You are on page 1of 11

2009 International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications

IFS Matlab Generator: A Computer Tool for Displaying IFS Fractals
Akemi G´alvez Tomida
Department of Applied Mathematics and Computational Sciences
University of Cantabria
Avda. de los Castros, s/n, 39005, Santander, SPAIN
galveza@unican.es

Abstract

decades it has been shown that many nonlinear phenomena are so complicated and irregular that they cannot be
modeled well using these classical techniques [18, 19, 20].
The spectrum of examples of this phenomena ranges from
the growth and decline of populations, weather forecast,
fluid turbulence, to topics in economics (see, for example,
[16, 25]). The development of fractal geometry provides
rigorous concepts and practical techniques for the mathematical formulation and analysis of irregular processes [22].
For example, the fractal dimension of strange attractors associated with chaotic dynamical systems gives valuable information about the irregular evolution observed in such
systems [7, 8, 9, 11, 12].
Several fractal modeling and generation methods have
been developed during the last two decades. Among them,
the Iterated Function Systems (IFS) models, popularized by
Barnsley in the 1980s, are particularly interesting due to
their mathematical simplicity [1]. IFS models have been
applied in many disciplines, for example, in artificial landscape modeling in computer graphics. Roughly speaking,
an IFS consists of a collection of functions that map a region onto smaller parts. Iteration of these mappings results
in convergence to a self-similar fractal that is called the attractor of the IFS. Self-similarity means that any portion
of the object, if enlarged in scale, appears identical to the
whole object. This property allows us to characterize the
kind of fractals that can be generated using IFS models in
an intuitive way. Of course, the concept of fractal includes a
wider class of objects, but many of the most popular fractal
images can actually be obtained through an IFS.
Although IFS fractals can be of any dimension, they
are commonly computed and drawn in the two-dimensional
plane. In the two-dimensional space, the fractal is made up
of the union of several copies of itself, where each copy is
transformed by a function (function system). Such a function is mathematically a 2D affine transformation (see Section 2 for details), so the IFS is defined by a finite number
of affine transformations (rotations, translations, and scalings), and therefore represented by a relatively small set of

Fractals are among the most exciting and intriguing
mathematical objects ever discovered. A particular type of
fractals, the Iterated Function Systems (IFS), has received
a lot of attention due to its appealing combination of conceptual simplicity, computational efficiency and great ability to reproduce natural formations and complex phenomena. This paper introduces a new Matlab program, called
“IFS Matlab Generator”, for generating and rendering IFS
fractals. In addition to providing a gentle introduction to
the mathematical basis of IFS, two of the most important
rendering algorithms, the deterministic algorithm and the
probabilistic algorithm (also called “chaos game” algorithm), are briefly outlined. A critical point of chaos game
is the choice of the set of probabilities associated with the
iterated functions. This issue will be briefly discussed in
this paper: we analyze the efficiency of the chaos game algorithm, comparing the standard method for choosing the
probabilities proposed by Michael Barnsley with another
method based on a new multifractal technique [13, 14]. The
latter method optimizes the rendering process by obtaining
the most efficient set of probabilities. Some examples aimed
at illustrating this technique along with a gallery of beautiful two-dimensional fractal objects are also given.

1. Introduction
Traditionally, the classical mathematical concepts and
methods were concerned with smooth objects, ignoring irregular sets. For example, the concept of derivative allows us to analyze smooth curves and surfaces. Nowadays,
smoothness and fairness are still much-desired properties
in almost any mathematical representation of real objects,
wherever it appears. However, in real world irregularity is
the rule rather than the exception: clouds are not spheres,
trees are not cylinders, mountains are not cones and fire
or smoke are not smooth surfaces. In fact, during the last
978-0-7695-3701-6/09 $25.00 © 2009 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/ICCSA.2009.10

