[EM] Strong FBC, at last

[Alex Small]

Forest Simmons said:
> It depends on what kind of dimension you are talking about and how you
> define "fractal."  Mandelbroit deliberately left the definition of
> fractal somewhat open.  Some folks don't consider a fractal-like set
> (i.e. a set with infinitely intricate detail) to be a genuine fractal
> unless its Hausdorff dimension is strictly greater than its topological
> dimension.

Well, what's the weakest condition we could impose to guarantee that the
boundaries have normals?  You've said that fractal boundaries don't
necessarily have normals.  Obviously boundaries specified by linear
equations would have normals, except perhaps at kinks, but that's a more
restrictive assumption than I want to impose.




Alex


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em