# Everything is a fractal of triangles

## Project: Math is Everywhere / Fractals

## Broken dimensions [edit] | |

Mathematics obviously finds “broken” interesting. So it has withdrawn its solid basis from one of its old foundations, the numbers, and introduced “broken bases” - and now it also wants to rob the geometry of its dimensions. In 1967 the French mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot asked exactly this question. The answer brought mathematics to two new areas. Chaos Theory and Fractals. | This also provides a direct reference to the Koch snowflake, because if its circumference is provided with more and more "spikes", it becomes longer and longer. So it is only a question of how detailed coastlines or other boundary lines are measured. Other areas were quickly examined from these new perspectives. Even blood vessels, nerve plexuses (brain), tree tops, etc. demanded new "measurement" possibilities. |

There is a great deal of clear material available in this area of mathematics. One of the richest treasure troves is the University of Bremen. |

## Limited but infinite [edit] | ||

Often the first reaction to this heading is to say, "This is a contradiction". Well, this is about math. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised when using the word “contradiction”. Another variant of the statement overwriting this section reads:
And indeed: it is Enlargement of one side of the triangle They are interesting because it is so easy to prove this property. Each page has the same structure and therefore the same development. | This process is repeated in every subsequent generation on every straight section of the circumference. The proof is now very simple. The scope is determined by the addition Then it results for the Fractals obviously have properties that are different from |

## The mother of all fractals | |

There is no such thing as the “original fractal”! But the equilateral triangle is Even the oldest traditional “arrangements” of numbers were based on the shape of a triangle. This was shown by the Chinese mathematician as early as 1303 | This arrangement of numbers has been known for centuries and continues to deliver surprising things. One reason for the frequent occurrence of the equilateral triangle in this context could actually be in the |

## Geometry or pattern? [Edit]The numbers in Pascal's triangle take on large values very quickly. That makes it difficult to look for common traits. Fortunately, there are now computers that can be entrusted with this task. A property of natural numbers is parity, i.e. the determination of whether a number is even or odd. It is known that this property changes from number to number. ## Triangles in triangles [edit] | |

The illustration opposite shows the tetrahedral numbers (binomial coefficients) as a "mini triangle" if the property This shows a Tetrahedra are not visible, however, are they? Maybe not in height (which is missing), but as a geometric grid. With something | In the figure opposite are the From the patterns that the individual "points" form, a geometric figure is simply "explained" by the fact that connected points form a "line". The for |

## Self-like coincidenceCan random events be self-similar? No, but their sequence. More precisely, the pattern of places associated with a random event. Sounds complicated, but is quite simple. All you need is a cube, a drawn triangle, a ruler and a pencil. | |

- The sequence
- Any starting point choose.
- Roll the dice, and if there are more than 3 points, just subtract 3
- The ruler from the point place on the corner with the number rolled.
- Exactly on the
*half*Stretch the*new*to mark. - That point is that
*new*Starting point and the whole process is repeated.
| To How can that be? Chance knows no patterns. It is due to the "addressing" of the triangles. It takes place indirectly via the Cantor set. A detailed discussion would go beyond the scope here. Here we only refer to the work of Peitgen, |

### Self-similar logic

Logic has something to do with “true” and “false”. How should *here* something *similar* be and *to what* similar? In the “Logical! Or ?! ”was made by the *Predictability* the logic spoken and towards the course *Syllogisms* referenced. The conditions discussed there are used here to show the "self-similarity" of logic.

Logic is *predictable*; that fact is already a *Self-reference*. The *common* Computers work with the dual system. With so-called *logic circuits* the calculations are carried out based on the logic. So if the circuits calculate with logic and the logic is calculable, then the logic with logic can *calculated* become.

Such references *on yourself* are an indication of *Self-likeness*. In order to provide evidence, must *at the bottom* to be started. Mathematics means something like that *literally*. It has to be *Operations* For *a* logical statement ("true", "not true") and the *possible* Results *all* Operations are started. All operations ?! How many are there anyway?

