Last week I talked about working with binary trees whose branching ratio is 1 or greater. The difficulty with having a branching ratio larger than one is that the tree keeps growing, getting larger and larger with each iteration.

But when you work with software like Mathematica, for example, and you create such a tree, you can specify the size of the displayed image in screen size.

So the trees above both have branching ratio 2 and branching angle of 70°. The left image is drawn to a depth of 7, and the right image is drawn to a depth of 12. I specified that both images be drawn the same size in Mathematica.

But even though they are visually the same size, if you start with a trunk 1 unit in length, the left image is about 200 units wide, while the second is 6000 units wide!

So this prompted us to look at scaling back trees with large branching ratios. In other words, as trees kept getting larger, scale them back even more. You saw why this was important last week: if the scale isn’t right, when you overlap trees with *r* less than one on top of the reciprocal tree with branching ratio 1/*r,* the leaves of the trees won’t overlap. The scale has to be *just* right.

So what should these scale factors be? This is such an interesting story about collaboration and creativity — and how new ideas are generated — that I want to share it with you.

For your usual binary tree with branching ratio less than one, you don’t have to scale at all. The tree remains bounded, which is easy to prove using convergent geometric series.

What about the case when *r* is exactly 1, as shown in the above figure? At depth *n,* if you start with a trunk of length 1, the path from the base of the trunk to the leaf is a path of exactly *n* + 1 segments of length 1, and so can’t be any longer than *n* + 1 in length. As the branching angle gets closer to 0°, you do approach this bound of *n* + 1. So we thought that scaling back by a factor of *n* + 1 would keep the tree bounded in the case when *r* is 1.

What about the case when *r* > 1? Let’s consider the case when *r* = 2 as an example. The segments in any path are of length 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc., getting longer each time by a power of 2. Going to a depth of *n,* the total length is proportional to in this case. In general, the total length is about for arbitrary *r,* so scaling back by a factor of would keep the trees bounded as well.

So we knew how to keep the trees bounded, and started including these scaling factors when drawing our images. But there were two issues. First, we still had to do some fudging when drawing trees together with their reciprocal trees. We could still create very appealing images, but we couldn’t use the scale factor on its own.

And second — and perhaps more importantly — Nick had been doing extensive exploration on his computer generating binary trees. Right now, we had three different cases for scaling factors, depending on whether *r* < 1, *r* = 1, or *r > *1. But in Nick’s experience, when he moved continuously through values of *r* less than 1 to values of *r* greater than one, the transition looked very smooth to him. There didn’t seem to be any “jump” when passing through *r* = 1, as happened with the scale factors we had at the moment.

I wasn’t too bothered by it, though. There are lots of instances in mathematics where 1 is some sort of boundary point. Take geometric series, for example. Or perhaps there is another boundary point which separates three fundamentally different types of solutions. For example, consider the quadratic equation

The three fundamentally different solution sets correspond to *c* < 0, *c* = 0, and *c* > 0. There is a common example from differential equations, too, though I won’t go into that here. Suffice it to say, this type of trichotomy occurs rather frequently.

I tried explaining this to Nick, but he just wouldn’t budge. He had looked at *so* many binary trees, his intuition led him to firmly believe there just *had* to be a way to unify these scale factors.

I can still remember the afternoon — the moment — when I saw it. It was truly beautiful, and I’ll share it in just a moment. But my point is this: I was so used to seeing trichotomies in mathematics, I was just willing to live with these three scale factors. But Nick wasn’t. He was tenacious, and just insisted that there was further digging to do.

Don’t ask me to explain *how* I came up with it. It was like that feeling when you *just* were holding on to some small thing, and now you couldn’t find it. But you never left the room, so it just *had* to be there. So you just kept looking, not giving up until you found it.

And there is was: if the branching ratio was *r *and you were iterating to a depth of *n,* you scaled back by a factor of

This took care of all three cases at once! When *r* < 1, this sum is bounded (think geometric series), so the boundedness of the tree isn’t affected. When *r* = 1, you just get *n* + 1 — the same scaling factor we looked at before! And when *r* > 1, this sum is large enough to scale back your tree so it’s bounded.

Not only that, this scale factor made proving the Dual Tree Theorem *so* nice. The scaling factors for a tree with *r* < 1 and its reciprocal tree with branching ratio 1/*r* matched *perfectly.* No need to fudge!

This isn’t the place to go into all the mathematics, but I’d be happy to share a copy of our paper if you’re interested. We go into a *lot* more detail than I ever could in a blog post.

This is how mathematics *happens,* incidentally. It isn’t just a matter of finding a right answer, or just solving an equation. It’s a give-and-take, an exploration, a discovery here and there, tenacity, persistence. A living, breathing endeavor.

But the saga isn’t over yet…. There is a lot more to say about binary trees. I’ll do just that in my next installment of Imagifractalous!

## One thought on “Imagifractalous! 5: Fractal Binary Trees III”