132

Iterated Function Systems input data. Since those functions are usually iterated. Since we are interested in 2D images. which follows from the fact that it is a union of three copies of itself. a lossy image compression method that uses IFS fractals to store the compressed image as a collection of IFS codes [2. A critical issue of this method is the choice of the set of probabilities associated with the iterated functions. This problem will be briefly discussed in this paper: we analyze the chaos game algorithm. w1 . Since we only consider two-dimensional images with the Euclidean distance. the final image might fill any screen size. two of the most important rendering algorithms. each scaled by a factor of 1/2. . called IFS Matlab Generator.x + bi where bi is a translation vector and Ai is a 2 × 2 matrix with eigenvalues λ1 . . There are several well-known methods for rendering fractal images based on IFS.585. b). this compression method is able to achieve higher compression ratios than conventional methods and still offer better quality. . λ2 such that |λi | < 1. The latter method optimizes the rendering process by obtaining the most efficient set of probabilities. For example. 14]. Some interesting examples of IFS fractals along with a gallery of beautiful twodimensional fractal objects are given in Section 4. . 5. while the affine transformations wi are of the form x∗ y∗    x y = wi   ai ci =      x ei . each of which is a translation composed with a scaling of one-half:    x∗ y∗ x∗ y∗ x∗ y∗   = w1   = w2   = w3 x y x y x y   = 0   =   = 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2      x −1 . 27]. certain parts of the image resemble other parts of the same image. + y −1 This IFS code is usually represented in tabular form as in Table 2. d) is IR 2 with the Euclidean distance d2 . + y 1      x 1 . 21. Section 3 introduces IFS Matlab Generator. Each of these mappings defines one of the three different self-similar gaskets shown in color in Figure 1(right). This method has the great advantage that the final image becomes resolution independent. This result has motivated an intensive research effort in the field of fractal image compression. 2. Once an image has been converted into fractal code it can be recreated by successive iterations at will. The paper closes with the main conclusions and outlines the future work. In this case. The method is based on the idea that in images. since the number of iterations might be theoretically infinite. Section 5 includes a discussion about the efficiency of the probabilistic algorithm for different sets of probabilities and how to select those that optimize the rendering process. the metric space (X. the classical Sierpinsky gasket (see Figure 1) is generated by three mappings. .1. A very important result related to IFS fractals is the socalled Collage Theorem. an IFS consists of a complete metric space (X. we get the name Iterated Function System (IFS). This method differs from other compression methods in that no pixels but fractal codes are stored. an IFS will be onwards represented by a list of the pairs (A. wn }. the probabilistic algorithm (also known as the chaos game) is gaining popularity due to its efficiency and conceptual simplicity. i = 1. + (1) y fi bi di or equivalenty: wi (x) = Ai . . . that roughly states that any 2D image can be approximated to any degree of precision by a fractal using an IFS model. the final image is (approximately) the attractor of the IFS [1]. |det(Ai )| < 1 meaning that wi shrinks distances between points.2. 26. the deterministic algorithm and the probabilistic algorithm. Moreover. The Sierpinski gasket has Hausdorff dimension log(3)/log(2) ≈ 1. we restrict our attention to contractive affine transformations on the real plane. This paper introduces a new Matlab program for generating and rendering IFS fractals. . The structure of this paper is as follows: in Section 2 a gentle introduction to the mathematical basis of IFS fractals is given. We begin with an introduction to IFS fractals. an IFS is a finite set of contractive maps defined on a complete metric space. What is an IFS? As a first notion. 24. Further. relies on the use of the chaos game algorithm. We refer to the IFS as W = {X. The program. In fact. comparing the standard method for choosing the probabilities with another method based on a multifractal technique [13. Among these methods. + y 1      x 0 . 133 . d) and a finite set of linear transformations wi : X −→ X. which is a complete metric space. Note that the three mappings forming the Sierpinsky gasket share the same rotation-scaling matrix while having different translation vectors. Mathematically. In other words. Then. a new Matlab program for generating and rendering IFS fractals by using the probabilistic algorithm. n. are briefly outlined.

