Since this has turned into a "you know nothing" or "are you stupid" victim playing post then why are creating this very stereotype?
From your post I was quoted:
"These hypocycloids are defined by the number of cusps in the central region of the set and correspond to critical points where the derivative of the set is zero.
For the generalized Mandelbrot set:
View attachment 358880
The solution indicates there are n-1 critical points leading to the characteristic n-1 cusps which define the hypocycloid.
When n → ∞ these critical points become extremely dense and the set forms a circle at the limit.
Note once again it depends on the power of the generalized Mandelbrot set not some general or same formula.
Another example is claiming generalized Mandelbrot set accurately describes snowflakes when the Koch fractal best describes these.
You are carrying considerable emotional baggage in this thread and have adopted a contrarian approach as a matter of principle."
But your creating a strawman. My point was not about how the generalised Madelbrots were created. It was that the generalised Mandelbrots still conform to the number sets that are within the finite iterations.
So all fractals, circles, swirls all patterns will conform to the Mandelbrot set regardless of the increased power. Like I said do the generalized Madelbrot sets contain numbers that fall outside finite iterations. No they don't. Full stop, thats my only point. I don't care how explaining how the genralizerd Madelbrots are formed.
To which you responded.
"No I have provided factual evidence and you have not addressed it. Pointing out the signatures in stones don't match the tools in the archeological records is not arguementative, not contrary in any unjustified way. Its a simple and obvious factual observation. Its you who are being arguementative and contrary in making all sorts of logical fallacies to deny this truth."
I'll call a spade a spade that your response is downright stupid, I was discussing fractals in the hope you might learn something, not signatures in stones, then in true Dunning Kruger style to boldly proclaim I was being argumentative and making all sorts of logical fallacies.
Unfortunately these type of responses are not isolated events and other posters have made the same observations.
Have you ever considered that I was responding to a bigger issue about the whole thread and how you have been continually making personal attacks and ad hominems. That I was responding to this logical fallacy you keep making.
I already replied to the Issue relating to the Madelbrot set and as I pointed out your missing the point with all this semantics on maths and the proper way to determine Madelbrots.
Its got nothing to do with my point. But you have continued to create this red herring about semantics. My point was that the Madelbrot sets reflect nature and are not something invented by math.
That the ancient Egyptian works such as the vases, statues, Pyramids ect reflect this natural geometry.
Thats all. I don't need to here about how a mandelbrot is created. I just need you to respond to this simple point instead of dancing all around the point.
To then go on you don't need maths lessons while being blissfully unaware of the nonsense you spout about Mandelbrot and generalized Mandelbrot sets is another example of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Its not nonsense. It has been scientifically verified that the Madelbrot sets reflect the patterns we see in nature and that the ancient Egyptain vases and other works also reflect these natural geometric patterns. I linked the analysis of the vases showing it contained geometry such as the Golden ratio which is also with the Maandelbrot set which I also provided evidence.
Thats it. I don't need a lesson on math to show me that the evidence point I have made is wrong. It does not achieve anything in defeating the point.
Unfortunately this has been your tactic all along. One logiocal fallacy after another with red herrings, strawmen and ad hominems. This is exactly what most skeptics do. That is their MO. They throw everything into the debate to disatract away from the truth.
Otherwise heres a simplification getting straight to the point of you still don't get it. You could maybe clarify if I am wrong in my simple logic.
Do the generalised Mandelbrots, that is all the patterns they form based on the number iterations all fall within the finite set of the original Madelbrot set. Are any iterations that are unstable and jump quickly to infinity allowed in those generalised Madelbrot sets.
Thats it. Thats all my point was. So is my logic wrong. If so explain why without all the other stuff. I only want to know if the iterations in the generalized Mandelbrots still fall within finite sets.
