An Invitation to Fractal Geometry and Its Applications

Michel L. Lapidus, Dana Clahane, Robert G. Niemeyer

University of California, Riverside Department of Mathematics 900 Big Springs Rd. Riverside, CA, 92521 lapidus@math.ucr.edu, dclahane@math.ucr.edu, niemeyer@math.ucr.edu

(Draft Version)

October 7, 2006

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Preliminaries 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Complex Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Set-Theoretic Notation and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Calculus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Point-Set Topology and Metric Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9 16 16 23

3 Concepts in Fractal Geometry 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Euclidean Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recursion and Fractal Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 29 31 36 45 49 51 51

Self-Similar and Self-Anity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Innite Length and Uncountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Integer Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Various Fractal Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4 4 Measure Theory

CONTENTS 53

5 Dimension theory (intuitive approach...box counting and Hausdor ) 5.0.1 5.0.2 Self-Similarity Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Box-Counting Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 58 61

6 Iterated Function Systems

63

7 Fractal Curves and Sets 7.1 7.2 Fractal Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taming the Mathematical Monsters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 7.3 Nondierentiability of the Weierstrass Function . . . . . .

65 65 68 70

Denitions for a Fractal (many competing ones and the denitions) 78

8 Fractal Strings

79

9 Calculus on Fractals (i.e. lite analysis on fractals)

81

10 Applications 10.1 Brownian Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1 Theoretical Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.2 Fractal Properties of Brownian Paths & Graphs . . . . .

83 83 84 92 95 95 95

10.2 Fractal Economics (Mandelbrots work) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Fractal Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Fractals in Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS 10.5 Fractals in cognition,sociology (Dr. Lapidus has a book on shelf) 10.6 Fractal Drums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 Fractal Billiards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical signicance Intuitive motivation Intuitive motivation for fractals Outline of chapter

5 95 95 95

Chapter 3

Concepts in Fractal Geometry

Fractal Geometry has its roots in a variety of analytical problems. Many of the standard sets found in every fractal geometers tool box were originally discussed in the context of counter-examples to long-standing problems. In some cases, the development of fractal sets were in answer to physical problems. The early work of Fourier on heat diusion and harmonic analysis motivated Riemann, Weierstrass and others to investigate the analytic nature of explicit trigonometric series. As a result of Riemann and Weierstrass separate works, it was settled once and for all that highly nondierentiable and entirely nondierentiable functions did exist. In fact, the mathematical community was quickly, though begrudgingly, conceding that nondierentiable functions were the norm 25

26

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

and dierentiable functions were a special case. But this was just the beginning of a deep mathematical mystery. Cantor was a contemporary of Weierstrass and did much to create an upheaval in mathematics, as well. In particular, his discoveries led to a reconceptualization of similarity. While his original results were concerned with Set Theory and Harmonic Analysis, his name is now pervasive in many mathematical branches. In fact, his famous Cantor set is the rst monster many students are introduced to, mainly because it is a perfect set with Lebesgue measure zero and cardinality equal to that of the unit interval. The generation after Weierstrass and Cantor included Giuseppe Peano, Helge von Koch, Waclaw Sierpinski, and others, each having a surprise of their own. Peano shook the geometric intuition of every mathematician when he demonstrated that there exists a continuous map f from the unit interval I to the unit square I I whose image lls the space I I. Von Kochs example of a nowhere dierentiable function was borne out of a desire to have a more natural example of Weierstrass ndings. Waclaw Sierpinski, while known to budding fractal geometers for his Sierpinski gasket made an astonishing discovery with the Sierpinski carpet. He found that any planar Jordan curve could be embedded homeomorphically into the Sierpinski carpet. Though this fact did not hold for the Sierpinski gasket, Karl Menger was able to extend the results to higher dimensions. Around the time of Sierpinski and Menger, Wiener was placing the work of Robert Brown, Albert Einstein and others on a rigorous foundation. Brownian

