Timeline for Set operations over iterated function systems
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28, 2020 at 13:08 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
unabbreviated in title
|
| Mar 28, 2020 at 13:03 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Nov 29, 2019 at 13:01 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Oct 30, 2019 at 12:35 | answer | added | Dev Sinha | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 6:10 | comment | added | YCor | The question about "does it make sense" makes little sense (or rather is quite tautological, so is not really a question). The set of IFS on $X$ is the set of finite subset of a certain set (the set of contractions of $X$). So it inherits all operations which can be defined on the set of finite subsets of an arbitrary set. So it should be enough to focus the question on how the attractor operation behaves with respect to these operations. | |
| Oct 24, 2019 at 0:44 | comment | added | Fabian Wirth | Hmm, the standard Cantor set is the attractor of an IFS of two functions. ($x \mapsto 1/3 x$ and $x \mapsto 1/3x + 2/3$). This is the "union" of the two IFS consisting of just one function. Each of these sub-IFS have a single point as the attractor. So you may state trivialities like that the attractor of a subset is a subset of the attractor of the union. Beyond that some quite specific assumptions would seem necessary. | |
| Oct 23, 2019 at 23:19 | history | edited | Zilkadde |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 23, 2019 at 23:15 | review | First posts | |||
| Oct 24, 2019 at 4:52 | |||||
| Oct 23, 2019 at 23:14 | history | asked | Zilkadde | CC BY-SA 4.0 |