
where the length of the fault break is r = A and A is the area of the fault break.
Then 2b = D, the dimension of seismic activity for the region from which the data
were collected.

Rivers Box-counting is a familiar approach to computing dimensions, applicable to

rivers with the usual cautions. Below we see a trace of part of the Mississippi The plot of Log(N(s) vs Log(1/s) shows the points lie very nicely along a straight line
river, covered by a sequence of smaller boxes. Notice that smaller boxes pick of slope 1.2. So at least in this range of scales, the data suggest this part of the
up more detail of the river. Denoting by
Mississippi River has dimension D 1.2.
N(s) the number of boxes of side length s needed to cover the river trace,
we expect
N(s) = k(1/s)D.
Plotting Log(N(s)) versus Log(1/s) should give points lying approximately on
a straight line of slope D

number of boxes
side length s
N(s)
1/4 52
1/8 115
1/16 275

Fractal dimension can measure roughness. Many objects have varying degrees
of roughness, so a single dimension is not an adequate measure.
Multifractals are a way to quantify this variability.
As a first mathematical example, we see that by adjusting the probabilities,
we can make different parts of the fractal fill in at different rates.
The pictures below were generated with these probabilities
p1 = 0.1, p2 = p3 = p4 = 0.3.
Successive pictures show increments of 25000 points. With enough patience, the
whole square will fill in, but some regions fill in more quickly than others.

For example: The IFS of an example with probabilities generates the unit
square.
However, the square fills up in a non-uniform way, revealing many fractals.

With equal probabilities, the Random Algorithm for the IFS with these rules fills
in the unit square uniformly. The probabilities of applying each transformation represent the fraction of the
total number of iterates in the region determined by the transformation.
T3(x, y) = (x/2, y/2) + (0, 1/2) T4(x, y) = (x/2, y/2) + (1/2, 1/2)
T1(x, y) = (x/2, y/2) T2(x, y) = (x/2, y/2) + (1/2, 0)

10
 4/22/2013

Variable Probability Histograms
In a typical picture about 0.1 of the points will lie in the square with address
1, and about 0.3 of the points will lie in each of the squares with address 2, 3,
and 4.
Here we show the first four generations, with the height of the box in a region
representing the fraction of the points in that region.
All the pictures have been adjusted to have the same height, whereas square 4
has 0.3 of the points, square 44 has 0.09 of the points, square 444 has 0.027 of
the points, and so on.

Arguing in the same way, about 0.01 = 0.1*0.1 of the points will lie in the square with
address 11, about 0.03 = 0.1*0.3 of the points will lie in the square with address 12, and so
on.
The walls of the boxes in the pictures obscure the intermediate values.

We assume a power law scaling for the probability of regions having

addresses i, ij, ijk, ... .
Prob(i) scales as (1/2)(i)
Prob(ij) scales as (1/4)(ij)
Prob(ijk) scales as (1/8)(ijk)
Higher iterates are easier to understand visually. and so on

The exponents (ijk) are coarse Holder exponents. They are easily computed from Here we show the same data (with two more iterates), but just the tops of the
the probabilities: boxes.
(i1 ... in) = Log(Prob(i1 ... in))/Log(2-n) So again the height represents the fraction of the points landing in that region.
For this example, the length 2 addresses have probabilities .01, .03, and .09. The
corresponding coarse Holder exponents are
Log(.01)/Log(.25) 3.32, Log(.03)/Log(.25) 2.53, and Log(.09)/Log(.25) 1.74
Note the smaller probability gives the larger Holder exponent.

Dimension of the Second-Highest Section

In this case, an animation can emphasize the important observation that for all
measures except the highest, some parts are lost and others added at each Here we show the same data (with two more iterates), but just the tops of the
iteration boxes of the second-highest region in the previous example.

Computing the
dimension of the second-
highest section requires
some work, because at
each iteration sections of
We see the limiting some squares are
The highest regions converge to a gasket, not a surprise as we've seen. shape is filled withremoved,
a and sections of
cascade of smaller previously
and empty
What about the second highest probability regions? smaller gaskets. squares are filled.

