Autocorrelation — where it appears
Named by 45 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A comb is evidence of a rule
Build the same lattice kinematically — every node at an exact multiple of the divergence, an independent error on each azimuth, no feedback anywhere — and the spectrum is empty. The photograph is identical and the parastichy pair is identical. The comb is not a property of the arrangement.
A counter that sees no positions
This site has counted spirals two ways, and both were handed coordinates. A third counter is handed a list of angles and nothing else. It returns one number instead of two, it refuses more often, and where it refuses it would have been wrong every time.
A disturbance with a memory
That earlier work's control assumed that a plant's errors are independent from organ to organ, and nobody had tested it. Give the errors a memory — each one a fraction of the last, up to a coefficient of 0.97 — and the comb does not appear. The obvious threat to the result turns out to be empty, and the algebra says why before the measurement does.
Errors that pass between organs
An organ's neighbours are the ones eight and thirteen places back — that is what a parastichy pair is. So a disturbance transmitted by contact is correlated at exactly the two lags the readout examines, and it does not have to be told them. Driven into a lattice with no rule in it, it returns the counted pair on eight stems out of eight.
The angles name the branch
Seed the same rule at the Lucas angle and the readout returns 4 and 7, then 7 and 11 — the pairs the position counter finds, and not Fibonacci numbers. So a list of divergence angles carries not only how many spirals there are but which family of ladders the plant is on.
What a forgery has to know
A lattice with transported errors reproduces the comb and the pair, so one quantity is left: the two combs' relative strength. Weighted by distance the forgery puts more in the second comb than the first; the rule does the opposite. It matches only if the coupling is turned three to one towards the further neighbour, which no falloff supplies.
A periodicity is not a lattice
Give a lattice's errors a period of eight and a comb appears at spacing eight, on an arrangement with no rule in it. But the partner it names is 10, then 12, then 11, then nothing — an accident of the disturbance rather than a measurement of the pattern. The forgery is caught by reading a second stem, and by nothing else.
The test a plant could settle
Every other open question in this collection is priced in tens of specimens, and one of them in a hundred and sixty. This one is priced in internodes on a single stem, and the number is fifty-six — because it is a statistic of one sequence rather than a share of a population.
The ratio was never about the rule
The comb has already been retracted here as evidence that a plant computes its pattern, and one quantity was exempted from the retraction: the ratio of the two combs, which a placement rule and a transported disturbance divide differently. Drive seven disturbances through the same rule and the ratio spans 0.45 to 1.09. The exemption does not hold, and the angle sequence has nothing left.
What a quiet plant is worth
Almost every measurement gets easier as the effect gets larger. This one gets harder — a stem's divergence sequence stops carrying information about its noise at precisely the scatter where the noise becomes obvious. The specimens worth measuring are the ones that look least interesting.
What the protractor has to be
The readout that names the parastichy number costs sixty internodes, which is cheap. It also needs every organ's position measured to better than a quarter of a degree, which is not — and the requirement follows from arithmetic rather than from care, so no amount of averaging relaxes it.
A disturbance that is not passed on
The disturbance that forges every observable measured here does two things at once — it correlates an organ's error with its contact neighbours', and it hands that error on to be handed on again. Every result about it has been unable to say which half did the work. This is the control that takes the second half away and keeps the first.
The sequence has a memory
Every measurement this collection has made of a stem's divergence angles throws the order away. A spread is invariant to shuffling. Put the angles back in order and there is a large correlation between one and the next — 0.54 with no noise at all — which is the rule correcting itself, and which nothing had looked at.
What a summary throws away
Four statistics this collection has relied on turn out to be incapable of varying with the thing they describe — one is invariant to shuffling, one is fixed by a theorem, one is a parameter that stopped mattering, one is a fitted number selected into being wrong. In each case the second statistic was free and nobody had taken it.
The forgery needs a history
A disturbance passed between touching organs manufactures the comb, the second comb and the parastichy pair on an arrangement with no rule in it — which is why the comb stopped being evidence. Give the organs the same correlation with no accumulation in it and the forgery collapses: one seed in eight returns a pair, and the comb is the noise floor.
The pair read from the angles
Checking that a jostled stem is still the lattice its panel is about turned up a disagreement. Counted from the point positions every rule's stems return five and eight spirals; read from the divergence sequence, the deepest rule's stems come back as five and seven at every seed. The points are right, and this site's founding rule is why.