Also. 3. In fact.support(ν) = |W|. known as probabilistic algorithm. H(X). |W| supports several measures in a natural way. some nice viewing features such as 3D rotation.. it is possible to show that M is a contraction with a unique fixed point.5 0 0 0. . they avoid us the tedious and time-consuming task to implement many routines for graphical output by ourselves. . Furthermore. However. a similar iterative deterministic scheme can be derived from Eq. pn }. Although our current needs do not require to apply them at full extent. called the invariant measure of the IFSP.2.(2) to obtain |W|. The Markov operator associated to the IFSP is a transformation. 134 . Sierpinsky gasket (left) is an IFS made up of three copies of itself (right) 3. i=1 where S is a Borel subset of X. . i=1 where B(X) denotes the Borel subsets of X. these built-in Matlab routines provide extensive control on a number of different options and are fully optimized to offer the highest level of performance. Program Architecture The program IFS Matlab Generator introduced in this paper for generating and rendering IFS fractals consists basically of two major components: 2. . .5 0 0 0.1. where: Table 1. T . p1 . with n X pi = 1. the powerful Matlab graphical capabilities exceed those commonly available in other CAS such as Mathematica and Maple. . T is also a contraction in H(X) with the induced Hausdorff metric. 1.2. (2) 2. On the other hand.5 1 1 w3 0. coloring and others.5 0 0 0. [3]). . This fact can be easily shown through the introduction of the Markov operator [17]. . . They take advantage of the large collection of numerical routines available in this system. there exists an unique Borel regular measure ν ∈ M(X). i=1 If all the wi are contractions. zooming in and out. IFS Attractor Let us now define a transformation. Using the Hutchinson metric on M(X). labeling. Although this toolbox is enough to meet all our computation needs. Then. wN . . Considering a set of probabilities p1 . potential end-users might be challenged for using it properly unless they are really proficient on Matlab’s syntax and functionalities and the toolbox routines. for the generation of the attractor of an IFS. . Our numerical functions have been implemented by using the native Matlab programming language. Thus.5 0 -1 xk = wi (xk−1 ) with probability pi > 0 (3) (see. scaling. . T has a unique fixed point. a computational library (toolbox): it contains a collection of commands. ν ∈ M(X). for instance. . this is one of the major strengths of the program and one of the main reasons to choose Matlab as a convenient programming environment. S ∈ B(X). in the compact subsets of X. given an arbitrary initial measure ν0 ∈ M(X) the sequence {νk }k=0. . . IFS code of the Sierpinsky gasket a b c d e f w1 0. pn ∈ (0. .5 -1 1 w2 0. Program Architecture and Implementation Figure 1. 1). w1 . This issue will be discussed in Sections 4 and 5.1. such that ν(S) = n X pi ν(wi−1 (S)). |W|. constructed as νk+1 = M (νk ) converges to the invariant measure of the IFSP. have been intensively used in our system. Given a set {p1 . a graphical user interface (GUI): this component is responsible for input/output windowing and smooth interaction with the user.. which are automatically inherited from the Matlab windows system. there exists a more efficient method. This algorithm follows from the result {xk }k>0 = |W| provided that x0 ∈ |W|. called the attractor of the IFS. Usually. In fact. M : M(X) −→ M(X) defined by: (M ν)(S) = n X pi ν(wi−1 (S)). pn } as an IFS with Probabilities (IFSP).. functions and routines implemented to perform the numerical and graphical tasks. by T (A) = n [ wi (A). This i=1 We refer to {X.

a well-designed GUI uses readily recognizable visual cues to help the user navigate efficiently through information. 3..). Me. Screenshot of main window of our program kind of limitations can be overcome by creating a GUI. thus facilitating its use and dissemination. As a result. Although its implementation requires . method and iterations (see Figure 2 and subsequent description in Section 4). 2000. In general. or input) while the OpenGL-based built-in graphics Matlab commands are applied for rendering purposes. Figure 2. this GUI presents an interface which is both aesthetic and very functional to the user. menus. To this purpose. such as PCs (with Windows 9x.2.4 GHz. text boxes for displaying messages. A version for Apple Macintosh with Mac OS X system is also available provided that X11 (the implementation of the X Window System that makes it possible to run X11-based applications in Mac OS X) is properly installed and configured.1. The graphical tasks are performed by using the Matlab GUI for the higher-level functions (windowing. with input boxes for the coefficients of the 135 . Matlab provides a mechanism to generate GUIs by using the so-called guide (GUI development environment). Figures in this paper correspond to the PC platform version. some buttons for additional tasks and a list box to display generated IFS code are also included (see Section 4 for further description). Based on this idea. all graphical output is displayed in separate windows so that the information is better organized and “flows” in a natural and intuitive way. It allows an effective use of powerful interface tools designed according to the type of values being displayed (e. Implementation Issues Regarding the implementation. Below those boxes. However.for complex interfaces . For instance. All our numerical functions have been implemented in the native Matlab programming language.topic under analysis have been grouped and arranged in a rectangular area with an indicative title on the top. This feature is not commonly available in many other CAS so far.a high level of expertise. Additional functionalities are also provided in hidden menus or in separate windows which can be invoked at will if needed so as to keep the main window streamlined and uncluttered. a GUI for the already-generated toolbox has been implemented. list boxes for input/output user interaction. etc. in the upper part of area 1 you can see some boxes and buttons for input/output user interaction. the program supports many different platforms. Figure 2 shows an example of a typical window. initial set. NT. some input boxes are provided in the IFS code area (labeled as 1 in Figure 2). They are also labeled with numbers in red from 1 to 4 in Figure 2 for prompt identification. Thus. Some Illustrative Examples In this section the main features of the program are described through its application to generate and render several IFS fractals. this program has been developed by the author in Matlab [23] v2008a on Windows XP operating system by using a PC with Intel Core 2 Duo processor at 2. functions associated with each 4. radio buttons for single choice from multiple options. such as: code. Session Workflow A typical session in IFS Matlab Generator program begins by writing the IFS code of a fractal. They reproduce the typical structure of an IFS code. 4. Fortunately.g. XP and Vista) and UNIX workstations. it allows end-users to deal with the toolbox with a minimal knowledge and input. and 2 GB of RAM. drop-down menu for a choice list.