Animating these pictures emphasizes the complication in computing the

dimension. Successive generations dissolve in previously occupied regions
and also grow into previously unoccupied regions

11
 4/22/2013

Example B, with p1 = 0.2, p2 = p3 = 0.25, and p4 = 0.3. For each region we expect that
Now structures more complicated than gaskets will prob scales as (side length)some power
appear. So instead of letting the height of the graph represent the probability of the region,
now we assign height Log(prob)/Log(side length) to the region.
Among other things, the number of values
of the probabilities of regions increases Because the probability measures the fraction of the points that occupy a region,
more rapidly we think of this ratio as a dimension.
Being viewed at the resolution of the side length of the region, this is a coarse
Holder exponent; it is also called the coarse dimension.

Smaller regions have smaller probabilities;

if these graphs weren't rescaled vertically
they would appear to become closer and
closer to a flat surface of height 0

Here is an animation of the first four

iterates, all drawn to the same vertical
scale

Dimensions of strata Here are approximations of E ( = height) for the example with p1 = 0.1 and p2 = p3 = p4 =
0.3. We picture the coarse Holder exponents for length 5 address squares. With these
Now we stratify the square into regions having the same Holder exponent .
probabilities, there are six values of .
Computing the dimensions of these strata is how multifractals are quantified.
A plot of dimension as a function of is the f() curve.
Taking limits as the side length of the regions go to zero, the coarse Holder
exponent can be refined to the local Holder exponent (or roughness) at any
point (x, y) in address square i1...in is
dloc(x,y) = lim n Log(Prob(i1...in))/Log(2-n)
where Prob(i1...in) is the probability pr(i1)...pr(in).

The value for a square of finite length address is called the coarse Holder 1.737 2.054 2.371
exponent. So the local Holder exponent of a point (x, y) is the limit as n
of the coarse Holder exponents of the length n address squares
containing (x, y).
Now define
E = {(x, y): dloc(x, y) = },
the collection of all points of the fractal having local Holder exponent .

As takes on all values of the local Holder exponent, we decompose the 2.688 3.005 3.322
fractal into these strata E.

In the length->0 limit, the coarse dimension becomes a local dimension.

Recall that to compute the dimension d of an object, we seek a power-law scaling of
the form The place-dependence of local dimension motivates the name multifractal.
N(r) = (1/r)d = r- d
where N(r) is the minimum number of boxes of side length r needed to cover the
object.
Roughly, for multifractals we seek power-law scalings of the form
N(r,) = r- f()
where N(r,) is the minimum number of boxes of side length r needed to cover E.
That is, f() is the dimension of E.

In this example, the smallest value of ,

min is attained on a gasket, so
f(min) = dim(Emin) = log(3)/log(2).
The largest value of , max is attained on a
point, so
f(max) = dim(Emax) = 0.
Here is a plot of the f() curve, dim(E) as a
function of .

