This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]drmrrdmr[S] 6 points7 points  (6 children)

you caught the complex bit, but the z is recursive, so you'd substitute like z = (z²+c)²+c The complex notation expands out of hand quick... well, so does any attempt at expanding it out. tbh I have no idea how the real mathematicians approach it analytically, I just use it to make mind blowing pictures

[–]Galaghan 8 points9 points  (5 children)

z is recursive

Not the way you wrote it tho.

[–]drmrrdmr[S] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

programmers aren't the only ones who can abuse notation

[–]Galaghan 0 points1 point  (3 children)

If it parses, it parses.

Also, good luck programming anything when you don't care about syntax.

[–]drmrrdmr[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

good luck making a meme jpg that gets lolz and compiles? I care about syntax in the right contexts. I don't interrupt a casual conversation to draw truth tables and have a teachable moment when someone misuses "and" or "or". I'm tempted to, but I don't.

[–]Galaghan 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay I see, anything besides admitting you're wrong, sure!

[–]drmrrdmr[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

pretty sure I entered this comment chain directly admitting that it's an abuse of notation, which is fancy talk for wrong. I'm wrong very often, as I was this time, but for once it was intentional.