25 0. di .275 0.238 -0.02 0. The former button adds a new function. This sequence will converge to the attractor of the IFS independently on the initial set meaning that we can start with any arbitrary set or image. instead of dealing with pictures or complicated shapes as initial sets. As the reader can see.16 0. while the latter one replaces the former function by the modified one.0235 0.14 0.195 0. button “Remove All” removes the codes of all contractive functions of current IFS. clicking on the button “Update” returns the new function code to its former position at the list box. Once a new function is inputted.07 -0. Choosing a picture as the initial set in the plane.27 0.12 0. Once we know how an IFS describe a fractal image.12 0. shown in Figure 3) will always be the same regardless the initial set we select.84 0. the next step is introducing a rendering method. Equation (2) provides us with the simplest rendering algorithm. Another factor to alleviate the computational load concerns the rendering algorithm. the program allows us to choose any arbitrary picture from our storage units or devices by simply selecting or writing the filename and its path from current directory and the initial region where such a picture is going to be displayed before iteration. ranging from a single point to a polygon or a picture (see label 2 in Figure 2). it can be added to the list of iterated functions by pressing button “Add”. Alternatively. so the number of iterated functions for the IFS does not change. ei and fi arranged in a two-dimensional matrix and vector according to Eq. it is more convenient to use very simple sets (preferably a single point.4 0. it is computation- 136 . For instance. Figure 4 displays the IFS code of the famous Barnsley’s fern. Figure 4 shows an example of a picture as initial set. while the final image (the attractor. Our program allows us to start with several initial sets.18 -0.81 0.19 0. It works by generating a sequence of images obtained by iterating (2) starting on an initial set Figure 4. ci . the computational complexity to get such an image will not. User is kindly warned at this point about the possible confusion between pressing button “Add” or “Update” once function parameters are modified. Finally. it is enough to click on the list box at the location of the contractive function we wish to modify and its parameter values will be placed back onto the input boxes for further modification. Bernsley’s fern (left) and its contractive functions in color (right) IFS functions. Such a fractal is represented graphically in Figure 3. namely. We can modify any already created function through the button “Modify”. bi .045 0.w1 w2 w3 w4 Table 2. values for ai . This action is immediately reflected in the list box below such a button since the new iterated function shows up. (1).11 0 Figure 3. given by Table 2. We can also remove any contractive function of an IFS at any time (button “Remove”).23 0. like in Figure 5) to that purpose. IFS code of Barnsley’s fern a b c d e f 0.12 0. To this aim. so the IFS is enlarged regarding the number of iterated functions. called deterministic algorithm.087 0. In spite of the beauty and simplicity of the deterministic algorithm.1666 0. So. It is worthwhile to mention that.

