绘制《无尽的玩笑》中谢尔宾斯基三角形的两种方法
Two Ways to Draw Infinite Jest's Sierpinski Gasket

原始链接: https://www.chiply.dev/post-ij-sierpinski

作者运用“混沌游戏”(Chaos Game)——一种生成谢尔宾斯基三角(Sierpinski Gasket)的数学方法——作为阅读大卫·福斯特·华莱士《无尽的玩笑》的隐喻。在混沌游戏中,在顶点之间随机绘制点,最终会显现出复杂的分形图案。同样,作者认为,初读这部小说时,感受到的正如杂乱无章的“噪音”或“灼烧感”。 通过反复重读,这些零散的印象会凝聚成一个结构严谨、连贯的整体。该隐喻突显了三个关键的平行之处: 1. **最初的困惑:** 正如模拟中的最初几个点无法显现出分形一样,初读也无法捕捉到小说的结构。 2. **吸引子:** 无论读者的切入点如何(无论是哪个角色或情节吸引了读者),持续的投入都会使读者收敛于对该书架构相同的深刻理解。 3. **非线性进程:** 由于混沌游戏中的每一步仅取决于前一个位置,因此该书鼓励非顺序的重读,因为任何场景都有助于读者构建并完善文本的心理地图。 归根结底,重读《无尽的玩笑》是一个将混沌转化为深思熟虑、错综复杂之设计的过程。

在 Hacker News 关于《无尽的玩笑》(Infinite Jest)的讨论中,有人对将小说结构映射为谢尔宾斯基三角(Sierpinski gasket)及其三条主要情节的观点提出了挑战。评论者认为,这种“三条情节”的框架过于简化,并指出该小说的叙事以“未解决”而著称,它更多地表现为一系列信息密集型的“三角”(家庭、教育和社会),而非传统意义上的分形结构。 该用户指出,虽然作者大卫·福斯特·华莱士(David Foster Wallace)在创作初稿时可能确实构思过基于谢尔宾斯基三角的结构,但最终的定稿版本可能已转变为一种更加线性且重复的进程。由此看来,这部小说并非运作如自相似分形,而是随着核心主题的不断重复,其叙事迭代得以逐渐深化。最终,评论者认为小说的真实结构在于角色与家庭、教育和社会这一三元组之间的关联,而非某种刻板的几何模式。
相关文章

原文

The second method is mindblowing:

  1. Pick three points on a plane. These are the vertices.
  2. Pick a starting point anywhere.
  3. Randomly pick one of the 3 vertices and draw a point halfway between that vertex and your previous point.
  4. Repeat ad nauseam, using the most recent point each time.

As you do this, you will gradually see a Sierpinski Gasket emerge.

The above images are from this video. You can watch it to get a better sense of how to build the Gasket in this way. The chaos game producing a Sierpinski triangle (YouTube)

The choas game produces a clear Sierpinski Gasket, but you arrived at it by an entirely different method than the geometer's.

This is the Infinite Jest reader's methodology for building the Gasket. On the first pass through the book, the points scattered by your attention look like noise. That's certainly how I felt in my first read-through. As I reread the novel (I'm currently on my third), I fill in more and more points, and the structure of the novel and the relationships between its characters fill in a more complete internal representation of the novel, closer and closer to the geometer's Gasket.

Three features of the chaos game support this metaphor:

The first iterations are noise. Chaos-game simulations conventionally discard the first ~20–30 points as "burn-in". They haven't yet represented the Sierpinski Gasket. This is what a first reading of Infinite Jest felt like to me.

The starting point doesn't matter. The attractor (the Sierpinski Gasket) is determined entirely by the three vertices and the halving rule. Wherever you start, you converge to the same Gasket. Burn-in is why the starting point doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether you came to Infinite Jest for Hal, Gately, or the Quebecois separatists. As you play the chaos game through rereading, you converge on the same Sierpinski triangle shape.

Each step depends only on where you just were. You don't need to remember the whole history of your previous moves to add the next point, just the most recent one. In rereading terms, this means you can dip back into the book at almost any scene and still add to the Gasket's picture. Infinite Jest rewards non-sequential rereading.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com