What one angle says about the next
A tenth of a degree of placement noise moves a stem's divergence scatter from 0.50° to 0.62°, which nobody would report. It takes the correlation between consecutive angles from 0.54 to below zero. The other two kinds of noise, at scatters where no measurement can separate them, leave it at 0.6.
What the pair costs
The single parastichy number cost sixty internodes. The pair costs two hundred and fifty, and a protractor error of three quarters of a degree takes it to eleven hundred. The arithmetic that predicts the second of those is right about the shape and wrong about the scale by a consistent factor, which is recorded rather than fitted away.
A difference forgets a drift
This collection proposed a second observable and priced it as free: if a plant's errors are inherited between touching organs, the divergence sequence should carry a slow wander as well as a comb. The disturbance with the largest wander of any built here leaves none at all in the sequence, because a divergence is a difference and differencing is what removes a drift.
The order carries the count
Take the divergence angles off a stem, throw away every coordinate, and autocorrelate what is left. The result is periodic at the smaller parastichy number — peaks at it and at every multiple of it. A list of angles, with no picture and no position in it, carries the spiral count.
What a refusal does not say
The readout can decline for four different reasons — too quiet, too disturbed, too fast, or a window in the wrong place — and a stem that returns nothing does not say which. That is the third time this thread has failed to close the mixture problem, and the first time the failure has a shape.
What the rule does to a drift
A placement rule was supposed to leave no slow wander in a divergence sequence, because its errors are corrections rather than inheritances. Driven by a disturbance that drifts, it leaves a larger one than a lattice with no rule in it at all — while cutting the per-organ scatter by more than half. The rule removes what is relative between neighbours, and a drift is not.
The memory was the rise
The earlier work measured a lag-one correlation of 0.54 in a noiseless divergence sequence and called it the sequence's own memory. Hold the rise fixed and there is no sequence at all — every angle identical — and under a disturbance the correlation is negative. The 0.54 belongs to the pattern chasing an equilibrium that is moving under it.
A refusal with a reason
Three note left with the work running have recorded that a refusal has four causes and the sequence separates none of them. With a second window and a protractor, three are separated: silence at 0.38° of scatter is a quiet plant, silence at 56° is a disorderly one, and agreement certifies the rate. The fourth survives, and so does a worse discovery — agreement is not correctness.
The second comb
The autocorrelation of a divergence sequence has peaks at the smaller parastichy number and at every multiple of it. It also has a second set of peaks, at the same spacing, offset by the difference of the pair — so a list of angles with no coordinate in it returns both numbers rather than one.
The window was not the neighbourhood
A placement rule corrects what is relative between neighbours and passes what moves them all together, so how much of a slow disturbance gets through should depend on how deep the neighbourhood is. The obvious knob is how many organs the rule sums over. Swept across a factor of six, it changes nothing at all — and a parameter that is not binding produces exactly the flat sweep a robust result produces.
A harmonic is a step taken twice
The spectrum contains the larger parastichy number, their sum, and echoes of the smaller one, and no ranking of peak heights separates them. What separates them is arithmetic: a harmonic is a multiple of the spacing and a family is not, and the two kinds sit in different residue classes.
The control a survey would need
A comb no longer shows that a plant computes its pattern, so the survey this site has been specifying for a long time has to change. What it loses is its headline; what it gains is a measurement a botanist can actually make — six requirements, four of them already in the specification, and a quantity nobody has ever reported.
The drift goes the other way
A rule that corrects what its neighbourhood shares should let through any disturbance slower than its own reach, and should suppress anything faster — a crossover, tracking the depth. Swept over a neighbourhood that changes by a factor of sixty, there is no crossover anywhere, and the deep rule passes nearly four times as much as the shallow one. The prediction is not weakly supported; it is backwards.
Two readings from one stem
Three note left with the work in a row have recorded that the two statistics of a divergence sequence want opposite plants — one quiet, one disturbed. Measured on the same stems they do not. The conflict was in the interpretation of a sign, and the window in which both are readable is wide.
What the ratio was hiding
The statistic that says a rule sharpens a drift rises by a factor of nearly four across a sweep of the rule's depth. Undo the normalisation and ask instead how many degrees of drift actually reach the divergences, and the answer changes by a fifth. Nearly all of the effect was in the denominator, and the denominator is the thing the rule is good at.
