## "Mandelbulb," a 3D Mandlebrot Construct, Discovered 255

symbolset writes

*"Many know the beauty and complexity of the Mandelbrot set. For some years now a few enterprising mathematicians / rendering fiends have been seeking a true 3D Mandelbrot set. A month ago a solution was found, and it is awesome to behold."*
## Poorly-defined problem (Score:4, Insightful)

What are they trying to do, make up some 3D fractal that just looks like the mandelbrot? This mandelbulb seems pretty arbitrary, and the whole point of the story seems to be that they've found a good one, not that they've found any kind of "true" solution.

## Katamari Mandelrot (Score:3, Insightful)

## Re:Poorly-defined problem (Score:2, Insightful)

They're trying to make a particular kind of 3d fractal, ie: has no simple edges. I'm sure these images look neat to the old and computer illiterate, but if publishable math has become "wow check out my graph!" then it's a sad day indeed.

## A sad day indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)

## Re:Zooming (Score:4, Insightful)

I love how ontopic your signature is.

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:5, Insightful)

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:5, Insightful)

Site is down, but I got an email notification from fractalforums a few days ago, and they had some incredible results. The pursuit is at least as much aesthetic as it is mathematical, and in that respect they've succeeded marvelously.

## Re:Looks like a big sea slug. (Score:5, Insightful)

Remember the film, Jurassic Park? They applied some simple math to make flocking behavior in their dino models look realistic. It works - just about everybody says the dinosaur flocking looks just like real flocking. Of course real biologists who have been trying to find the math behind real flocking have tested those equations the film makers used, and found some trivial little problem like you need to have faster than light telepathic communication between animal brains if you don't want the animals to get into a ridiculous gridlock once you add in some real environment modeling, but it sure looks like it's real flocking.

And I'm sure we'll get paramecium models or mitochondrion models, or whatever, which 'look just like' the real thing, but turn out to be built on math that has fundamental problems with the rest of reality and uses some cheap hack like omitting surface roughness or gravity to gloss over that part, many times before anyone gets an actual model. We'll see 'accurate' models of atomic nuclei that build all 13 stable elements (or all 1047). 'Accurate' models of natural selection that show only plants should evolve eyes will follow. Eventually, your sea slug will act just like a real one does when the liquid it swims in is molten Sodium, (but not, unfortunately, in water).

People will probably work some or most of these out. Accurate computer modeling of some events has happened, and many more will probably happen with advances in technology. Claiming that

allof them will definitely work makes about as much sense as claimingallcomputer based aircraft models can safely skip the wind tunnel test stage of development.## Re:Ice Cream From Uranus? (Score:1, Insightful)

Ice Cream From Uranus? In accordance with that very popular rule of the Internet... there is another picture for that... a more illustrative one too.

Tub Girl. Google It. You're Welcome... bwahahahahahhahahahahhhahah!

Man, you must be a hit at parties.

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:3, Insightful)

## Re:Elder feuds reignited? (Score:4, Insightful)

but do you even had computer in the 4 digit era? or was slashdot some sort of paper mail based discussion forum?Gawd, don't they teach you brats anything in school these days? It was all vacuum tubes back then. Of course, it's all ball bearings, now. We would've _killed_ for ball bearings back in the day!

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:5, Insightful)

But most people have two eyes, and the parallax between them gives the third dimension.

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:4, Insightful)

Good point. Hamilton was working on multiplying triples when he discovered the quaternions. Perhaps it can't be done in a sensible way.

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:3, Insightful)

You don't even need a second eye, or at least, you don't need a parallax between them. Simply focusing on an object gives a good idea of its distance. To bring an object at a certain distance into focus, the eye muscles must contract "just so", allowing an estimation of that distance.

An then of course there is our brains, which interpret what we see. This is the reason why we can still have the illusion of 3D when looking at a truly two dimensional picture or TV screen. Of course, we can also be fooled, for example by cartoons or diagrams, into seeing 3D where none truely exists.

Our eyes really are designed to see in 3D. The grandparent appears to be suffering from chronic smartalecitis.

## Re:Actually, the Mandelbrot set is already 4D (Score:3, Insightful)

No matter how many eyes you have, or where they are placed, you still see only surfaces.

That's interesting. As I think about it, I wander over to my aquarium and stare pensively. The water looks clean, the guppies seem as happy as guppies get. The seaweed is wafting gently back and forth. But wait, do I really see my aquarium? Or am I only staring at its surface?

Suddenly seized by philosophical doubts, I hold my hand in front of my face. Can I see my hand? —or only my palm?

Your remark is similar to one made by the British philospher G.E. Moore, in a paper published some time in the 1940s (I think). Can't remember the title at the moment...might have been "A Defence of Common Sense".