40.

4 Fractal Dimension
The classification of fractals is far from being settled. By definition, a
classification involves describing all essentially different fractals and
grouping similar fractals into classes. More precisely, one may ask for
the description of all equivalence classes of fractals under the relation
a b (here a Frac(X) and b Frac(Y ), where (X,d) and (Y , c) are
complete metric spaces) iff there is an isomorphism f : a b such that d
and the transported metric cf (x,y) = c(f (x), f(y)) on X are equivalent.
The latter means that there are two positive constants u and v such that
40.4 Fractal Dimension 243
for all x,y X,
u d(x,y) cf (x,y) v d(x,y).
Exercise 192 Prove that equivalence among metrics is in fact an equivalence
relation.
A classical method for determining such equivalence classes is the exhibition
of numerical invariants, i.e., numbers associated with fractals which
do not change within an equivalence class. It is then hoped that one may
find enough such invariants such that their totality is fine enough to distinguish
classes by their associated invariants. For example, in the elementary
case of finite sets X, the invariant card(X) N completely describes
the equivalence class of such a set under set bijections (equipollence):
X is equipollent to Y iff card(X) = card(Y ).
For a fractal a, a first such numerical invariant is its dimension dim(a).
This is a non-negative real number, which need not be defined for every
fractal, but if it is defined for a on (X,d), and if the fractal b on (Y , c) is
equivalent to a in the above sense, then dim(b) = dim(a), which means

that the dimension is a numeric invariant for the said equivalence relation.
The concept of a geometric dimension is motivated by two observations:
To begin with, when we have a curved line A in Rn, the dimension should
be 1. Similarly, we expect that a subset A Rn, which is a patchwork of
smoothly deformed pieces of a plane, has dimension equal to 2.
The second point is that the covering argument for such a patchwork can
also be considered as casting of a wild set into a patchwork of standard
covering charts, like line intervals, open/closed balls or cubes, etc.
The ingenious idea in the concept of dimension, which we shall now describe,
is that both observations can be merged into one and the same criterion.
This criterion is, described intuitively, that the covering by standard
charts exhibits a specific behavior when one successively decreases
their admitted size. For example, if one covers a square S by adjacent
small squares Si having side length equal to, say, 1
10 of the side length of
S, then one needs 102 such squares, whereas if one covers an interval I by
adjacent intervals of length 1
10 of the length of I, one needs 101 of them.
So the growth of the number of covering standard charts is an indicator
of the dimension: 2 for a square, 1 for an interval. This combinatorial
growth factor is the idea behind the following definition, whichas we
244 Fractals
shall see belowcovers a number of fractals which are far from being
standard geometric forms.
The number N(n) of standard charts grows like ndim if you cover your
object by charts of = 1/n the object size, or, equivalently, N() behaves

like dim. If the dimension of an object is defined in this way, the

dimension of a fractal is a real number and need not be a natural number.
This, then, is the origin of the name fractal: It describes geometric
forms having fractional dimension.
Definition 237 Let K X be a non-empty compact set in a metric space
(X,d). For a positive real number , call N(K, ) the minimal natural
number N such that there is a covering of K by N closed balls B(xi), i =
1, 2, . . . N. Since K is compact, this number always exists. For a positive real
number , the -dimension of K is defined by
dim(K, ) = log(N(K, ))
log(1/)
,
i.e.,
N(K, ) = dim(K,).
We say that K has fractal dimension dim(K) iff lim0 dim(K, ) exists
and is equal to dim(K), i.e.,
dim(K) = lim
0
dim(K, ).
There is an important subtlety in this definition. It is obvious that the
-dimension dim(K, ) depends on the basic choice of closed balls for
the covering number N(K, ). If, instead, we had taken closed cubes,
the number would change. However, it would not change dramatically,
but this difference must be dealt with, when one calculates the limit.
Now, suppose that some change of the covering standard charts causes
a change from N(K, ) to c N(K, ) for a positive constant c. Then the

