Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. The pictures are interpreted as what is intuitively simplest. To make matters less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. The pictures are interpreted as what is intuitively simplest. To make matters less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

EX9884 intuitively seems especially ambiguous (the four corner points). EX9058 is similar, but it does not intuitively seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. The pictures are interpreted as what is intuitively simplest. To make things less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

EX9884 intuitively seems especially ambiguous (the four corner points). EX9058 is similar, but it does not intuitively seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. To make things less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

EX9884 intuitively seems especially ambiguous (the four corner points). EX9058 is similar, but it does not intuitively seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. To make things less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

EX9884 seems especially ambiguous (the four corner points). Although EX9058 is similar, it does not seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. To make things less ambiguous, all the fractals here contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

EX9884 seems especially ambiguous (the four corners points). Although EX9058 is similar, it does not seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate in a picture whether or not a few specific points are included in the fractal. In ambiguous cases, it makes sense to assume fractals contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.

EX9884 seems especially ambiguous (the four corners points). Although EX9058 is similar, it does not seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are included in a fractal. In ambiguous cases, it makes sense to assume fractals contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.

EX9884 seems especially ambiguous (the four corners points). Although EX9058 is similar, it does not seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are missing. In ambiguous cases, fractals should probably be assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.

EX9884 seems especially ambiguous (the four corners points). Although EX9058 is similar, it does not seem as ambiguous (the two right angle corner points seem natural to think of as being part of the fractal, because they are corners of miniature Sierpinski triangles).

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are missing. In ambiguous cases, fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)EX9884 seems especially ambiguous, since the four corners are

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are missing. In ambiguous cases, fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are missing. If it's ambiguous, fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.)

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.) It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate whether or not a few specific points are missing.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed. See also BP1239.) It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate a fractal with a few certain specific points missing.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed.) It isn't possible to unambiguously communicate a fractal with a few certain specific points missing.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed.) It isn't possible to clearly represent a fractal with a few certain specific points missing.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed.) It isn't possible to clearly represent a fractal with certain specific points missing.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

Fractals are assumed to contain all points arbitrarily close to points in them. (They are topologically closed.) It isn't possible to represent a fractal with certain specific points missing in a picture.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

The left hand side of this is a stronger condition than the left hand side of BP1116.

Note if any point is contained in some smaller version of the whole, then any point is contained in arbitrarily smaller versions of the whole.

The left hand side of this is a stronger version of the left hand side of BP1116.