pn } according to Eq. Thus. according to the chosen set of probabilities. including its shape (square.Figure 6. User may select the point style for the picture. IFS models associated with two different natural formations three former cases. a sequence of points. In the 137 . This algorithm is known as probabilistic algorithm or chaos game [1]. . . . on the right. A more efficient algorithm can be obtained by attaching real weights pi to each of the transformations in the IFS. the better the resolution of the resulting fractal image. dashed-dotted). Input data for our program also includes the number of iterations used to display the final image (label 4 in Figure 2). such that: n X pi = 1 (4) i=1 Picking an initial point. practically useless. hexagram) or marker (times. it is not difficult to realize at first glance that the fractal images given in Figure 6 resemble leaves (top) and trees (bottom). (3). Additional available options include selecting one or several colors for the IFS. Figure 7 shows a gallery of fractal images obtained with our program. (4) holds. minus). Coloring is achieved by select- Figure 5. For example. line width. Each fractal is displayed twice: on the left. dashed.. . we use different colors to highlight the different contractive functions of each IFS. One of the most surprising properties of IFS models is their ability to capture the main features of some natural formations. . size edge color. . the larger the number of iterations. Typically. star. probabilities are normalized to ensure Eq. plus. and the same process is repeated again with the new point obtaining. Barnsley’s and multifractal algorithms are explained in detail in next section. etc. In the later case. hence. . Colors can be chosen by pressing the button “Graphics setting.. It is also convenient to consider a transient of m initial iterations (m = 10 in all our pictures) that are not displayed in order to skip points that do not really belong to the attractor and might otherwise be displayed before convergence. Third area in our main window (label 3 in Fig. one of the mappings in the set {w1 . Choosing a point as the initial set ally expensive and. The sequence obtained using this stochastic process converge to the fractal as the number of points increases. wn } is chosen at random using the weigths {p1 . The chaos game algorithm generates a sequence of points that are randomly distributed over the fractal.” so that a new window appears (see Figure 8). as a result of this iterative process. fractal images in this paper have been generated with about 2 × 105 iterations. dotted. diamond. respectively. The selected map is then applied to generate a new point. . the attractor in single color is shown. line style (solid. 2) allows us to select the probabilities in four different modes: randomly or according to Barnsley’s algorithm. user writes the probabilities in an input box as a list of values separated by commas. face color. multifractal algorithm or user’s choice. Note also the amazing realism of Figure 3.

Christmas tree. Koch curve.Figure 7. top-bottom): blocks. neuron. spiral. abestos. As the reader can see. bones ing one color for each contractive function according to either a default palette or user’s customization. chaos. number of contractive functions in these examples range from 3 in the lower case (Christmas tree and spiral. gather. Gallery of ten IFS models (left-right. 138 . snowflake.

10]. the points are not uniformly distributed in the resulting fractal image.6. p2 = 0. this algorithm proposes the following set of probabilities: Figure 8. that is. For each of the mappings. Figure 9 shows the enormous resolution difference among the fractal images associated with four different sets of probabilities and the sam number of iterations in all cases (3000 iterations in this example). a good choice for the probabilities is relevant for the efficiency of the rendering process.2). Thus. (5) . As a consequence.1/3.” window for instance) to 19 for the chaos example. One of the main problems of the chaos game algorithm is that of finding the optimal set of probabilities to render the fractal attractor associated with an IFS. Taking into account that the area filled by a linear mapping wi is proportional to its contractive factor.2). n.Figure 9. Applying the chaos game algorithm with different probability sets: (top-left) (1/3. 5.6. The differences among the rendering processes are due to the different distributions of points generated by the different sets of probabilities over the fractal attractor.0.. since the random sequence of points is generated according to these probabilities.2.6) that corresponds to the right-up hand side image in Figure 9.1/3). the set of probabilities gives the efficiency of the rendering process. but none of them solves the problem in the general case [4. “Graphics setting. 6.0. This figure illustrates the key role that the set of probabilities play in the efficiency of this algorithm. since in this case all the mappings fill equivalent regions of the fractal. (top-right) (0. The problem consists of finding the set of probabilities to render the fractal image at a given resolution with the minimum number of iterations.2. . si .6.0. with the second choice of probabilities p1 = 0. . this method (called Barnsley’s algorithm) selectes a probability value that is proportional to the area of the figure associated with the mapping.2 si pi = P n sj j=1 139 . p3 = 0. The first figure shows a uniform distribution of points due to the optimal choice of the probabilities. The most standard of these methods was suggested by Barnsley [1] and has been widely used in the literature.0.0. . (bottomleft) (0. finding the set that leads to a uniform rendering process. For example.0.. Several different heuristic methods for choosing efficient sets of probabilities have been proposed in the literature. Choice of Probabilities The fractal image is determined only by the set of contractive mappings.2. i = 1. (botttom-right) (0. .2. we are overestimating the rate of points associated with the first mapping.2.