27 paths and motion, as formalized by Wiener were nondierentiable paths and physical Brownian motion was the expression of a naturally occurring statistically self-similar fractal. For years, physicists have been developing methods to explain geometric phenomena that were not tting well with traditional Euclidean concepts. As a eld, Fractal Geometry cannot be described as a purely theoretical study of fractal sets, nor can insight be gained by rephrasing it as the geometry of fractals, if such a concept were even rigorously dened. Nor is it an area entirely devoted to explaining roughness in Nature. Rather, Fractal Geometry is the unication of seemingly unrelated elds under an umbrella of pure mathematics that ties together the various concepts in the physical sciences by providing a rigorous mathematical foundation. More recent motivation for developing the study of fractal sets came from Benoit B. Mandelbrots paper, How long is the coast of Britain [16], and the culmination of his work in the treatise, The Fractal Geometry of Nature [13]. In such works, the nature of roughness was closely examined and placed on a more rigorous foundation. For example, the shoreline seems rather smooth at large scales, but any attempt to measure the coast shows that ner and ner scales only illuminate the shores roughness and make the length longer and longer. Topologically speaking, a fractal and non-fractal curve are equivalent. The rst attempt at developing a method for discerning was made by Felix Hausdor. Though Hausdor is a name traditionally associated with particular topological spaces, the topologically noninvariant method developed by Hausdor entailed

28

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

assigning a value to a set that indicated a point at which the measure of a set jumped from innity to zero. As part of the goal of research, mathematicians now attempt to classify sets in a non-topological manner so as to provide a welldened method for dierentiating between two topologically equivalent sets. For over forty years, mathematicians have been confronted with the problem of what constitutes a fractal set. The word fractal, having its origins in the Latin word for broken - fractus - was coined by Benoit Mandelbrot. The following fractal criteria was set forth by Mandelbrot. Criteria 3.0.1 ( [13]). A fractal is, by denition, a set for which the Hausdor Besicovitch dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension. This denition was later dismissed by Mandelbrot as being insucient in its ability to describe a larger class of sets that the intellectual community accepted as being fractal. In particular, this denition excluded the Devils Staircase. Hence, Mandelbrot next proposed that a fractal be dened as follows: Criteria 3.0.2 ( [17]). A fractal is a shape made of parts similar to the whole in some way. Researchers across the various scientic disciplines readily agreed that this was a better denition for fractal, but was still inadequate for rigorous mathematical discussion (see [14]). One main problem in the discipline thus far is the lack of an ocial rigorous denition for fractal. While research in this area will be discussed and analyzed, we shall rst introduce the various criteria used to decide whether or not a set

3.1. Euclidean Generators is fractal.

29

Before we discuss the various fractal criteria, it is extremely important to realize that a fractal set F cannot be illustrated in reality. This stems from the fact that Nature is discrete. Eventually the granular nature of matter rears its ugly head and shows that everything is not smooth at some xed scale. For example, a smooth curve drawn on paper will exhibit a high degree of roughness at the microscopic scale. Another example is the fern. At some level, the fern ceases to exist as a self-repeating structure and the cellular structure becomes apparent. Hence, the fern has a limited self-similar structure. What is important is that the abstract knowledge gained in the study of what are termed self-similar sets oers insight into nitely self-similar structures.

3.1

Euclidean Generators

Traditional Euclidean shapes are points (a1 , a2 , ..., an ), lines #, n-spheres, and r n-dimensional polyhedra. Such shapes are nite in their measure and can be unioned and intersected in such a way so as to produce more complicated Euclidean shapes. Furthermore, Euclidean shapes, are used in the construction of fractal sets. However, this does not imply that a fractal is merely a complicated Euclidean shape in disguise. A fractal can often be constructed by a particular iterative process that begins with an initiator and/or generator. The initiator and generator are represented by the familiar Euclidean shapes, i.e. line segments, circles, polygons

30

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

and polyhedra. The initiator and generator of most of the fractals that we will discuss will be line segments. The generator is constructed from the initiator, and then the fractal is constructed from the generator in accordance with a particular iterative process. After each successive iteration, the shape loses its traditional Euclidean appearance and, in the limit, becomes a fractal set.