12

Fractals & Chaos In Biology
What exactly is Fractals and Chaos and why
is it so important in Biology?
Chaos is traditionally thought of as being confusion, hysteria, and
turmoil. Chaos, however, in the sense of chaos theory is the idea that
the final outcome of something can be extremely sensitive upon initial
conditions. Amazingly, you can actually find brief organized patterns
within chaotic systems. Chaotic systems have the three main
properties of sensitivity, mixing, and periodicity. As chaos theory is
still a fairly new field of research, the properties may be apt to change
in the near future. Fractals are the models generated by math
equations resulting in chaotic systems. Fractals are very artistic,
complex, and intricate. They also have properties which include having
a fine structure, being defined by a recursive process, being too
irregular to be described by traditional geometry, having self-similarity,
and having fractal dimension. In Biology, Chaotic systems can be used
to show the rhythms of heartbeats, walking strides, and even the
biological changes of aging. Fractals can be used to model the
structures of nerve networks, circulatory systems, lungs, and even
DNA.
(Click to see full view of background)
Picture from:
www.emsf.rai.it/interviste/
interviste.asp?d=502
When was fractals and chaos first researched?
When was chaos theory relating to biology first
researched?
The father of fractals is often considered to be a man by the name of
Gaston Julia. In the early 1900s, Julia did much research on iterated
functions, and even drew some of his famous Julia sets by hand. True,
there were some other works out there, such as Sierpinskis triangle and
Kochs curve, but Julias work was a major breakthrough. Until the
1960s much of the work with fractals was abandoned due to lack of
technology. That changed in the 1970s when Mandelbrot used
computers to create what we now know today as the Mandelbrot Set.
Gaston Julia,
who sadly, lost
Pictures from:
http://www.fractalus.ch/index_pic/J his nose in
ulia.jpg
The Mandelbrot Set WWI
http://www.spsu.edu/math/edward
s/mandel/bigman.jpg
4/22/2013
Introduction
Have you ever awed at the fact that the heart
beats more than 30 million times a year? Perhaps you
have wondered how part of our lungs can have a surface
area the size of a tennis court. Youre in luck! Thanks to
fractals and chaos we can accurately describe and
understand various parts of the human body.
Researchers are working around the clock to try to solve
biological problems such as cancer and cystic fibrosis.
Instead of some new dangerous method, wouldnt it be
wonderful if we could cure diseases by the knowledge we
have gained in fractals and chaos theory? Stem cell
research, radiation treatment, and any other uncertain
cures may all be ruled out if fractals and chaos can take a
large role in the field of biology. Come, lets find out
more! Picture from:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/members/jill.la
wson/
When was fractals and chaos first researched?
When was chaos theory relating to biology first
researched?
Henri Poincar, a notable French mathematician, was doing research on
celestial mechanics in 1887 when he stumbled upon chaos. A discrete
error in one of his solutions later gained fame as the foundation of all
chaos theory. Since then numerous notable scientists such as Robert
Shaw and Edward Lorenz have researched the subject of chaos.
(Lorenz had the butterfly-effect idea)
The butterfly effect- A butterfly flapping
its wings in China can cause tornadoes
in Texas.
Henri Poincar
When was fractals and chaos first researched?
When was chaos theory relating to biology first
researched?
Chaos theory relating to biology was first researched in the early 70s.
Researchers were looking at how chaos theory could be used to model
population trends. Several researchers, such as George Oster, Robert
May, and Jim Yorke, looked at equations such as this one in their effort
to model population: xt+l = l xt(1 xt). As for human biology, shortly after
the Mandelbrot Set was discovered this also took off. Dynamical
diseases, a term coined in this era, described diseases that show
chaotic systems. Researchers such as Leon Glass and Michael Mackey
did research in this field. Now, there are organizations dedicated to
research with chaos theory and fractals in the field of biology.
Leon Glass
Picture from:
www.physionet.org/ Onward
contributors/
13