-dimension changes to
dim(K, ) = log(c N(K, ))
log(1/)
= log(c)
log(1/)
+ dim(K, ),
which evidently converges to the limit of dim(K, ) since the first summand
converges to zero. So we are happy that the quite arbitrary choice
of the type of standard chart is in fact not relevant for the definition of
the dimension.
40.4 Fractal Dimension 245
There is another point which matters in this definition: The limit process
uses all , while, in reality, such a condition is far from computationally
effective. Happily, one has this result, which also uses closed cubes as
easier standard charts instead of closed balls in the case of X = Rn
with the standard Euclidean distance.
Proposition 353 (Box Counting Theorem) Let K Rm be a non-empty
compact set. Define Nn(K) as the number of closed cubes (boxes) of side
length 1
2n , B =

k1 1
2n , (k1 + 1) 1
2n

k2 1
2n , (k2 + 1) 1
2n

...

km
1
2n , (km + 1) 1
2n

, ki Z, which have a non-empty intersection with K. If

dim(K) exists, then we have
dim(K) = 1
log(2)
lim
n
log(Nn(K))
n
.
Proof This theorem is a statement regarding the transition from counting balls
in a finite covering of K by balls to counting small cubes in a finite covering of
K by cubes. But it is also a theorem about the replacement of the limit for 0
by the limit for a sequence of size parameters n 0. We shall not prove the
following technical (but not really difficult) fact concerning the transition to a

sequence of size parameters: It states that if we are given a compact set K X

and a sequence n = c rn with c > 0 and 0 < r < 1, then the dimension D
of K is defined iff the limit D = limn dim(K, c rn) exists. The necessity of
this fact is clear, its sufficiency essentially follows from the fact that N(K, )
is an increasing function of . For the details, refer to [5], section 5.1. Admitting
this result, observe that a ball of radius 1
2n hits at most 2m of our boxes
of length 1
2n1 (to see this intuitively, you may draw a picture for m = 1, 2, 3).
Therefore, 2mNn1(K) N(K, 1
2n ). If a ball has radius 1
2n , then by the theorem
of Pythagoras, it can include a cube of largest length 1
2l(n) , where l(n) is
the smallest integer with 1
2l(n)
1
2n1

m, i.e., l(n) n 1 + 1
2 log(m). Clearly,
limn
l(n)
n
= 1. Therefore we also have N(K, 1
2n )Nl(n)(K) and

2mNn1(K)N(K, 1
2n )Nl(n)(K)N2n(K)
for large n. Hence
1
log(2)
lim
n
log(Nn(K))
n
=1
log(2)
lim
n
log(2mNn(K))
n
= lim
n
dim(K, 1/2n)
=1
log(2)
lim
n
2 log(N2n(K))
2n
=1
log(2)

lim
n
log(Nn(K))
n
defines the fractal dimension.
246 Fractals
Example 189 Let K =

0, 1
3 R3 be the unit cube. Then we have
N1(K) = 8,N2(K) = 64, . . .Nn(K) = 8n. Therefore
1
log(2)
log(Nn(K))
n
=1
log(2)
nlog(8)
n
= 3,
whence dim(K) = 3, as expected.
Example 190 We calculate the dimension of the Koch curve using the
original definition of dimension by closed balls (in this case, closed disks).
By the preceding discussion, we can use as the diameter of the closed
disks, instead of their radius, this will make the calculation a little simpler.
With K = Fix(Koch), and referring to figure 40.7 (a), with diameter = 1

3,
N(K, 1
3 ) = 4, thus
dim(K, 13
) = log(4)
log(3)
.
Fig. 40.7. Minimal coverings of the Koch curve, by disks of diameter
(a) 1/3, (b) 1/9, and (c) 1/27.
Parts (b) and (c) of the figure show the situation for = 1
9 and = 1
27 ,
respectively. The corresponding values for dim(K, ) are
dim(K, 1
9 ) = log(16)
log(9)
and dim(K, 1
27 ) = log(64)
log(27)
.
In general, it can be seen that
40.4 Fractal Dimension 247
dim(K, 3n) = log(4n)
log(3n)
= nlog(4)
nlog(3)

