Enrichment Units 679

POSTASSESSM ENT
Students should be able to explain
1. period-doubling bifurcation as seen in the Feigenbaum plot.
2. the connection between the Feigenbaum plot and the iteration behavior for the quadratic
f(x) = ax(l - x).

REFERENCES
Gleick,]. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Penguin Books, 1987.
Peitgen, H., H.Jurgens, D. Saupe, E. Maletsky, T. Perciante, and L. Yunker. Fractalsfor the Class•
room: Strategic Activities, Volume Two. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1992.

Thanks to Dr. Evan Maletsky.

The SierpinskiTriangle
Now that the age of technology
mathematical thinking. This unit
lum through geometry. A simple
triangular region into an elegant,
is upon us, iteration has taken on a new level of importance in
reflects how that attention can be directed into the school curricu•
geometric process, repeated over and over, can transform a plain
abstract fractal structure, the Sierpinski triangle.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
1. Students will exercise geometric iteration, first seeing and then visualizing the geometric changes in
successive stages of the structure, and then be able to express these changes in both numeric and alge•
braic form.
2. Students will be able to define and illustrate self-similarity.

PREASSESSMENT
Students should have experience with scaling and similarity and with pattern recognition in vari•
ous forms, and they should be familiar with the general notions of iteration and recursive thinking.

TEACHING STRATEGIES
In the late 1800s and early 1900s, mathematicians sought to create new kinds of geometric struc•
tures that possessed unique properties. Many of their results are recognized and classified today as
fractals. One such creation from that period was the Sierpinski triangle, named after Polish math•
ematician Waclaw Sierpinski.
680 Enrichment Units Enrichment Units 680

Have each student start with a triangular piece of paper. Connect the midpoints of the sides of
the triangle to form four similar triangles at half linear size. Cut them apart. Keep the three corner
triangles, and remove the middle one. Think of this as state 1. Apply the same algorithm again on
each of the three new, smaller triangles to get stage 2. Then apply the algorithm again on the nine
still smaller triangles to get stage 3. Imagine the iteration process continued through stage 4.
Each stage contains three times as many triangular parts as the preceding stage. It is thus ap•
parent, from this approach, that each successive stage requires three times as many applications of
the algorithm. There are always more and more applications on smaller and smaller parts. As far as
the cutting goes, the triangular pieces soon get too small in size and too large in number. Is there
another view of the process where the iteration rule remains exactly the same throughout and is
always applied exactly once in going from one stage to the next? The answer is yes.
Have your students think globally of the whole structure at each stage, not of the ever-increasing
number of smaller and smaller parts. Here is one possible scenario:
Take any stage of the figure to the copy machine.
Set the machine at 50%, reducing linear dimensions to half.
Make three copies at this half size.
Use them to build the next stage of the structure.

Let this be the iteration algorithm. Have your students actually build the first several stages this
way, repeating the exact same process over and over again. Then have them imagine the iteration
continuing, and let them visualize how the figure changes, becoming more and more delicate with
increasing complexity at each successive stage.
Viewing the building process through these rules, the notion of self-similarity becomes very
apparent. Successive structures contain more and more copies of the original stage-0 structure at
more and more different scales. But it is only the limit figure that truly exhibits self similarity. Finite
stages contain copies essentially like the whole, but only the limit figure contains exact copies of the
whole at all scales!
The Sierpinski triangle is that limit figure. It is an abstract, infinitely complex fractal structure,
where all the small triangular regions have reduced themselves to points. Students need to know
that it can only be seen in the mind. What the eye sees, at its best, is only some limited finite stage
in the development of the Sierpinski triangle.
Within this geometric iteration process, however, lie many mathematical connections. The fol•
lowing table shows how this building process can be related to number patterns, perimeter and
area, exponents, geometric series, and limits, to name a few. Indeed, fractals, and the Sierpinski
triangle in particular, offer one of the most powerful examples of the kind of mathematical connec•
tions referred to in the Curriculum and Evaluation Standard of Schoo! Mathematics of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Stage O Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4

3 copies at half size

Stage 4 Stage 5
681 Enrichment Units Enrichment Units 681

Stage 0 1 2 3 4 n

Number of triangles 3 9 27 81 3n

3 9 27 81
Area 1 4 16 64 256 ({f
27
Perimeter 1 2
3
4
9
8
81
16 (ff

The perimeter and area at stage O are defined to be 1 unit and 1 square unit, respectively. This
allows the student to focus on the constant multiplier in both sequences and to make the direct
connection to geometric sequences. At a different level, the student might be asked to compute the
changing perimeter and area starting with an equilateral triangle measuring 4 inches on each side.
Note that the areas in the table refer to those of the shaded triangular regions remaining at each
and every stage. The students should see these as converging to 0. In that sense, the limiting area
of the Sierpinski triangle is O! On the other hand, the perimeters in the table refer to the distances
around each and every triangular piece at each stage. Here, the students should see these as diverg•
ing. In that sense, the limiting perimeter is infinite! Put together, these two different behaviors for
the area and perimeter of the same figure give yet another glimpse of the uniqueness of this structure.