Select a topic
The human heart
Brain, DNA
Click when
finished
Order and Chaos:
Healthy hearts vs. Diseased hearts
Healthy heart
Has slight variations in
the time between one
beat to the next.
Has a heart-rate that is a
chaotic pattern that is
self-similar.
Interesting Fact:
This concept also applies to human
walking. When humans walk with
variation in their step they are normal.
With the onset of a disease, such as
Parkinsons disease, the human stride
is more constant.
Evidence for chaotic healthy hearts
As you can see the top graph shows a
normal healthy heart. The graph of the
healthy heart has more complexity then the
bottom graph. Complexity = healthy in
many physiological aspects. The bottom
time scale graph shows a heart with CHF
(congestive heart failure). CHF is just one
of the many diseases that causes the heart
rate to lose its chaotic property. Click on
the image for a further view of the normal
heart-rate.
4/22/2013
The Human Heart
The rate of the beating of the human
heart can be described as chaotic. The
time between heart beats fluctuates
due to a variety of factors including
exercising, stress, and physical
activities.
A good way to listen to your heart is
with a heart rate monitor or just place Order and Chaos:
Lungs your hand on your chest or another Healthy hearts vs.
place where you can measure your Diseased hearts
pulse. Then try a variety of exercises
that cause your heart rate to change
and see how rapidly and slowly your The Sound of the Heart
heart goes.
Fractal Geometry of the
Click to go Heart and Circulatory
to the main Structures
menu
Evidence for chaotic healthy hearts
Dr. Ary L. Goldberger is director of
Diseased heart electrocardiography at a hospital in Boston, MA.
Doesnt exhibit slight In the years gone past, Mr. Goldberger has done
extensive research on heart rates and chaotic
variations in time patterns.
between each beat
As Dr. Goldberger was in medical school he was learning the traditional
Has a heart-
heart-rate that is taught methods of how hearts should be in equilibrium and should be Dr. Goldberger
constant. Yet, after listening to countless heart rates of his patients, he
steady, constant, and began to notice variations in completely healthy hearts.
predictable or either By researching with his colleagues, Goldberger was able to discover
extremely random that heart rates show fractal patterns. This is not because of physical
reasons, as many might believe, but because of physiological reasons.
As for why the fractal patterns break down in diseased hearts is still
inconclusive. Goldberger has helped establish a resource center at
http://www.physionet.org/ to help in the discovery process through the
share of ideas and data.
Picture
Evidence for this from:http://focus.hms.harvard.e
Next page du/2002/March8_2002/cardiolo
gy.html
As you can see the heart rate is very complex
and does show signs of self-similarity. What
is more surprising is how the heart-rate seems
to lose its long range correlation as the heart
becomes diseased or break down.
(Click to continue)
Picture from:http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc/
http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc/
Picture from:http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc
http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc
14
 4/22/2013

Fractal Heart Music

The son of Dr. Goldberger, a
man by the name of Zach
Both of these images show
what happens as the heart Davids, actually recorded the
goes out of its normal state. melodies of cardiograms on
The bottom left graph shows a piano. He used much of his
subject with heart failure. This This may take a moment
graph has highly periodic fathers research to add the to load. It should open
values with little variation. The right theme of music to the up a web page and load.
bottom right graph shows a cardiograms and give them (must have realplayer to
subject with atrial fibrillation. view)
This heart rate is very erratic the tempo they needed.
jumping from the high end of
Picture from:http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc
http://www.physionet.org/tutorials/ndc
heart rate to the low end, with
no particular pattern.
BACK TO THE
BACK TO THE
HUMAN HEART
HUMAN HEART

Fractal Geometry of the Heart and

Circulatory Structures
Fractals are very useful in modeling the heart and circulatory structures,
and they play an important role in maintaining homeostasis.
First, the main areas where fractal geometry can
be seen in the circulatory system are:
Arteries and veins
-Their cells and organization display the properties of
fractals, such as the power-law distribution in the
diameter distribution of arteries and veins.
Organization of heart muscle groups
- Show properties of self-similarity, fine structure, etc.
Branching of certain muscles inside the heart
- resemble the bifurcations seen in fractals such as
the Feigenbaum plot
His-Purkinje network
- The branches and bifurcation of this electrical
system are essential to human biology and
resilience.
The tendons that connect the tricuspid valve to
the papillary muscles.
Fractal Geometry of the Heart and
Circulatory Structures
How does the fractal structure help?
Arteries and
-The fractal structure of the veins, veins
arteries, and heart muscles help
protect the circulatory system from
the strong, violent pumping of the
human heart.
-The fractal structure, which is Aortic valve
usually unnecessary, can come into leaflets
play when the His-Purkinje network
Pictures from:
is damaged. This helps the heart be http://webvision.med.utah.edu/imageswv/ARTERIES.j
pg,
resilient and resistant to damage.
www.synecor.com/images/

-These again show bifurcation along with other fractal - The fractal geometry of the heart www.medtronic.com/cardsurgery/images/fix4.jpg

properties. could possibly save us everyday.

