MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There are so many fractal which are not uniquely characterize by some fractal parameters like Fractal dimension, Succolarity, Lacunarity, Morphological entropy. Can you suggest some fractal parameters which would be able to characterize distinctly from other fractals?

share|cite|improve this question
Is there even a well-defined definition of fractal to use to universally categorize them in this manner? – jeremy Jun 3 '10 at 10:07
@Sk: I strongly disagree with your comment. Jeremy's question is perfectly legitimate and very to-the-point. I have seen several non-equivalent potential definitions of the word "fractal", and I do not believe any of them would find universal acceptance as "the" definition. Your attack on Jeremy's comment strikes me as particularly inappropriate. Even if it had been a naive and unhelpful question (which it most emphatically is not), there is no call for an uncivil response. – Vaughn Climenhaga Jun 3 '10 at 15:05
I'm also not quite sure what to make of the parameters you've listed. I've never heard of succolarity or lacunarity (at least not in this precise context), so a brief explanation in the question would help clarify things. By "morphological entropy" I guess you may mean what I would call "topological entropy", but that assumes the presence of an underlying dynamical system, which you didn't mention. Finally, "fractal dimension" is not a precisely defined concept, but rather a general one that subsumes Hausdorff dimension, box dimension, packing dimension, etc. – Vaughn Climenhaga Jun 3 '10 at 15:11
Abuse of commenters (c.f. "But do not ask such bogus question") is inappropriate. Typing in allcaps is also a sure way to discredit yourself. – Scott Morrison Jun 3 '10 at 18:35
Scott: it looks like the poster hit Caps Lock not Shift at "What I want...". Not that I am sympathetic to his arcument or the question! – Tom Smith Jun 3 '10 at 22:59
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Fractal curvature might be the answer. In differential or convex geometry, you need curvature to classify sets up to isometry. So it seems natural to introduce curvature for "fractals" in an attempt to get a finer geometric description. This has been done for mostly self-similar fractals by Winter, Zähle, Rataj, Kombrink, and me (Bohl, formerly Rothe). The full generalization to self-conformal sets is my upcoming PhD thesis.

Philosophically, and literally in differential geometry, curvature takes the second derivative of "coordinates" into account. In contrast, the Hausdorff and packing measures, most other dimensions, Minkowski content (=lacunarity), and surface content are only sensitive to the first derivative. Topological entropy is related to Gibbs / equilibrum measures if you have some kind of iterated function system, and these measures also belong to first order geometry.

share|cite|improve this answer

It does matter how you are thinking of fractals. If you are thinking of all sets of Hausdorff dimension that is not integral, then there is essentially no chance of having a number of real-valued invariants that distinguish them. There are always going to be too many sets, I believe. If you use self-similarity (of some kind), or particular ways of generating sets, there is possibly a more reasonable question, of how to find quantitative measures to distinguish them.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.