29 Jan
2005
29 Jan
'05
12:44 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:43:37AM -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Nice pictures. But:
- Not everything in nature is fractal. Some things (even
very complex ones) are very clearly not.
- We are not trying to mimic nature, just to avoid a
nasty comb filtering effect.
- If I gave you two series of samples, one generated with
the fractal method, and one generated by sending white
Gaussian noise through a suitable filter, you would have
no way to tell which is which. And that means there is
nothing special about the fractal noise, apart from the
fact that is was generated by an interesting algo :-)
--
FA
On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 06:44, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
That's a
classic one. For large N, the output will approach
some form of filtered Gaussian noise. What makes this fractal
noise superior as a source of randomness in a resample algo ?
Because it more closely resembles nature. Take a look at this page:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~rauch/islands/