= log(4)
log(3)
.
Thus, the dimension of the Koch curve is
dim(K) = log(4)
log(3)
1.26186.
A further interesting feature is the length of the Koch curve. The length
of the unit interval is, of course, 1. The length of the first iterate is 4/3,
of the second 16/9. Thus, the length of the attractor is limn
4n
3n , which
diverges to infinity. On the other hand, the area under the curve is finite,
because the whole curve fits into the unit square. We have here an example
of the infinitely long coastline of an island, often alluded to in
popular literature on fractals.
Example 191 In order to calculate the dimension of the Sierpinski carpet,
it is convenient to adapt the box counting theorem to use boxes of side
length 1/3n instead of 1/2n. The definition of dimension is accordingly
adapted to:
dim(K) = 1
log(3)
lim
n
log(Nn(K))
n

.
Fig. 40.8. Coverings of the Sierpinski carpet by squares of side length
1/3 (a), and 1/9 (b).
Setting K = Fix(Sierpinski), we see from figure 40.8, that N1(K) = 8,
N2(K) = 64, and, in general, Nn(K) = 8n. With the above formula
248 Fractals
dim(K) = 1
log(3)
lim
n
log(8n)
n
=1
log(3)
lim
n
nlog(8)
n
=1
log(3)
log(8)
= 3 log(2)
log(3)
1.8928.
Exercise 193 The Sierpinski gasket (or triangle) is defined by the following
contraction:

Gasket =

I T(
1
4,

3
4 ) T(
1
2 ,0)

12
E2.
Draw a few iterations to get an approximation of Fix(Gasket), starting
with a triangle of side length 1.
Use the box counting theorem to determine dim(Fix(Gasket)).
Exercise 194 All examples so far have been about compact subsets of
R2. The principles of this chapter, however, readily apply to R3 (and Rn
for any integer n > 0, for that matter). Figure 40.9 shows the attractor
of Sponge, the Sierpinski carpet extended to R3, also called Menger
sponge.
Proceed analogously to the Sierpinski carpet to define the contraction
Sponge and use the box counting theorem to compute its dimension.
Proposition 354 Let (X,d) and (Y , c) be complete metric spaces, and a
Frac(X) and b Frac(Y ). Suppose that we have a fractal isomorphism
f : a b which also induces an equivalence of metrics c and df, (i.e.,

a b in the sense of the introduction of this section). Then dim(Fix(a)) =

dim(Fix(b)).
Proof The proof of this theorem is very technical, we have to omit it here and
again refer to [5], section 5.1.
Example 192 Let S be a shearing by 2 and R a rotation by 30 defined by
the matrixes
S=

12
01

and R =

3
2
1
2
1
2

3
2

,
40.4 Fractal Dimension 249
Fig. 40.9. This is not the Borg spaceship, but an approximation of
Fix(Sponge).
and let T be the isomorphism T = RS.
We have the metric spaces (R2, d) and (R2, c), where d is the usual Euclidean
metric on R2, and c(x,y) = d(T1x,T1y). Then c is a metric
(the reader should verify this), and, since cT (x,y) = c(Tx,Ty) =
d(T1Tx,T1Ty) = d(x,y), both metrics, d and c, are equivalent.
According to proposition 354, the dimensions of K and T(K), where K =
Fix(Koch), are equal (figure 40.10).
A last example will close this chapter and illustrate how fractals can be
used to model forms that occur in nature. The fractal function for Barnsleys
fern is defined through these four functions from R2 to R2:
250 Fractals
Fig. 40.10. The Koch curve K (a), and its transformation T(K) (b).
fern1((x,y)) =

0.85 0.04
0.04 0.85

x
y

0
1.60

,
fern2((x,y)) =

0.15 0.28
0.26 0.24

x
y

0
0.44

,
fern3((x,y)) =

0.20 0.26
0.23 0.22

x
y

0
1.60

,
fern4((x,y)) =

00
0 0.16

x
y

.
Then Ferni =H(ferni), and Fern = Fern1Fern2Fern3Fern4. The compact
start set can be chosen quite arbitrarily, however, the single point
(0, 0) is enough to generate the beautiful picture in figure 40.11.
40.4 Fractal Dimension 251
Fig. 40.11. The (approximated) attractor Fix(Fern).