Denition 3.1.1 (Prefractal). If a set X of points is the nth level approximation of a fractal F , then X is called a prefractal. In particular, X is the prefractal Fn .

Example 3.1.1 In Figure 3.1, we have the fourth level approximation of a fractal tree.

Figure 3.1: Fourth level approximation of a fractal tree.

The prefractal in Figure 3.1 is not very interesting, but it illustrates the use of an initiator and generator to construct a fractal shape. In our example, the initiator is a line segment and the the generator, a -shape, gives rise to a tree that, in the limit, will not resemble any Euclidean shape. The importance of fractal trees will become evident when we begin discussing Fractal Billiards in Section 10.7 of Chapter 10.

3.2. Recursion and Fractal Construction

31

3.2

Recursion and Fractal Construction

Denition 3.2.1 (Recursion). The process of dening an object in terms of itself. Denition 3.2.2 (Algorithm). An algorithm is a fnite set of precise instructions for performing a computation, for describing a set, or for solving a problem. In our discussion, we will mostly be using the word algorithm in the context of describing a set. From these two denitions, it is clear what a recursively dened algorithm is. Denition 3.2.3 (Recursively Dened Algorithm). A nite set of instructions for which the output of the algorithm is used as input for the same algorithm. For many fractals, there are many options for symbolically representing the algorithmic construction. In particular, we will focus on the use of L-Systems for describing the construction of a variety of fractal sets. L-Systems, named after the botanist Aristid Lindenmayer, is a formal language used to describe the formation of plants. In his research, Lindenmayer dened variables and operations that served as input for a computer, which would then output a fairly detailed rendition of the plant. Abstractly, the construction of any object which exhibits self-similarity or self-aneness can be described by a particular L-system, meaning that every self-similar or self-ane fractal can be described by a particular L-system. However, computational restraints restrict an L-system from realistically describing a fractal F .

32 ANGLE + LENGTH SCALE F X L

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry An angle measured in degrees. Rotation of ANGLE in the counter-clockwise direction. Rotation of ANGLE in the clockwise direction. The length of the line described by F. The value by which each segment F is scaled. Draw a line of a predetermined length in the direction of ANGLE. No action required. Mainly used as a place holder in complicated L-systems. Move forward in the direction of ANGLE without drawing a line. Table 3.1: L-System commands and syntax. ANGLE LENGTH SCALE INITIATOR GENERATOR 60 1 1/3 -90F F+F--F+F

Table 3.2: L-system for the Koch curve.

For the purposes of our discussion of L-Systems, we shall use a simplied version of the language developed by Lindenmayer, which is listed in Table 3.2. In particular, we shall present simple algorithms in a pseudocode format. In other words, with a mild amount of eort, one could translate a particular L-system into a working computer program.

Example 3.2.1 The Koch curve K, as seen in Figure 3.2, is constructed by means of a recursive algorithm. Hence, there is an L-system that describes K in terms of its generator and initiator, which is summarized in Table 3.2 For the purposes of clarity, one can describe the construction of the Koch curve in more words. Begin with the initiator, an interval [a, b], and divide it into three equal thirds. Then, erect an equilateral triangle with sides having length equal to
1 3 (b

a) on the middle third. Delete the base of this new

3.2. Recursion and Fractal Construction INTEGER i INTEGER r CHAR STRING SHAPE LOOP i if i = 0 then Set SHAPE to INITIATOR else Set each F in SHAPE to GENERATOR INCREMENT i END LOOP WHEN i = r

33 Keep track of the recursion depth. The desired recursion depth. The string that will contain the data. Start the looping process. Decide the depth of recursion. Depth of recursion greater than 0. Increase i by 1.

Table 3.3: Pseudocode implementation of the Koch curve L-system.

triangle, and then divide each resulting segment into three equal parts. Again, construct an equilateral triangle at the middle third of each segment with sides having length equal to
1 3 (b

a ), where b and a represent the endpoints of

each resulting segment. In Figure 3.2, we see how the generator is constructed from the initiator and how each successive prefractal Kn approaches the Koch curve. After innitely many iterations of the recursively dened algorithm, the Koch curve is the resultant gure.

