Talk:Butterfly curve (transcendental)

Split

I propose this be split into two articles, butterfly curve (algebraic) and butterfly curve (transcendental) and then the articles expanded. Gene Ward Smith 04:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Done[reply]

Please explain significance; also, the two derivations are pretty redundant

At the moment this article technically could be speedily deleted according to the rules used in some other topic areas, because it makes "no assertion of significance" for this curve. Explain: What makes this different from an infinite number of similar mathematical formulae?

Also, the formulae given (parametric and polar) are essentially the same, where t = theta - (pi/2). This in a way gets back to significance: why not just add pi/2 to your definition of theta and turn the thing - the graph can even be the same if you just say 0 degrees is at the bottom. Then you have a simpler formula r = e^(cos(theta)) - 2*cos(4*theta) - sin(theta/12)^5. Wnt (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Also believe this curve doesn't have much significance. If anyone can explain, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EZ132 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could significance be derived from it being a very common example of a parametric equation?

Also, Fey looked at the curve again when looking at 'step-size',ref here.

Jonpatterns (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]