Recursive Structures: Growing of Fractals and Plants
The historical constructions of fractals by Cantor, Sierpinski, von Koch, Peano, etc., have been labeled as ‘mathematical monsters’. Their purpose had been mainly to provide certain counterexamples, for example, showing that there are curves that go through all points in a square. Today a different point of view has emerged due to the ground-breaking achievements of Mandelbrot. Those strange creations from the turn of the century are anything but exceptional counterexamples; their features are in fact typical of nature. Consequently, fractals are becoming essential components in the modeling and simulation of nature. Certainly, there is a great difference between the basic fractals shown in this book and their counterparts in nature: mountains, rivers, trees, etc. Surely, the artificial fractal mountains produced today in computer graphics already look stunningly real. But on the other hand they still lack something we would certainly feel while actually camping in the real mountains. Maybe it is the (intentional) disregarding of all developmental processes in the fractal models which is one of the factors responsible for this shortcoming.
KeywordsLine Segment Production Rule Initial Image Graphical Interpretation Recursive Structure
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.In: Automata, Languages, Development, A. Lindenmayer, G. Rozenberg (eds. ), North-Holland, 1975.Google Scholar
- 2.K. Musgrave, C. Kolb and R. Mace, The synthesis and the rendering of eroded fractal terrain, SIGGRAPH ‘89, Computer Graphics 24 (1988).Google Scholar
- 9.See P. Prusinkiewicz, A. Lindenmayer, J. Hanan, Developmental models of herbaceous plants for computer imagery purposes, Computer Graphics 22, 4 (1988) 141–150. Previous application of L-systems to image synthesis, pioneered by Alvy Ray Smith in 1978 used L-systems to generate abstract branching structures that did not correspond to the existing species. See A. R. Smith, Plants, fractals, and formal languages, Computer Graphics 18, 3 (1984) 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.The relation between L-systems and IFSs was first studied in T. Bedford, Dynamics’ and dimension /or %rotaul recurrent sets, J. London Math. Soc. 33 (1986) 89–100. Another discussion more oriented toward formal languages is presented in P. Prusinkiewicz and M. Hammel, Automata, languages, and iterated function systems, in: Fractals Modeling in 3–11) Computer Graphics and Imaging, ACM SIGGRAPH ‘81 Course Notes C14 ( J. C. Hart, K. Musgrave, eds. ), 1991.Google Scholar
- 11.It is an interesting and open question whether one can construct such a curve with fewer transformations than five as used in figure 7.19. Note that the space-filling property again follows from the invariance of the initial square under the MRCM.Google Scholar
- 12.See C. Davis and D. E. Knuth, Number Representations and Dragon Curves,Journal of Recreational Mathematics 3 (1970) 66–81 and 133–149.Google Scholar
- Also page 66 in B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, Freeman, New York, 1982.Google Scholar
- 14.It was introduced in P. Prusinkiewicz, Graphical applications of L-systems, Proceedings of Graphics Interface ‘86, Kaufmann, 1986, 247–253.Google Scholar
- See also P. Prusinkiewicz, J. Hanan, Lindenmayer Systems, Fractals and Plants, Vol. 79 of Lecture Notes on Biomathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
- 15.S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas, Basic Books, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
- 18.The original paper of Hilbert is reproduced in the figures 2.36 and 2.37 on pages 96–97 in chapter 2.Google Scholar
- 19.See P. Prusinkiewicz and A. Lindenmayer, The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990. The figure 7.43 is also from this book.Google Scholar