Figure 3.2: The Koch curve. Construction as put forth by von Koch.

Example 3.2.2 The Sierpinski gasket, shown in Figure 3.3, satises the previ-

34

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

ously discussed criteria, as listed below. The Sierpinski gasket is self-similar, since it is the result of the union of a nite number of similarity transformations. The generator of the Sierpinski gasket is an equilateral triangle. The Sierpinski gasket can be constructed by way of a recursive algorithm, as listed in Table 3.2. ANGLE LENGTH SCALE INITIATOR GENERATOR 120 1 1/2 -90F+F+F F+F-F-F+F

Table 3.4: L-system for the Sierpinski gasket.

Example 3.2.3 The Cantor set is the most important in the collection of mathematical monsters. Its lack of application and inability to be clearly illustrated made it most attractive to pure mathematicians. It was a freak of mathematical nature because of its early inability to be amenable to Mother Nature. As time progressed, the Cantor set became more and more useful, especially in the study of chaotic dynamical systems. The usual construction of the Cantor set is the construction by tremas. The word trema is used to denote a hole or cut and originates from the Latin word for termites, tremes. The Cantor set is another creature with fractal properties. The cardinality of the Cantor set is innity, but the Cantor set has an innite number of holes. It is constructed by:

3.2. Recursion and Fractal Construction

35

Figure 3.3: The rst ve iterations in the construction of the Sierpinski gasket.

1. Dividing the unit interval [0, 1] into three equal lengths.

1 2 2. Removing the segment ( 3 , 3 ).

3. Dividing the two remaining intervals [0, 1 ] and [ 2 , 1] into three equal parts 3 3 and repeat.

In keeping with the theme of the chapter, we will refer to the Cantor set L-system in Table 3.2 when discussing the construction. Notice that there are two generators for the Cantor set L-system. The Cantor set L-system gives rise to the graphical representation of the Cantor set in Figure 3.4.

36

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry ANGLE LENGTH SCALE INITIATOR GENERATOR F GENERATOR L 0 1 1/3 -90F FLF LLL

Table 3.5: L-system for the Cantor set.

Figure 3.4: Construction of the Cantor set

3.3

Self-Similar and Self-Anity

At one point in life, everyone has witnessed what happens when two mirrors are placed opposite of each other. As Figure 3.5 indicates, at each level, one sees a reection of a reection, of a reection, and so on. Furthermore, each reected image can be scaled by a particular constant a so that it resembles the original set of reected images, as the illustration indicates. In order to undertand this phenomenon in full generality, we will rst develop many elementary concepts.1 Denition 3.3.1. (x) is a linear translation if,

(x) = x + c,
1 Though

(3.1)

such concepts will be dened for vetctors in the plane in terms of complex numbers, there is no reasy why they following concepts cannot be extended to higher dimensions. Such cases will be examined in the later chapters

3.3. Self-Similar and Self-Anity

37

Figure 3.5: Reection of light between two mirrors as an example of selfsimilarity. where x is a vector in C.

Denition 3.3.2. r(x) denotes a rotation of the point x C, if,

r(x)

= xei ,

(3.2)

where is the angle of rotation.

38

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

Figure 3.6: Linear Translation.

Figure 3.7: Rotation through an angle . Denition 3.3.3. (x) denotes a dilation, meaning that every point x X C is scaled by a particular factor a R if,

(x)

= ax.

(3.3)

A similarity transformation, denoted by (x) is a transformation that preserves angle. Specically, a similiarity transformation is any combination of

3.3. Self-Similar and Self-Anity

39

Figure 3.8: Scaling a square by 1 . 2

translations, rotations or dilations, i.e.,

(x) = r (x) = a(x + c)ei ,

(3.4) (3.5)

where we recall that the symbol denotes composition of functions.