POSTASSESSMENT
Students should be able to explain
1. a building algorithm that, when iterated, generates the Sierpinski triangle.
2. the nature of self-similarity as found in the Sierpinski triangle.
3. how the perimeter and area change as successive stages are generated.

REFERENCE
Peitgen, H., H. Jurgens, D. Saupe, E. Maletsky, T. Perciante, and L. Yunker. Fractals for the Class•
room: Strategic Activities, Volume One. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991.

Thanks to Dr. Evan Malersky

Fractals
It was not quite 25 years ago that Benoit Mandelbrot coined the word fractal. At that time, it would
have been hard to believe that this topic would move so fast and reach so many in such a short time.
Nor would one likely have foreseen their being attracted, connected, and embedded in the curricu•
lum of school mathematics so quickly. But technology, plus an urge to infuse our teaching with new
ideas, has made that possible. Today, there are many software packages on the market that can put
the dynamics and aesthetics of fractals directly before your students. It is quite another matter for
682 Enrichment Units Enrichment Units 682

students to see what mathematics underlies these fascinating structures. Much of that can be done
in your classroom with assorted hands-on activities and experiences.
This activity expands and extends the iterative geometric generation of the Sierpinski triangle
into a whole family of fractal structures.

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
1. Students will generate successive stages of various fractals based on an adaptation of the building code
for the Sierpinski triangle.
2. Students will recognize self-similarity in fractals of this type, and find from that what their building
codes are.

PREASSESSMENT
Students should have experience with scaling, similarity, self-similarity, and the geometric transfor•
mations of rotations and reflections.

TEACHING STRATEGIES
Consider modifying the building blocks of the Sierpinski triangle to be centered around squares
instead of triangles. For many students, this first step may be the hardest of all to take. How can the
Sierpinski triangle emerge from a process that involves only squares?
Every finite stage of this developing fractal consists of small square regions: the higher the stage,
the smaller the squares. But in the limit, each of these small squares approaches a point. Whether
squares or triangles, in the limit, both approach points. The fact is, the limit figure, generated from
squares or from triangles, is the same fractal structure, the Sierpinski triangle. Both sequences of
figures, although always different, are approaching the same attractor.
(
\

Stage O Stage 1 Stage 2

Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Here is a model of the building code. Iterated over and over, the Sierpinski triangle emerges.

Copy
A
Original
Copy Copy
B c
BUILDING CODE

Reduce to !size.
Make 3 copies.
Rebuild.
683 Enrichment Units Enrichment Units 683

Once this idea is established, incorporate the transformations of a square into the process, and
a whole family of Sierpinski-like fractals can be constructed. The result will be that each of your
students can explore her or his own personal fractal.
With this code, cell A is rotated 270° and cell B is rotated 180°, each clockwise. Students will
quickly see that a very different structure begins to emerge.

~<(
0
0
Original
8 Copy
Ado:) c
BUILDING CODE
Reduce to ! size.
Make 3 copies.
Rebuild, rotating copies
A and B as shown.

Stage O Stage 1 Stage 2

Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Encourage students to make up their own codes and create the first few stages of the corresponding
fractal. Finely ruled graph paper can be used, or you can supply grids of this type for students to use.

Software packages such as Claris Works contain draw programs that can be used very effectively
in generating these structures by this process. Their snap-on grids enable accurate constructions.
One word of caution. Whether drawing by hand or using a computer to create the graphics, re•
member that it is the whole figure at each stage that is reduced, replicated, and rebuilt through the
geometric transformations. Students who apply the process incorrectly to more and more smaller
and smaller parts at each successive stage are not likely to create correct figures. At each and every
stage, make just three reduced copies of the whole before you rebuild.
684 Enrichment Units Enrichment Units 684

A second part of this activity is to have students look at the detailed stages of others and see if
they can spot the building codes that were used. This can be a very powerful and challenging visual
experience for some. Recall, there are eight possible transformations of the square:

Rotations

Reflections

Start with structures that involve only rotations first. For many students, they are the easier
ones to see. Save the reflections for later, when your students have had more practice. See if your
students can write out the building codes used to create these fractals. Only rotations were used.

POSTASSESSMENT
Students should be able to

1. follow a given building algorithm through several successive stages of development.

2. use self-similarity to identify the building code from a constructed fractal of this type.

REFERENCE
Peitgen, H., H. Jurgens, D. Saupe, E. Maletsky, T. Perciante, and L. Yunker. Fractals for the Class•
room: Strategic Activities, Volume Three. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

Thanks to Dr. Evan Maletsky.