Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
Education
»
mathteach
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Fractals Replies
Replies:
1
Last Post:
May 5, 1995 10:43 AM




Re: Fractals Replies
Posted:
May 5, 1995 10:43 AM


I appreciate your idea to summarize the fractal discussion, Eileen.
I'm not in agreement with the statement concerning "indepth discussion" because I feel the basic concept behind a fractal (starting with a pattern and reiterating it) _can_ be discussed indepth with middle grades (and younger) students. Perhaps what you meant was formal mathematical discussions are not possible.
The issue of the definition of a fractal seems to be arising. I like Mandelbrot's statement (p. 361 of his _Fractal Geometry of Nature_):
"Although the term fractal is defined in Chapter 3, I continue to believe that one would do better without a definition (my 1975 essay included none). The immediate reason is that the present definition will be seen to exclude certain sets one would prefer to see included."
Mandelbrot explains in the first chapter of this book his thinking when he coined the term "fractal." I think this informal definition related to irregular fragments can lead to indepth discusssions. One of my favorite points is that fractal's Latin derivation is etymologically opposite to the Arabic derivation of "algebra" from "jabara" which means to bind together.
My interpretation of the quote above is that a great deal can be gained by not locking ourselves into a formalism (especially in an emerging field of study). I think we gain very little by limiting our interpretation of fractals to "sets for which the Hausdorff Besicovitch dimension stricly exceeds the topological dimension." I think this is true in the educational domain (exploring fractals with middle grades students) and, I believe Mandelbrot argues in the chapter from which I quoted, that it's also true within a mathematical research perspective.
Ed Dickey
In message <199505050302.WAA11360@informns.k12.mn.us> Eileen Abrahamson writes: > Thanks for the stimulating discussion  I am going to summarize what I > think you told me about fractals so that I can tell if I got the idea. > Please correct me if I have it wrong :) > > Fractals are selfsimilar objects/patterns such as a line of telephone > poles in perspective, rivers branching, or an artery structure, except that > they branch infinitely. At the intermediate level any kind of indepth > discussion can not take place because there is some significant math > involved in the generation of fractals, however, if nothing else, the kids > could be exposed to what they are and could do some simple activities > involving them. Sometimes Selfsimilar patterns do not lead to fractals. > The word `fractals' mean that they have noninteger fractal dimensions. >



