Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Concept

Cross validation — where it appears

Fitting on one part of the data and testing on another, so that agreement is not the fit reporting on itself. Where this collection predicts across models — the cylinder's ladder saying where a disc's counts change — the prediction is made before the check.

Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where the disc's counts change, predicted from a cylinder. The dashed lines are the transition radii the cylinder's ladder gives through h = c²/4πr², with nothing fitted. The dots are what the blind counter returns from the disc: 15 of 16 bands agree, and the ones that do not sit on a transition.

A disc is a cylinder

Vogel's seed head makes the rise fall as one over radius squared, so a disc is not one lattice but a family of them. Feed that into the cylinder's ladder and it predicts where a sunflower's spiral counts change — with nothing fitted, and against a counter that never sees either model.

cylinder · Rise and radius The rise falls as one over the distance from the apex. A straight line of slope −1 on log axes. The dashed horizontals are the transition rises of the cylinder's ladder, computed with no cone anywhere in them; where they cross, the count changes. Consecutive crossings are 2.62, 2.62, 2.62, 2.62 apart — φ² is 2.618.

Transitions a factor of φ² apart

The ladder's rungs are a factor of 1/φ² apart in rise. A disc's rise falls as one over radius squared and a cone's as one over distance, so the same rungs land a factor of φ apart on a seed head and a factor of φ² apart on a cone — measured, on both, by a counter that has never heard of either.

cylinder · Cone transitions Two shapes, two ranges, one contrast. The exponential's lattice ends at 3.63 spacings and the gaussian's at 2.25 — ranges 47% apart — and at those two ranges the contrast is 5.74 and 6.09, 6% apart. The band is what the exponent route leaves: 3.98 at p = 1, where the uncut rule makes nothing, and 7.63 at p = 1.25, where it makes a lattice.

Two shapes, one threshold

Read in the same unit, an exponential falloff and a gaussian one disagree about where the lattice ends by half. The quantity they agree on turns out to be one the earlier work measured for an unrelated reason — and it agrees with a bracket left by a sweep of a completely different parameter.

emergence · Falloff exponent Five fractions with one neighbour distance and every denominator. Each member of a matched set drawn on its own stretch of the divergence axis, 0.5° either side of itself, with the nearest other rational marked. The distances are 0.3651°, 0.3529°, 0.3692°, 0.3640°, 0.3557° — a spread of 4.6% — while the denominators run 17, 20, 25, 43, 44, a factor of 2.59. That is the construction this thread needed. Every instrument for the width of a disorder dip has a free parameter set by how close the neighbour is, so a hypothesis about the neighbourhood cannot be tested by varying the neighbourhood; on this set the neighbourhood is held fixed and the arithmetic of the fraction is what varies.

Matching instead of correcting

Two rounds of work failed on one question because every instrument's free parameter was set by the thing under test. The repair was not a better instrument or a model of the bias: it was choosing what to compare so that the confound could not vary. That move is available in four other places here, and three of them have already used it without anybody naming it.

wrong · Instrument ceiling

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

CylinderDivergence angleEnsembleIdentifiabilityLadderRiseTransitionsArtefactBiasCounting blindClaim testingCone

All concepts