A self-similarity transformation of a set X is built out of X and nitely many similarity transformations. If we denote by F the union of the images of X under a nitely many similarity transformations 1 , 2 , ..., n , and F is setequivalent to the set X, then we call the set X self-similar under the similarity transformations 1 , 2 , ..., n , with the caveat that the scaling ratio 0 < a < 1. Hence X = F or equivalently,

40

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

= 1 (F ) 2 (F ) ... n (F )

(3.6)

More to the point, any set constructed by means of a self-similarity transformation is self-similar. Unfortunately, as a tool for discerning a shapes fractality, the denition of self-similarity is too restrictive. Hence, we must develop a more general concept of self-similarity that includes a larger class of sets. This concept is called selfanity. An ane transformation is a similarity transformation with the added quality of shearing.

Denition 3.3.4 (Shear Horizontal Line Preserving). Every point (x0 , y0 ) in the plane is translated along a vertical line y = y0 that is parallel to a particular xed line in the plane, i.e.,

s[(x, y)]

(tx, y) + c

(3.7)

where t R Denition 3.3.5 (Shear Vertical Line Preserving). Every point (x0 , y0 ) in the plane is translated along a vertical line x = x0 that is parallel to a particular xed line in the plane, i.e.,

3.3. Self-Similar and Self-Anity

41

s[(x, y)]

(x, uy) + c

(3.8)

where u R Denition 3.3.6 (Shear). Every point (x, y) in the plane is translated along a line that is parallel to a particular xed line in the plane, i.e.,

s[(x, y)]

= (tx, uy) + c

(3.9)

where t, u R and 0 < t < 1, 0 < u < 1. For example, one can rotate, translate and scale a square, but shearing will cause the square to become a rhombus. Thus, ane transformations do not necessarily preserve angle. The following is the form of an ane tranformation in full generality.

((x, y))

= r s((x, y)) = [(tx, uy) + c]ei

(3.10) (3.11)

Much like the concept of self-similarity, a self-ane transformation of a set X is a specic type of ane transformation. If we denote the union of a nite number of ane transformation 1 , 2 , ..., n by F and F is set-equivalent to the

42

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

set X, then we refer to the set X as self-ane under the ane transformations 1 , 2 , ..., n , with the caveat that the scaling ratio 0 < a < 1.2 More to the point, any set constructed by means of a self-ane transformation is self-ane.

Figure 3.9: An ane transformation will not necessarily preserve angle.

From this, we can see that a self-similarity transformation is always a selfane transformation, but a self-ane transformation is not necessarily a selfsimilarity transformation. In fact, if t = u, then [(x, y)] is a similarity transformation. Thus, it may be more natural to describe an anity transformation as a similarity transformation with n-many (not necessarily distinct) scaling ratios. Note that this is not to be confused with the previous footnoted fact tthat each similarity transformation in the union F may have a unique scaling ratio. Example 3.3.1 In looking at the Koch curve in Figure 3.10, we see that each covered region is similar to the whole. Figure 3.10 is indicative of the fact that there are particular similarity transformations that produce the the Koch curve. They are as follows.
2 There is nothing prohibitting each from having a unique scaling ratio. Such a scenario i will be discussed in later chapters.

3.3. Self-Similar and Self-Anity

43

Figure 3.10: Illustrating the result of the similarity transformations on KC.

1 (x) = 2 (x) = 3 (x) = 4 (x) =

1 x 3 1 1 i e3 x 3 1 2 i 2 e3 x + 3 3 2 1 x+ 3 3

(3.12) (3.13) (3.14) (3.15)

Line 3.12 in the list of similarity transformations merely scales every point of the Koch curve by 1/3. Line 3.13 is the composition of a rotation r(x) = e 3 i and a scaling (x) = 1 x. Line 3.14 is the composition of a rotation, scaling, and 3 translation and Line 3.15 is the composition of a scaling transformation and a linear transformation. Essentially, Lines 3.14 and 3.15 are the mirror images of Lines 3.12 3.13.
1

Example 3.3.2 An example of a self-similar set is the pentagasket. The Eculideian generator of the pentagasket is a regular pentagon. Applying a particular self-

44

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

similarity transformation, we see that we end up with the following fractal shape. For clarity, we have demonstrated the rst four iterations of the recursive algorithm that gives rise to the pentagasket. Notice that if we were to continue the construction, the nth level approximation of the pentagasket would be nearly indistinguishable from the (n + 1)th level approximation.

