Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- From: "W. Dale Hall" <mailtowd-hall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:54 GMT
gsax wrote:
Hi
While playing with fractals, I noticed that I am usually able to create an equation, such that the dimension of the fractal is a root of that equation...
I am therefore skeptical regarding any object having transcendental dimensions. I mean how would we go about proving that the dimension of an object is not the root of any integer polynomial...
maybe I am wrong, & if I am I would like to know some examples of objects with transcendental dimensions.
thanks Gsax
Try the standard Cantor "middle-thirds" set. Its Hausdorff dimension is log(2)/log(3), which is transcendental, see this page:
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/ Constants/Miscellaneous/classification.html#Hardy
(the two lines need to be reattached to make a real URL).
The author ascribes the proof that log(3)/log(2) is transcendental to Hardy and Wright.
Dale. .
- Follow-Ups:
- The Proper Way to put a long URL in a NG post
- From: Norm Dresner
- Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- From: gsax
- Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- From: Timothy Little
- The Proper Way to put a long URL in a NG post
- References:
- Transcendental Dimensions
- From: gsax
- Transcendental Dimensions
- Prev by Date: Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- Next by Date: Re: Steven Cullinane is a Crank
- Previous by thread: Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- Next by thread: Re: Transcendental Dimensions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|