Mathieu Bouchard matju at artengine.ca
Thu Mar 31 03:35:30 CEST 2011

```On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Billy Stiltner wrote:

> I have dug through my archives and found some programs that might be of
> interest to you as a reference for ms style handling of memory and
> registers with cpp and asm.
> http://www.geocities.ws/billy_stiltner/code/ASM.zip

I have no use for that. The code I write nowadays does not work on
anything else than the GNU compilers. I also had good knowledge of 16-bit
DOS stuff back then, but chose to try to forget it.

The only thing I want to do relative to MS compilers, is know how to call
GEM functions from GridFlow, where GEM is compiled by VC++, and GridFlow
is compiled by MinGW. This is (probably) required to get [#from_pix],
[#to_pix] and [gemdead] to work again on Windows.

But those are not the only ways to make GF and GEM work together : there's
also [gf/gl].

> Here's you something to make the dos shell look more like an old linux
> terminal haha!
> http://www.geocities.ws/billy_stiltner/code/FONT.zip

I am unsufficiently sophisticated for that kind of technology. Instead, I
settled for using Linux.

> And here is my 3d fractal. It is not correct it is using this for the
> orbits which is pretty and more like what I would imagine a 3d fractal
> looking like instead of a hypercomplex, quaternion, mandelcube or bulb..

What do you mean by « not correct » ?

>   newx = ((x * x) - (y * y) - (z *z)) +k;

for newx=0, x²-y²-z² = -k, hyberboloïd equation (revolution of hyperbola
around x axis)

>   newy = ((y *x) + (x *y)) +l;

y*x = x*y, so for newy=0, 2*x*y = -l, another hyperbola formula
(diagonally), but this one has translation symmetry instead, along z axis
(because z is not used in this formula)

>   newz = ((z * x) + (x * z)) +m;

similar thing. but those * above are not products of floats, tell me right
away.

> This is what I need to know how to do for the fractal for correct math
> but noone seems o know how to do complex numbers in 3d.

Complex numbers have 2 dimensions. The logic that originally led to
finding them doesn't work for more dimensions. Looking at complex numbers
in different ways (as modified vectors or as modified polynomials) leads
to other structures that are interesting, in 2 or 4 or more dimensions,
but fail to be as nice as complex numbers are. Complex numbers are very,
very similar to real numbers.

I don't know of any 3-dimensional number system that is sufficiently
similar to complex numbers to be comparable.

> a: [x1,y1,z1]
> b: [x2,y2,z2]
> a*b=(y1 * z2 - z1 * y2)i + (x1 * z2 - z1 * x2)j + (x1 * y2 - y1 * x2)k

this is almost like cross-product, but the j part has the wrong sign.
anyway. cross product is weird because a*a = 0, and this is also the case

> A comedy cartoon I done that has a mention of 5 dimensions.