The aortic valve leaflets
- These are layered providing a huge surface area,
while keeping a small volume

The Lungs The Lungs

What you are hearing is a ventilator,
which hopefully you will never have to
use.
Thanks to the fractal geometry of our
lungs, most of us dont have to use
ventilators or other breathing devices.
As Benoit Mandelbrot was doing his
research on Fractals and Chaos, he
proposed that the lung shows signs of
fractal geometry. Since then several
studies have been done to prove this
as being true. Another notable scientist
to research fractals in the lungs was
Sergey V. Buldyrev.
Picture from: polymer.bu.edu/ ~sergey/home.html
The fractal geometry of the
lungs helps the lungs resist
and overcome problems
and physical stress during
their growth.
Also, In the lungs, there are
small air sacs, called alveoli,
that are responsible for the
diffusion of oxygen into the
blood.
Sergey V. Buldryev
Continue Continue
By the lungs having fractal geometry they
are more efficient. But how? The rate at
which the diffusion of air through the
alveoli occurs is directly proportional to
the surface area of the alveoli and lungs.
All of the alveoli in a human adult, have
a total surface area of about 750 sq ft.!
Yet, they have a tiny volume.
Thus, the only way to model these alveoli
is through fractals. As imagined, the
fractal geometry of the alveoli is very
high, usually around 2.9 or so.

15
 4/22/2013

Fractals and Chaos in the Brain,

So what other parts of the lungs show fractal
geometry? DNA
Out of the three topics given on the previous page, this one is the most new and
waiting to be researched. As research is in its early stages, there have been
As a whole, the lungs few discoveries made in how fractals and chaos relates to the brain and DNA.
show much fractal Some discoveries that have been made:
geometry. Also, in the By modeling electrical signals in the brain and nerves, scientists have been
bronchi and bronchiole able to model the *alpha rhythm using chaos. Due to this discovery, the
tubes, there can be teaching of what areas in the brain control which neurological functions may
greatly seen the property be in need of a change. If wave analysis in the brain is indeed modeled by
of bifurcation. If you look time series graphs it will indeed show that chaotic dynamics is important in
A model of the lungs as a
back to the Feigenbaum whole. The branching bronchiole tubes neurology.
plot, you will find similar
(top). The bronchiole tubes The Large surface area where neurons are packed in layers in the brain can
such bifurcations.
and the branching arteries only be modeled by using fractal geometry. *Image from:
(bottom). http://www.geocities.
Brain oscillations and waves is where most of the chaos theory and time com/Omegaman_UK/
series graphs come into play. The Brain itself may very well be organized fractal.html

strictly by the laws of chaos.

DNA sequences can be very similar to fractals in that they display qualities of
Brownian self-similarity, which involve small random lines making up lines
instead of small, more patterned lines making up lines.
A digital representation of
lung tissue. DNA and the Brain both can be modeled by fractal geometry.
Pictures from:
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/Panorama/Biology/Ph
ysiology/Physiology.html Main Menu *Alpha rhythm- frequency of brainwaves between 8 -12 Hz.

Fractals and Chaos in the Brain, Fractals and Chaos in the Brain,
DNA DNA
By modeling electrical signals in the brain and nerves, scientists have been able to
model the *alpha rhythm using chaos. Alpha rhythm, along with other wave
frequencies, can often be modeled using time series graphs. Beta: above 12
Hz

Images
from:http://www.crossroadsinstitute.org/eeg.html

If alpha rhythm is
between 8 -12 Hz and Delta: .1 3 Hz
has the graph shown
try to guess the
following.
Match the graph to the
type of rhythm (frequency
Alpha rhythm Does this look band). Theta: 4 8 Hz
familiar to any time plots seen in Delta: .1 3 Hz
the study of fractals and chaos?
Theta: 4 8 Hz
Images
Beta: above 12 Hz from:http://www.crossroadsinstitute.org/eeg.html
*Alpha rhythm- frequency of brainwaves between 8 -12 Hz.
Click to see answer

Applications of Fractals and Examples of Fractal Geometry of

Chaos in the Brain DNA and of the Brain

The brain is one of the most intricate

parts of the human body. It is very
unlikely that science will ever be able to
grasp every part of its perplex design, A Brain Fractal.
however chaos theory and dynamical
equations may very well be a starting
ground. In addition to being able to
model electrical signals of nerves and A fractal of DNA.
the brain, chaos theory may help solve
neurological diseases and progress the
invention of artificial intelligence.

