1989
DOI: 10.1016/0098-3004(89)90037-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fractal properties of computer-generated and natural geophysical data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

1991
1991
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Refs. [12][13][14], the bounds on fractal dimensions of CHFIS found here are likely to be helpful in the development of models for computation of tsunami intensity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Refs. [12][13][14], the bounds on fractal dimensions of CHFIS found here are likely to be helpful in the development of models for computation of tsunami intensity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gu et al (1991) obtained three entropy measures by considering annuli at low, medium and high wavenumbers in the polar power spectrum as probability distributions. Another technique (Jones et al, 1989) used linear regression on the log of the power spectrum to estimate a fractal dimension D,. This dimension contains information about the level of self-similarity of a fluctuating process at different scales, providing a measure of the roughness of that process.…”
Section: Textural Featuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Randomwalk simulation corresponds to the Image data if we imagine that the brightness values for each pixel are numbers representing events at (10 m)2 locations; indeed, the radiance values are linear and homogeneous transformations of the energy received within the frequency limits of the sensor (SPOT, 1988). Although the simulation shown in Figure 9 might be an adequate representation of cloud data (Joseph, 1985) or perhaps chaotic terrain (Goodchild, 1982;Jones et al, 1989), it bears only weak resemblance to the study image but is certainly closer than Gauss. The fractal plot of this simulation, shown in Figure 10, is also different from that of the Gauss process.…”
Section: Autocorrelated Cellular X Random Utomatamentioning
confidence: 99%