Gertbuschmann

Field lines

Hi,

Thx for your notes about field lines in Julia sets. Is it a translation of your page Theory 10: Field lines ? There are some articles in wiki about it. Youe are wellcome to expand/improve it . In wiki field lines are named external rays ( or it is something else ?). There is also article in wikibooks about dynamic, parametere rays and Boettcher coordinate.

"The field lines can only be drawn (coherent) when the attracting cycle of the Fatou domain is not super-attracting." Why ? I have made image of external rays in super-attracting case. Is it wrong ?

Regards --Adam majewski (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Context

Hello. Please see my recent edits to an article you created. Another article that you created begins like this:

The complement of a Julia set (in the plane) is the union of one or more Fatou domains.

That is very abrupt when seen by a lay reader who's never heard of Julia sets or complements (in the mathematical sense) or the like. A Wikipedia article shouldn't start like that. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are some TeX issues. I found this:

$\psi -k\beta =\theta (mod\pi )$.

I changed it to this:

$\psi -k\beta =\theta \mod \pi .\,$

One difference is that the use of \mod automatically causes parentheses () to appear; it also de-italicizes the word "mod" and results in proper spacing between "mod" and π. TeX is sophisticated. Also notice the format of the period at the end of the sentence. Mixing TeX with non-TeX typesetting software causes misalignments and other problems with things like this. Putting the period inside the "math" tags avoids those problems. Finally, the seemingly needless spacing character \, causes the TeX to get rendered as png, and that sometimes doesn't happen otherwise on some browsers (the use of \int, \sum, \frac, and some other sequences also has that effect). Michael Hardy (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mandelbrot and Julia set landscapes

The article Mandelbrot and Julia set landscapes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An original research essay that appears to be promoting your web site, which violates WP:PROMOTION

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Field lines of Julia sets

The article Field lines of Julia sets has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Another piece of original research that appears to be advertising your web site. Wikipedia is not the right place to promote your ideas.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

I suggest that you do not remove maintenance tags from articles until the problems are resolved. I consider the articles you've written very interesting (and the images very beautiful), but other editors are a little concerned by issues such as lack of references to similar ideas in books (e.g. Peitgen & Richter, The Beauty of Fractals), and a perceived conflict of interest. If the issues aren't resolved, it is very likely that someone will start up formal deletion processes, which I'd rather not see. I would also suggest that perhaps the article Mandelbrot and Julia set landscapes could be split up, with part becoming a section of Julia set and part becoming a section of fractal art. Those are both very frequently read articles (about 300 and 150 times per day, respectively). -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advises, and for your edits in the two articles. I think I will put the material on field lines into Julia set (which article I have already contributed to), and possibly part the article on landscapes between Mandelbrot set and Fractal art. I have allowed myself to refer to my own site, because you there can find a very detailed account of the theory of the Julia and Mandelbrot sets that only concerns the making of pictures (the only existing, I suppose). This "textbook" is written in Danish and almost all of the research is done by myself (I can only refer to Peitgen & Richter). My original plan was to translate the material into English, but now I have got the idea to convert it into Wikipedia articles. I am writing a large article called "Pictures of Julia and Mandelbrot sets" (at present on my user page), and I will be very grateful to you if you will look over it - should the last section of this article be moved to the discussion page? (Gertbuschmann (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

I haven't read the material all that carefully, so I can't comment in detail, but Wikipedia actually frowns on original research (see here and here), so using your "textbook" might be a problem.

I mention Peitgen & Richter because some of what you're saying seems to be the same as what they say (which is good, because you can reference them). Prior to your work, distance estimates seem to have been used mostly for colour, not for height. However, if you add material on landscapes to fractal art, you should be able to refer to that work as establishing the validity of distance estimates. The resulting pictures you have produced speak for themselves, I think. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Field lines of Julia sets was merged into Julia set by an admin, or was that you? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've merged field lines into Julia set (Gertbuschmann (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

The article on landscapes will be merged into Fractal art, besides I am preparing a new article Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets (Gertbuschmann (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Be sure to add references to books other than your own, or this article will be deleted too. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved remains of page to your user space

What you left in Mandelbrot and Julia set landscapes was no longer a Wikipedia article, so I have moved the remains to your user space - it is now at User:Gertbuschmann/Mandelbrot and Julia set landscapes. This is a process known as userfication. We have proper processes and procedures for most circumstances here at Wikipedia, and you need to become familiar with them. This will allow you to tidy up your own messes in future, and not leave them for other editors to clean up after you. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

TeX and non-TeX notation

Writing something like this:

$\phi (z)=$lim_k→∞$1/(|z_{kr}-z*|\alpha ^{k})$

does not make sense. It should look like this:

$\phi (z)=\lim _{k\to \infty }1/(|z_{kr}-z*|\alpha ^{k})$

Or possibly like this:

$\phi (z)=\lim _{k\to \infty }{\frac {1}{|z_{kr}-z*|\alpha ^{k}}}$

TeX is sophisticated. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but written in my may the characters in the formula have the same size as the characters of the text: if the arrow is put inside math, the characters become twice as large. Is it possible to write in TeX so that the formula has the same size as the text? Then the text will look better and fill lesser. You must admit that many mathematical formulas in Wikipedia do not look very nice, see for instance Distance estimation in Mandelbrot set. (Gertbuschmann (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm guilty of breaching the rules too, but you should probably read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets

I have nominated Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. I will bring this matter up for dicussion - possibly write a Wikibook. (Gertbuschmann (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

You blanked the page, which is *not* the same as deleting the article. I reverted your blanking, See Talk:Images of Julia and Mandelbrot sets for more explanation. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Juliasetsdkpictjuldist.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Juliasetsdkpictjuldist.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)