The hit movie, AI displayed many

types of neurosurgery and inspired
feelings about how artificial intelligence
would be viewed in the future. Images from: www.sgeier.net/ fractals/flam3/, www. sprott.physics.wisc.edu ,. Main Menu

16
 4/22/2013

APPLICATIONS of FRACTALS Review:

Two important properties of a fractal F
FRACTAL LANDSCAPES F has detail at every level.
FRACTAL IMAGE COMPRESSION F is exactly, approximately or statistically self-similar.

Fractal Landscapes
FRACTAL IMAGE COMPRESSION
Fractals are now used in many forms to create textured landscapes and
other intricate models. It is possible to create all sorts of realistic fractal What is Fractal Image Compression ?
forgeries, images of natural scenes, such as lunar landscapes, mountain
ranges and coastlines. This is seen in many special effects within
Hollywood movies and also in television advertisements.

The output images converge to the Sierpinski triangle. This final

image is called attractor for this photocopying machine. Any initial
image will be transformed to the attractor if we repeatedly run the
machine.
On the other words, the attractor for this machine is always the
same image without regardless of the initial image. This feature is
one of the keys to the fractal image compression.
A fractal planet. A fractal landscape created by Professor
Ken Musgrave (Copyright: Ken Musgrave)

How can we describe behavior of the machine ? Transformations of the Iterated Function Systems ( IFS )
form as follows will help us.
An iterated function system consists of a collection of contractive
x a bi x ei affine transformations.
wi = i +
d i y fi
n

y ci W (*) = U wi (*)
i =1

Such transformations are called affine transformations. Affine
transformations are able to skew, stretch, rotate, scale and translate an
input image.
M.Barnsley suggested that perhaps storing images as collections of
transformations could lead to image compression.
For an input set S, we can compute wi for each i, take the union of these
sets, and get a new set W(S).
Hutchinson proved that in IFS, if the wi are contractive, then W is
contractive, thus the map W will have a unique fixed point in the space of all
images. That means, whatever image we start with, we can repeatedly
apply W to it and our initial image will converge to a fixed image. Thus W
completely determine a unique image.

| W | f = lim W ( n ) ( f o )
x

17
 4/22/2013

Self-Similarity in Images Affine transformation mentioned earlier is able to "geometrically"

transform part of the image but is not able to transform grey level of the
We define the distance of two images by: pixel. so we have to add a new dimension into affine transformation
( f , g ) = sup | f ( x, y ) g ( x, y ) |
( x , y )P

where f and g are value of the level of grey of pixel, P is the space x ai bi 0 x ei
of the image wi y = ci di 0 y + fi
z 0 0 si z oi

Here si represents the contrast, oi the brightness of the

Original Lena image
JAVA transformation
For encoding of the image, we divide it into:
non-overlapped pieces (so called ranges, R)
overlapped pieces (so called domains, D)
Self-similar portions of the image

Encoding Images Decoding Images

Suppose we have an image f that we want to encode. On the other words, The decoding step is very simple. We start with any image and
we want to find a IFS W which f to be the fixed point of the map W apply the stored affine transformations repeatedly till the image
We seek a partition of f into N non-overlapped pieces of the image to which no longer changes or changes very little. This is the decoded
we apply the transforms wi and get back f. image.

