Today was an important day.

We continued a thought started yesterday, acknowledging the difference between *intrinsic *dimension—the dimension of an object itself—and *extrinsic *dimension—the dimension of the space the object occupies. For example, the edge of a circle is one dimensional, since there is only one axis of movement around the circle, but the circle exists in two dimensional space. We further observed that the extrinsic/containing dimension of an object must necessarily be greater than or equal to the intrinsic dimension of the space.

We also discussed how the dimension of an object affects the dimension with which we can measure it. We cannot find the volume of a square, and we can’t find the area of a cube. Put another way, if we tried to use a cubic centimeter measuring device to measure the area of a circle, we’d end with a measure of zero. And if we tried to use a square centimeter measuring device to measure the volume of a cube, we’d get a measure of infinity. In general, too small a dimension of measure results in a measure of infinity, and too large a dimension results in zero.

Finally, we considered the implications of this to the Sierpinski Triangle. When we attempted to measure the *area* of the Sierpinski triangle, we resulted in a measure of zero (an infinity of triangles each with area zero results in a total area of zero). When we attempted to measure its *length*, we resulted in a measure of infinity (an infinity of segments each with length zero results in a total length of infinity). Thus, 2 is too *high* a dimension to describe the Sierpinski Triangle and 1 is too *low*. It must therefore mean that the dimension of the Sierpinski Triangle is *strictly between 1 and 2*, and is therefore **fractional***.*

Wow.

Of course, this raises an immediate question: If the dimension of the Sierpinski Triangle is somewhere between 1 and 2, what is it?

### Like this:

Like Loading...