Figure 3.11: The rst four iterations in the construction of the pentagasket.

From this, one can see that it is possible to scale, rotate and translate ve copies of the pentagasket by 0 < a < 1 and recreate the original pentagasket.

Example 3.3.3 The Cantor set.

3.4. Innite Length and Uncountability

45

1 (x) 2 (x)

= =

x 3 x+2 3

(3.16) (3.17)

3.4

Innite Length and Uncountability

Denition 3.4.1 (Finite Set). If a set X has nitely many elements, then we refer to the set as nite.

Denition 3.4.2 (Countably Innite). If the elements of a set X can be put into a bijective correspondence with the natural numbers, then we refer to the set as countably innite.

As will be shown later, in order to show something is not countable, it is enough to show that any attempt to list the elements results in at least one element being unlistable.

Denition 3.4.3 (Uncountable). If a set X cannot be placed into a bijective correspondence with the natural numbers and the set is not nite, then we refer to the set X as uncountable. As sets, most fractals are uncountable, and as geometric objects, it is usually the case that a fractal will have innite length. To demonstrate these qualities, we will prove that the Cantor set is uncountable, and we will attempt to calculate the length of the Sierpinski gasket and the Koch curve.

46

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

Example 3.4.1 Since the Sierpinski gasket is constructed by means of an Lsystem, we can view it as a curve and each iteration as a collection of line segments in the plane. The rst iteration of the Sierpinski gasket L-system shows that the length of the curve is 9/2. The second iteration shows that the length of SG2 is 27/4. From this, we would like to deduce that the length of the Sierpinski gasket is 3
3 n . 2

Theorem 3.4.1 (Length of the prefractal SGn ). If SGn is the nth level approximation of the Sierpinski gasket, then the length of SGn is given by l(SGn ) = 3(3/2)n . Proof We shall proceed by induction. The trivial case is n = 1. The prefractal SG1 does indeed have length 9/2. Suppose the length of SGn is given by l(KCn ) = 3(3/2)n for some xed n. Then,

l(SGn+1 ) = l = = =

3 SGn 2

3 l(SGn ) 2 n 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 2
n+1

From this, we can see that as n , l(SGn ) . Example 3.4.2 By now, one should be familiar with the construction of the

3.4. Innite Length and Uncountability

47

Koch curve. After the rst iteration of the Koch curve L-system, there are four segments each with length 1/3. After the second iteration, there are sixteen segments of length 1/9. What we need to rst prove is that the length of any given prefractal KCn can be given by (4/3)n . Theorem 3.4.2 (Length of the prefractal KCn ). If KCn is the nth level approximation of the Koch curve, then the length of KCn is given by (4/3)n . Proof We shall proceed by induction. The trivial case is n = 1. The prefractal KC1 does indeed have length 4/3. Suppose the length of KCn is given by (4/3)n for some xed n. Then,

l(KCn+1 )

= l = = =

4 KCn 3

4 l(KCn ) 3 n 4 4 3 3 4 3
n+1

From this, we can see that as n , l(KCn ) . Example 3.4.3 At rst glance, Figure 3.4 would lead one to believe that C is nite and not terribly large. However, the case is quite the contrary. Mandelbrot referred to the Cantor set as Cantor dust because the visual representation leads the reader to believe it is nothing more than specs of dirt laid out in a line. In

48

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

fact, the Cantor set is an uncountable subset of the unit interval [1, 0] and has measure zero, which will be proved later. It is true that every element of the Cantor set can be described by a ternary expansion. In other words, each element x of the Cantor set can be written down as an innite sequence of zeros and twos, i.e.

0.0220200002222...