The minimum strength of singularities is given by the condition [14]: log(pi ) = Dlog(wi ) ⇔ pi = wiD . Barnsley’s method and multifractal method) for three IFS fractal examples (top to bottom: zig-zag.Figure 10. Intuitively. (6) where D is a real constant. they obtained that the standard choice for the probabilities given in (5) do not correspond to the best choice and that the most efficient set of probabilities have to lead to a multifractal measure with the smallest strength of singularities [15]. Another algorithm (proposed in 1996 by Guti´errez. provides a method for obtaining the most efficient choice for the probabilities in the case of non-overlapping IFS models. The basic idea of the proposed method is using a multifractal analysis to characterize the perfor- mance of the different sets of probabilities in the rendering process [13. 14]. As a results. a non-overlapping IFS is one whose self-similar parts do not overlap each other. Barnsley’s fern and spiral) However. like is the case of the Sierpinsky’s gasket and many other fractals. Iglesias and Rodr´ıguez) known as multifractal algorithm. We must also consider that the 140 . Comparing the efficiency of three methods for choosing probabilities for the IFS chaos game (left to right: random method. this choice of the probabilities is far from being the most efficient in some situations.

a computational expensive technique in terms of CPU and memory requirements. 72-78 (1992) 141 . A. L. The good performance of our computer system is illustrated by means of a collection of examples and a gallery of beautiful two-dimensional fractal objects. Appl.: “Symbolic/numeric analysis of chaotic synchronization with a CAS”.585. Note also that. Finally. Iglesias. AK Peters. include some other interesting features such as the computation of the fixed points for the contractive functions and other numerical and symbolic computations. Second Edition. we want to [8] G´alvez. the number obtained will be an approximation of such dimension. multifractal method yields a very uniform distribution of points all over the fractal so all areas are similarly displayed.. Los Alamitos. They are typically constructed by superimposing polyhedra upon themselves recursively.: Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and Applications. Syst. making it hard to even recognize the general shape. On the other hand. Acknowledgments This research has been supported by the Computer Science National Program of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. N (8) where D denotes the similarity dimension. E. Prob. For example. in good agreement with our previous result in Section 2.: “An Ergodic Theorem for Iterated Maps. the most efficient choice corresponds to pi = sD i . M. are also part of our future work. (7) i=1 Then. Journal of Complexity. The program allows us to display any two-dimensional IFS fractal by using a number of graphical and numerical options that are explained throughout the paper. K.: “Solving the inverse problem for measures using iterated function systems : a new approach”. 27.P. Adv. Our program allows us to select the set of probabilities according to the above-mentioned algorithms.: Fractals Everywhere. 481-488 (1987) [4] Falconer. Academic Press (1993) [2] Barnsley. the distribution of points is far from being uniform: some parts are overdrawn while others are just slightly sketched (see. 321-330 (2008) [10] Graf. #TIN2006-13615 and the University of Cantabria. which yields the best results in all cases. MA. A. Wellesley. such as escape algorithms. leading to the worst results. .: Fractal Image Compression. The first column corresponds to a random choice. for instance the lower corner of zig-zag and the upper corner of the fern). 8. If the contractive mappings are non-overlapping similarities. IEEE Computer Society Press. California. D is the unique real number satisfying n X wiD = 1.: “Barnsleys scheme for the fractal encoding of images”. USA. Fractals in the 3D space are both challenging and more difficult to generate.. A.sum of this set of probabilities must be one. second column is the classical Barnsley’s method and third column corresponds to the multifractal method. Vrscay. (1993) [3] Elton. S. 4488 211-218 (2007) In this paper a new Matlab program for generating and rendering IFS fractals is introduced. Figure 10 shows a comparison of IFS fractals when three different methods for obtaining the probabilities are used. that will provide a higher degree of realism and a truly three-dimensional feeling to our fractal artwork.: Matlab Toolbox and GUI for Analyzing Onedimensional Chaotic Maps. In contrast. Otherwise. 800-820 (1995) 6. we plan to use Matlab’s graphical capabilities to extend our program to the three-dimensional case. Thus. Equation (8) becomes 2 3 that gives its fractal dimension D = 1. Regarding our future work. L-systems..: Fractal Image Compression: Theory and Applications.: “Numerical-symbolic Matlab program for the analysis of three-dimensional chaotic systems”. B.F. Project Ref. Conclusions and Future Work [7] G´alvez.F. then the only real number satisfying (8) is the fractal dimension of the fractal set.. . The implementation of other types of fractals like Julia’s and Mandelbrot’s sets are also goals for further work. R. . J. i = 1. References [1] Barnsley. Note the very poor result when random probabilities are chosen. we plan to extend our program in several different ways: on one hand. Wiley (1990) [5] Fisher. Future Generation Computer Systems 25(5) 727-733 (2007) [9] G´alvez. Lectures Notes in Computer Science. A. . we want to explore other ways to generate 2D fractals. although Barnsley’s method yields recognizable objects for our number of iterations. M. the mappings associated with the Sierpinsky’s gasket are non-overlapping  D 1 1 = similarities and. All figures in each row are displayed for the same numbeer of iterations: 2000 for the zig-zag fractal and 3000 for both the fern and the spiral. 7.H. Springer-Verlag (1995) [6] Forte. etc. thus. Hurd..1. . Y.” Ergodic Theory Dynam. Stereographic images.

