>Like I said before, you have to also forget about what people usually think of
>as fractals - pretty patterns. You are the first person I have heard who has
>said that an encyclopedia isn't fractal in nature.
I was browsing through the Encyclopedia Britannica the other day, the E
volume in fact,
when I came upon the entry for Encyclopedia Britannica which contained the
entire
contents of the encyclopedia at half size and rotated 90 degrees
counterclockwise. I was
disappointed to find that this iteration did not contain the text for the
Britannica
Annuals published since 1985.
Needless to say the E volume is the thickest in the set. Twice as thick as
the entire
set itself.
>I am one of many who
>believe (like to beleive) that everything is fractal in nature and everything
>in nature is fractal and all of these fractals are derrived from super
>fractals... and there is one super-duper-fractal. It's hard to believe this
>becuase... well... it's hard to believe. The more you read about chaos
>theory, though, the closer that statement seems to be to the truth.
I don't know. These science based quasi-religions seem to lack the oomph
of a good human sacrifice. Consistent - yes; engaging - no.
jimmy
>It's all theory ofcourse.