We should find pieces Di and maps wi, so that when we apply a wi to the
part of the image over Di , we should get something that is very close to the
any other part of the image over Ri .
Finding the pieces Ri and corresponding Di by minimizing distances
between them is the goal of the problem.
First three iterations of the decompression of the image of an
eye from an initial solid grey image

Several years ago, one of the London tabloids printed this picture
Resolution Independence

One very important feature of the Fractal Image Compression is

Resolution Independence.
When we want to decode image, the only thing we have to do is
apply these transformations on any initial image. After each iteration,
details on the decoded image are sharper and sharper. That means,
the decoded image can be decoded at any size.
So we can zone in the image on the larger sizes without having the
"pixelization" effect..
with the caption

Proof Positive of Extraterrestrial Intelligence! No Human

Mind Could Imagine This Shape
Lena's eye Lena's eye
original image enlarged to 4 times decoded at 4 times its encoding size

18
 4/22/2013

The Mandelbrot Set and Julia Sets Complex Iteration

Using complex numbers, the process iterated to generate the Mandelbrot set
and the Julia sets takes a very simple form:
z z2 + c
where z and c are complex numbers.
To iterate the process, pick a complex number c and a complex number z0. Then
generate the sequence of complex numbers z1, z2, z3, ... by
z1 = z02 + c
z2 = z12 + c
z3 = z22 + c

Discovered around 1980, the Mandelbrot set may well be the most familiar
image produced by the mathematics of the last century. Its status as a cultural First, we reformulate the process without using complex numbers
icon needs no support. Think of the complex number z as a pair (x, y) of real numbers, and think of the
complex number c as a pair of real numbers (a, b).
From a philosophical perspective, the Mandelbrot set challenges familiar In these terms, z z2 + c becomes
notions of simplicity and complexity: how could such a simple formula, x x2 - y2 + a
involving only multiplication and addition, produce a shape of great organic and
beauty and infinite subtle variation?
y 2xy + b

Julia Sets. For a complex number c, the filled-in Julia set of c is the set of all z for
which the iteration z z2 + c does not diverge to infinity. The Julia set is the boundary of
the filled-in Julia set. For almost all c, these sets are fractals.
The Mandelbrot set. The Mandelbrot set is the set of all c for which
the iteration z z2 + c, starting from z = 0, does not diverge to infinity. Julia
sets are either connected (one piece) or a dust of infinitely many points. The
Mandelbrot set is those c for which the Julia set is connected.
First we define the filled-in Julia set, Kc, for each complex number c.
For each point z0 of the plane, generate a sequence z1, z2, z3, ... by the basic
iteration rule
zn+1 = zn2 + c
If the sequence does not run away to infinity, then the point z0 belongs to Kc;
if the sequence does run away to infinity, then z0 does not belong to Kc.
First we note three computational aspects
of the definition of Kc:

Finite resolution Run Away to Infinity Accuracy vs. Time

Finite resolution Run away to infinity

How does a sequence run away to infinity anyway?

Pixels
Although mathematically we can speak of all complex numbers z0 in the plane,
in practice we consider only some portion of the complex plane (the window in
which the picture is rendered).
Because on a computer monitor it is represented as an array of pixels, in this
window we take only a finite collection of z0.
Pictures cannot be resolved at a level smaller than a pixel, so for each pixel we
take one point z0, usually the center of the pixel.
Must we check a very, Very, VERY, VERY long time?
Here some mathematical reasoning helps with the interpretation. It is not difficult
to prove that if some member zj of the sequence is farther than 2 from the origin,
then the distance between the origin and later members of the sequence will grow
without bound.
This is what we mean by run away to infinity, and so all we have to check is
whether the sequence runs farther away than 2.

Consequently we call this condition

some zj is farther than 2 from the origin
the escape criterion.

A 200 200 window requires testing

2002 = 40,000 pixels.