### How many logical operations? [Edit]

statement (or. ) | Result (or. ) | |
---|---|---|

1. Nothing or “NA_UND?” gate | "true" | "true" |

"not correct" | "not correct" | |

2. On the other hand or "NEGATIONS" gate | "true" | "not correct" |

"not correct" | "true" | |

3.Nevertheless or "ALWAYS" gate | "true" | "true" |

"not correct" | "true" | |

4. decline or "NEVER" gate | "true" | "not correct" |

"not correct" | "not correct" |

So *I* can imagine a lot of operations. Really? Mathematics even helps with "excessive imagination". Imagination is good, proof of existence is better. The circuits - from now on called “gates” - are now derived from the available options and given names (not the correct ones).

What can be done with "true" or "false" to get a result? First of all, the result must be either “true” or “false”, otherwise the value range of the logic would be left. After that is cleared up; what can with *one* logical statement *employed* become?

Well, more surgeries than the opposite for *a* logical statements do not exist. If now “true” with 1 and “false” with 0 *rated* and the "statement" with and the "result" with is designated, the math can begin.

Of the four operations, the *negation* be best known. It is simply called *linear function* viewed, with the graph:

The function has the general form . This form is well known. It makes the whole thing easier when we take place *m* and *b* use other identifiers here:

The values for *x* and *y* taken.

x | y |
---|---|

0 | 1 |

1 | 0 |

Well have to *just* nor the *a*s to be determined. There are two unknowns, but also two equations; one for *x = 0* and a *x = 1* with known *y*. In the *general* Equations are the row numbers of the truth table on the variables *x* and *y* available as "bracketed exponents".

The *Unknown* are with and determined quickly. For the equation of *negation* surrendered:

### All at once

The procedure just shown cannot be accepted by mathematicians. You will be contacted immediately *Linear Algebra* because that's what they learned in the first few semesters. This branch of mathematics is about as important to mathematicians as a computer is to computer scientists.

Therefore the system of equations is also different *seen*. For mathematicians, instead of the two equations *easy*

This means that all other operations can also be determined. Using matrices and vectors is just as easy as using *normal* Numbers. It can now *all four* Operations in *one* Equation can be written to the appropriate to find.

This results in the individual components of the vector

The exponent “-1” in the matrix simply means “inverted matrix”. It is important for further considerations and it is *usually* quite difficult to determine. But here *Not*. Math loves it short and sweet. The matrix is given the name

The superscript "(1)" denotes the number of statements (*x*Variables) that are affected by the operations. The general notation is now

### More statements [edit]

The previous operations were on *a* Limited statement. It becomes more extensive with several statements. Links like "OR", "AND", as well as relations like "equal", "not equal" have to be considered. Two statements are sufficient to start with. Start again with the table and equation (s).

The equation is:

The matrix for the system of equations is now

Again, the superscript “(2)” indicates the number of variables. The *inverted* Matrix is also now required to use general notation. This matrix is here *just like that* shown.

The similarities to the "small" matrices are *unmistakable* - would find mathematicians with a penchant for linear algebra. Because this “slope” is not *so* is widespread, in the next section the simple explanation.

### Self-generation [edit]

The two large matrices *generate themselves* from the little ones. They are *last* extensive formulas. you are *just* present to show the requirements. It is also possible *much* easier, but the mathematical background would no longer be recognizable.

- Who are the top 3 in the US
- What is a mud concrete
- The thyroid values fluctuate
- Which is better DU or GU
- What would make Democrats absolutely crazy?
- Can you marry your non-blood relative
- Why was the passenger film so boring
- What is an example of legitimate power
- Most actors fight
- Why do I masturbate every night
- How do I get the presidents mailing list
- Which is the best architectural style
- Facebook has its own server
- What can lead to bleeding after vomiting?
- Is the Redmi 4 a good choice
- Will government workers receive a refund?
- Which is the fastest CSS framework
- What is the cksum command on Linux
- What celebrities appear in anti-smoking commercials
- What are some captivating action films
- What podcasts interview progressive writers
- What is human oblivion
- Is law an art or a science
- Beverage What is juice