|
|
 | | From: | jmfbahciv at aol.com | | Subject: | Re: Neato chaotic equations for analog computers to display? | | Date: | Thu, 23 Dec 04 11:42:03 GMT |
|
|
 | In article <20041223120834.53271d14.steveo@eircom.net>,
Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Dec 04 10:57:24 GMT
>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In article <718.852T1963T5285600@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
>> "Charlie Gibbs" wrote:
>> >In article ,
>> >jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk (John Woodgate) writes:
>> >
>> >> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Bailey
>> >> wrote
>> >> (in <41c961e9.30717838@news-server.rochester.rr.com>)
>> >> about 'Neato chaotic equations for analog
>> >> computers to display?', on Wed, 22 Dec 2004:
>> >>
>> >>> There was a useful thread on sci.fractals in 1997
>> >>
>> >> Are all the threads on that group infinitely long? (;-)
>> >
>> >Not yet. :-)
>> >
>> Do they repeat themselves?
>
> They should be self similar at all scales but
>without exact repeats.
That's because time isn't reversible. You just hope and pray
that the damned thing is reproducible without a date-time
dependency.
One of my thinking games is to "watch" bit flows. The precise
circumstances (date-time stamps, physical bit locations, etc.)
can never, ever be done exactly the same way twice. Extrapolate
this to tech enhancements, societies, and [pssstttt'ing emoticon
touches hot button] politics.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
|
|
|