The comb was never the rule
A control is only as strong as the alternative it builds, and the earlier work built one that varied the rule while holding the disturbance fixed at independence. Five rounds of the angle-sequence thread, with what each claimed and what still stands — and why the next evidence has to come from an intervention rather than from a longer stem.
The survey loses its second outcome
The survey specification written earlier here names three results the survey could return, and the second — a ratio near or above 1.30, read as evidence against the placement rule — is the one that would have been worth publishing. It does not survive the measurements here. The ratio moves with where the plant sits between two transitions, and it moves again with the colour of the plant's own disturbance.
The rung was not the instrument
The earlier work said the pair readout has a ceiling one rung above where it works, that this is arithmetic rather than statistics, and that no amount of stem fixes it. The arithmetic is right and gives a band of lag windows that is never empty; what was actually stopping the reading was an eight-node seed and a grid of 384 azimuths.
A shoot too fast to remember
Sweep the rate at which a stem climbs the ladder and the correlation between one divergence and the next changes sign — negative below about fifty-five nodes per rung, positive above it, with the flip inside one step of the grid. The instrument the earlier work proposed is unavailable on a fast shoot, and nothing said so.
The ratio was the floor of a curve
One number was left standing between a placement rule and a transported disturbance, measured at one rise, with the explanation that the geometry there happens to favour the larger parastichy number. Swept across two rungs the number is a U — a floor of about 0.79 two thirds of the way up a rung, climbing past 2.8 as a transition approaches — and the geometry is flat exactly where the curve is steepest.
A window inside a rung
A stem that climbs the ladder has no comb in it at any rate, because the quantity the comb is periodic in changes as it goes. Read a window instead and it comes back, on one condition: the window has to be shorter than a rung — which makes the shoot's rate the thing that decides whether a plant can be asked.
The corner that does not move
Read as degrees of drift getting through rather than as a ratio, and compared seed by seed, the deep and shallow rules change hands. The share that goes to the deeper rule climbs from twenty-three per cent under white noise to ninety-four at a correlation length of a hundred organs — and the crossing sits at two or three organs whether the two rules differ by a factor of four or sixty-one.
The grid was in the number
The rule places each organ at the least of a profile sampled at a fixed number of azimuths, and every flat run in these essays samples 384 of them — a step of 0.94°, against a disturbance of a quarter of a degree. The quantisation is the larger of the two, it is white, and it moves the discriminator from 0.79 to 0.62. The convergence study this collection had asked for and never done, in the place it turned out to matter.
The second statistic was the first
The experiment this collection has been specifying was priced as two readings off one sequence, the second of them free. The two readings turn out to be one function looked at twice, so the specification loses a statistic — and gains a cheaper one, a warning about how observables get priced, and a question it could not previously ask.
Two windows on one stem
A pair read off a climbing shoot can only be read through a window, and a window can straddle a transition. Read a second window half a length lower and the outcomes fall into four kinds — and agreement between them never happens on a shoot whose rung is shorter than the window, which turns the most awkward of the four refusal causes into something a reading can certify.
A rule that cannot heal a hole
The placement rule corrects itself against a displacement — that is what the lag-one correlation of −0.6 has been saying since it was measured. It does not correct itself against a deletion. Which organ is removed decides whether the stem is back on its lattice in twenty-four organs or never, and the boundary between the two is sharp, reproducible and in the middle of the front.
A disturbance the organs share
This collection has put three kinds of noise into the placement rule and found the lattice fails at about the same recorded scatter whichever kind it was. None of them asked what happens when the displacements are correlated between organs. At equal displacement per organ, a lattice survives three times as much of a disturbance the organs share — and what a protractor records is the part they do not.
The disturbance that travels
If a lattice survives three times the displacement when the organs share it, then a disturbance passed between the organs that actually touch should be the gentlest of all — it is correlated at exactly the offsets the rule places against. It is the harshest. Half the displacement destroys what independent noise leaves standing, and the reason separates two things that had been one.
Six of six is not a measurement
A panel comparing two rules seed by seed reported the deeper one winning every one of six seeds at four correlation lengths out of six, and was read as a lattice with no corner in it. Six of six is the largest number the panel can print, so the flat middle was a reading of the ceiling — and raising the disturbance brings a corner out of it.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MeasurementDivergence angleHonest limitsNoiseEnsembleDiscriminationThe placement ruleParastichy pairSelf-correctionSummary statisticArtefactEvidence