Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Concept

The range of the interaction — where it appears

How far the inhibition between organs reaches, as a hypothesis with a number in it. It is the first quantity here that a measurement of a real inhibitor could confirm or refuse, and it is not the same as the number of neighbours a program sums over.

Named by 20 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where this implementation stops converging. Below about G = 0.18 the settled angle wanders over 113° however long the run. That is the model's limit, not a fact about plants.

Where the model stops

Below a growth parameter of about 0.18 this implementation does not converge — the settled angle wanders over a hundred degrees however long the run. That is the range where the literature says the interesting behaviour lives, and it is worth a figure rather than a quietly chosen axis.

emergence · Modellimit The statistic everybody reports is the one that cannot vary. Six arrangements of 900 points, from a whorled lattice to a set with no rule in it. The mean number of sides per cell is 5.97–6.04 on all six, because Euler's formula forces it. The mean squared departure from six runs from 0.023 to 1.83 — a factor of 79 — and the most hexagonal tissue in the set is the whorled one, at a rational angle.

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.

wrong · Second statistic Three cut-offs at the same nominal width of 3 spacings. The weight the interaction is multiplied by, against distance. They halve at 2.08 (exponential), 2.50 (gaussian), 3.00 (hard) spacings — so a rule described as "cut off at 3 spacings" is three different rules until the falloff is named. Every later figure is read in half-weight radii for that reason.

A neighbourhood is a hypothesis

Every simulation of this kind stops summing somewhere. The earlier work found that where it stops decides what pattern comes out — so the stopping place is not a detail of the program but a claim about how far a primordium's influence reaches, and it should be written down as one.

emergence · The range of the interaction The landscape the rule chooses over, at a cut-off of 3 spacings. One height of an ideal lattice, swept around the circle. The exponential cut-off hands the rule a smooth landscape; the hard one hands it a landscape with steps, because a neighbour enters the sum as the candidate slides past it. Halving the sample resolution multiplies the largest jump between neighbouring points by 1.99 on the smooth curve and by 1.19 on the hard one — which is the definition of the difference, since a smooth function's steepest step is bounded by its derivative and a discontinuity's is not. An argmin taken over steps is pinned to the steps.

A hard edge is not a falloff

The prediction was that cutting the neighbourhood at three spacings would reproduce the pattern truncation had manufactured. It does — if the cut is smooth. A hard cut at the same distance produces no pattern at any width, and the reason is that it is the only one of the three whose neighbour set depends on where the candidate is.

emergence · Truncation The loop bound is not the neighbourhood. The wander a placement rule leaves in its divergences, against how many recently placed organs the rule sums over, at four correlation lengths of the disturbance driving it. The loop runs from 15 organs to 85 and nothing moves: the largest change along any line is smaller than the change between random seeds at one setting. That is the shape a parameter has when it is not binding, and it is the same shape a robust result has, which is why the sweep is drawn with the seed spread rather than reported as a number.

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.

mechanism · Noise colour 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 Which lattices survive a fifth of a degree of noise. The share of runs that still have a lattice. The prediction was that a cut-off at this range would be as fragile as the truncation it replaces; it is not. Stating the neighbourhood as a function of distance did not merely make the old result honest — 100% of runs survive against 33%, at a scatter an inverse-cube rule cannot be told from.

The fragility belonged to the window

A pattern that exists only because the rule cannot see far was expected to be held together by that cut, and to fall over when nudged. It does — while the cut is a loop bound. Written down as a falloff at the same range, the same rule keeps every run under the same nudge, at a scatter an inverse-cube rule cannot be told from.

emergence · Noise amplitude A sixfold neighbourhood, and nothing to dilute. The prediction was that a rule with fewer neighbours would convert a jostle into divergence scatter more efficiently. Across a sixfold widening the ratio sits between 0.97 and 1.00, and the one point that differs is the narrowest, at 0.82 — smaller, where the prediction wanted larger. The row underneath is why: past four spacings the rule builds the identical lattice, internode for internode, so there is no neighbourhood left to widen.