A.M.: “Image Coding Based on a Fractal Theory of Iterated Contractive Image Transformations”.[11] Guti´errez.: “Logistic Map Driven by Correlated Noise”. 12(6). 608-619 (1998) [17] Hutchinson. 30. The Mathematica Journal. A. 7(1). Lectures Notes in Computer Science 3516. Blake. Springer-Verlag (1993) [26] Thomas.A.: “Revisiting some control schemes for chaotic synchronization with Mathematica”..: Chaos and Fractals.. Rodr´ıguez.. Iglesias.A. 651-658 (2005) [21] Jacquin.A. E. W. 472-481 (2005) [19] Iglesias. J. J. Garrido. In ”Mathematics With Vision”. A. J. In: Proceedings of the First International Symposium of Mathematica.. 1(1). A. 48(4). Rodr´ıguez. 522-526 (1996) [12] Guti´errez.E. Mitic (Eds. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 3482.: “Analyzing the synchronization of chaotic dynamical systems with Mathematica: Part II”. A. J. J. B. Math. 482-491 (2005) [20] Iglesias. A. 4(6). E. Natick.. (1982) [23] The Mathworks Inc: Using Matlab. S.A.. Iglesias. 17-27 (1996) [15] Guti´errez. J. 713-747 (1981) [18] Iglesias. Kundu.: “A Mathematica package for the analysis and control of chaos in nonlinear systems”. 586-593 (1998) [25] Peitgen.).. Singapore. Fractals. Rodr´ıguez. New Frontiers of Science. Freeman and Co. C... Second Granada Lectures in Computational Physics.. A.: The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Iglesias. J.: “A Multifractal Analysis of IFSP Invariant Measures with Application to Fractal Image Generation”.: “Technique for fractal image compression using genetic algorithm”. Iglesias. A. A. 7-14 (1997) [16] Guti´errez. Rodr´ıguez. B. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. A.J. M. 7(4). A. H. K.M. Rodr´ıguez. V. V.. 4(1). A. Computers in Physics.M. M. C. (Eds. K.: “Region-based fractal image compression using heuristic search”. D.. Rodr´ıguez. V.. A.L. Keranen and P. H. MA (1999) [24] Mitra. M. Indiana Univ. 358-364 (1993) [27] Wein.. Rodr´ıguez. 2507-2513 (1993) [13] Guti´errez.M. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. J.) World Scientific. and Saupe. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.: “On the performance of fractal compression with clustering”.. G´alvez. J. M. 18-30 (1992) [22] Mandelbrot. Deravi.M.: “Fractals and Self-Similarity”. Marro. Jurgens.. P. Physical Review E. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.M. M. Iglesias.. G´alvez. Jour.. A. 175-182 (1995) [14] Guti´errez. G´alvez.J.. Iglesias. O. Murthy. L. 832-838 (1995) 142 . M..: “Logistic Map Driven by Dichotomous Noise”. Computational Mechanics Publications. H..: “Fractal Image Generation with Iterated Function Systems”.: “Efficient Rendering in Fractal Images”. Lectures Notes in Computer Science 3482.: “Analyzing the synchronization of chaotic dynamical systems with Mathematica: Part I”. . . 5(3).. A.