However, it is not true that the Cantor set is countable, for which a proof follows.

Theorem 3.4.3. The Cantor set is uncountable.

Proof We shall proceed by nding a contradiction by using the famous Cantor Diagonalization Method. Suppose the Cantor set is countable. Then examine only the decimal portion of the ternary representation of x and then represent the twos in each sequence with ones, without changing the nature of the sequence. Next, attempt to list each sequence in the Cantor set by arranging each in a table-like format:

1000000000... 0100000000... 0101000101... 0100011101... ...

3.5. Non-Integer Dimension

49

Dene the sequence C = {c1 , c2 , c3 , ... : ci = 0 if ci,i = 1 or ci = 1 if ci,i = 0}, where ci,j is the diagonal element of each row in the table above. However, this sequence, given its construction, will not appear in the listing above, since every element in the sequence diers from every diagonal element of every listed sequence. Hence the Cantor set is uncountable.

3.5

Non-Integer Dimension

The dimension of the Sierpinski gasket is not an integer. It is approximately D = 1.58 meaning that the Sierpinski gasket has innite length and zero area, which is in accordance with the previously mentioned idea that a shape with a dimension between 1 and 2 would exhibit such behavior. The last concept in the list of fractal criteria is extremely crucial for understanding the very nature of the discipline. In reading the last criterion, certain questions may arise. First, what is a non-integer dimension. Second what does it tell us about a fractal F that an integer dimension cannot? In particular, what do integer dimensions describe about traditional Euclidean shapes. For the rest of our discussion of non-integer dimensions, allow length, area, and volume to be denoted by the general term measure. In general, an ndimensional Euclidean shape will have a nite measure. A 1-dimensional object has nite length and zero area, a 2-dimension object has nite area and zero volume. Therefore, the dimension of a set indicates which measure will be nite

50 and which measure will be zero.

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry

A natural question is how does one describe the measure of a shape with a non-integer dimension? Will it indicate a nite measure, and is that measure length, area, volume or something entirely dierent? Another question one may ask is can the measure be denoted as length for a dimension d that approaches 1 and as area for d that approaches 2? Furthermore, will dierent methods for calculating the dimension yield dierent answers? If so, can logical bridges be made between such methods? All of the questions, and more, that you may have are valid and have been addressed by many researchers in the past and present. Hence, answers to these questions will range from simplistic to very technical. First, let us answer what happens when a set has a non-integer dimension d between 1 and 2. Intuitively, one would expect that the set F would not have a measure bigger than a 2-dimensional object and not smaller than a 1dimensional object. The 1-dimensional measure of a d-dimensional object will be innity and the 2-dimensional measure will be zero, or nite (but usually zero). However, it is not always the case that the d-dimensional measure of a d-dimensional set will be nite. Such a situation will be discussed in more detail later when we develop the necessary theorems and denitions from Measure and Dimension theory. State the self-similarity dimensions of the Cantor set and Koch Curve without proof and show hwo these dimensions indicate innite zero-dimensional measures and 0 1 dimesnional measure and innite 1 dimensional measur eand

3.6. Various Fractal Dimensions zero 2-dim measure, respectively.

51

3.6

Various Fractal Dimensions

Now give denitions/derivations of particular dimension concepts, i.e. selfsimilarity dimension, Hausdor, box counting, compass dim, etc...point out benets, drawbacks, use thesis.

3.7

Summary

Criteria 3.7.1 (Fractal Criteria). A set F Rn with (a majority of, if not all of ) the following properties is considered a fractal: Usual Euclidean shapes may be used in the construction, but the set F is in no way easily described by traditional polygons. Furthermore, describing the local geometry is equally awkward. The set F is constructed by means of a recursive algorithm. F is self-similar The set F has a ne structure, which means that the structure of the fractal becomes increasingly detailed as the scale m increases. Construction of the visual representation of the set F is fairly simple. The set F is uncountably innite and does not usually have an integer dimension, meaning that F s length, area or volume may be innite or zero.

52

Chapter 3. Concepts in Fractal Geometry