19

Accuracy vs. time
However, suppose all of z0, ..., z100 lie within a distance of 2 from the origin.
Can we conclude the sequence never runs away to infinity?
Unfortunately not: maybe z200 will be farther than 2 from the origin.
Now we must make a choice. Select some maximum number, N, of iterations we
are willing to try.
If all of z0, ..., zN lie within a distance of 2 from the origin, we assert the sequence
will never run away to infinity and so z0 belongs to Kc.
This leaves open the possibility that we incorrectly conclude some points belong
to Kc.
Julia Sets - Coloring Schemes
If the iterates of z0 fail to satisfy the escape criterion, we assume z0 belongs to the
filled-in Julia set Kc and paint black the pixel containing z0.
If the iterates of z0 do satisfy the escape criterion, we usually paint the pixel
containing z0 with a color indicating how many iterations were needed to first get
farther than 2 from the origin.
For example,
paint the pixel containing z0 white if z1 is farther than 2 from the origin.
Paint the pixel light to dark pink if a few more iterates are needed to get farther than
2 from the origin.
Paint the pixel orange to yellow if a few more iterates are needed to get farther than
2 from the origin.
Paint the pixel green to blue if a few more iterates are needed to get farther than 2
from the origin.
and so on.
For reference, here is a picture of the Mandelbrot set. The pink circle is the circle of
radius 2 centered at the origin.
4/22/2013
For example, here are two renderings of Kc (the points painted black) for the same c.
On the left, N = 10; on the right, N = 50
Generally, the larger N, the fewer mistakes
we make.
On the other hand, the larger N, the more
computer time needed to generate the
picture
The Mandelbrot Set - Definition
The Mandelbrot set, M, is defined by the same iteration process used to define
Julia sets, but applied in a different way.
Instead of using the complex plane to represent the different choices of
z0 (the Dynamical Plane), it represents different values of c (the Parameter
Plane).
To compute an image of the Mandelbrot set, for each c start with z0 = 0 and
generate the sequence z1, z2, z3, ... by the basic iteration rule
zn zn+1 = zn2 + c
If the sequence does not run away to infinity, then the point c belongs to M; if the
sequence does run away to infinity, then c does not belong to M.
As with Julia sets, we paint the pixel black if the sequence produced by the c
at its center does not run away to infinity, that is, if this c belongs to M, and
otherwise we paint the pixel a color determined by how quickly the sequence
gets farther than 2 from the origin (and hence runs away to infinity).
The Mandelbrot Set - Maximum Iterations
Recall the maximum number of iterations used in drawing Julia sets.
Here is an illustration of the effect of the maximum number of iterations on
rendering the Mandelbrot set. In the animation we step through from max =1 to
max = 25
20
 4/22/2013

The Mandelbrot Set is Connected

As we have seen, the mandelbrot set is surrounded by small copies of itself.

Magnifications, such as those below, certainly suggest that the small copies of the
Mandelbrot set are islands, well-separated from the main body of the set and from one
another.

However, Douady and Hubbard proved the Mandelbrot set is connected.

That is, the intricately branched decorations are filled with strings of tiny Mandelbrot sets,
invisible at this level of magnification, but all linked back to the main body of the set.

This is another lesson on the need to be careful when interpreting computer pictures.
One of the early surprises of the Mandelbrot set is that its periphery is filled with
a halo of tiny copies of the entire set, each of which is surrounded by its own
halo of still tinier copies, and so on, on smaller and smaller scales, without end.
Despite appearances, these small copies are attached to the main body of the
set, through a sequence of still smaller copies. That is, the Mandelbrot set
is connected.

The boundary of the Mandelbrot set

In many ways, the most interesting part of the Mandelbrot set is its boundary.
First, what is the boundary of a set S in the plane?.
The boundary of a set S in the plane is all the points with this property: every
circle centered at the point encloses points in S and also points not in S.
For example, suppose S is the filled-in unit square, painted red on the right. The
point a does not belong to the boundary of S because, as the magnification
reveals, a sufficiently small circle centered at a contains no points of S. Similarly,
b does not belong to the boundary of S because a small enough circle centered
at b encloses only points of the S. The point c does belong to the boundary,
because every circle centered at c contains points of S and also points not of S.
The boundary of the Mandelbrot set is the collection of all points c for which every
circle, no matter how small, centered at c encloses points in M and also points not
in M.
Pictured below is the boundary of M. At this magnification, the boundary agrees
with our intuition about boundaries.
However, at higher magnifications the boundary becomes very fuzzy.
For boundary points, microscopic movements of c can change whether the
sequence zi runs away to infinity.
The boundary points of the Mandelbrot set belong to the Mandelbrot set.

21