The neighbourhood was already settled

The earlier work explained a small difference between two kinds of noise by saying a jostle is diluted among some thirty neighbours. Sweep the neighbourhood sixfold and the difference does not move — because past four spacings the rule builds the identical lattice, internode for internode. There was nothing to dilute.

mechanism · Noise entry Four ways to count the rule's neighbourhood, and one ordering. How many organs the placement rule is looking at, as its falloff exponent is swept from 1.5 to 6, by four different definitions. Counting the organs that carry half the profile gives 33, 12, 3, 2, 1. Counting the organs that carry nine tenths gives 182, 120, 30, 8, 3. Counting the organs that carry ninety-nine hundredths gives 284, 263, 149, 54, 9. Counting the organs that carry the weighted mean lag gives 68, 45, 21, 14, 11. They disagree about the size of the neighbourhood by a factor of 10 — the widest moves by 61 times across the sweep and the narrowest by 6.1 — and every one of them falls as the exponent rises. So no choice among them changes which rule is the deeper, and no redefinition can turn a result about the depth around.

Four ways to count a neighbourhood

How deep does the placement rule look? Counting the organs that carry nine tenths of its profile gives 182 down to 3 as the falloff steepens. Counting the ones that carry half gives 33 down to 1. The weighted mean lag gives 68 down to 11. The four disagree by an order of magnitude about the size and agree exactly about the order.

mechanism · Noise colour Four ways to count the rule's neighbourhood, and one ordering. How many organs the placement rule is looking at, as its falloff exponent is swept from 1.5 to 6, by three different definitions. Counting the organs that carry half the profile gives 33, 12, 3, 2, 1. Counting the organs that carry nine tenths gives 182, 120, 30, 8, 3. Counting the organs that carry the weighted mean lag gives 68, 45, 21, 14, 11. They disagree about the size of the neighbourhood by a factor of 10 — the widest moves by 61 times across the sweep and the narrowest by 6.1 — and every one of them falls as the exponent rises. So no choice among them changes which rule is the deeper, and no redefinition can turn a result about the depth around.

The nearest organ is not the nearest neighbour

Rank the terms of the sum the rule minimises and read off which organs the biggest ones belong to. At every falloff exponent from 1.5 to 6 the answer is the same five: lags 13, 8, 5, 21 and 26. The organ placed immediately before is not among them, and counting the neighbourhood in organs was the wrong unit.

mechanism · Noise colour Which rule passes more drift — exponent 1.5 against exponent 6. The same disturbance is given to two placement rules, one with a falloff exponent of 1.5 and one of 6, and the bar counts how many of six seeds let more of it through under the deeper rule. Above the line means the deeper rule passed more. Reading left to right the disturbance is given a longer memory, from white noise to a correlation length of 99 organs. The two change hands: the shallower rule passes more up to a correlation length of 1.4 organs and the deeper one from 2.8 organs onward. The comparison is made seed by seed rather than between two averages, because the spread between seeds at one setting is larger than the difference being measured.

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.

mechanism · Noise colour Removing one wall of the slot, then the other, then both. The growing tip sits in a slot between its two chain-neighbours — the organ 5 places back and the organ 8 places back. Each bar is how far the next organ placed moves when those are removed, against a control sharing the same history. Either alone is a cheap removal: 26.3° and 4.9°, both inside the 45° that separates taking a neighbour from taking anything else. Together they move it 164.1°, against 31.2° for the two effects added, so the interaction is +132.9°. The slot is not two independent walls.

Both walls of the slot

The growing tip sits between its two chain-neighbours. Removing either alone is a cheap removal on all six lattices — 2.3° to 41.7°. Removing both together throws the next organ past the expensive line on three of them, and the interaction runs from −25.8° to +132.9°.

mechanism · Both walls Removing one wall of the slot, then the other, then both. The growing tip sits in a slot between its two chain-neighbours — the organ 5 places back and the organ 8 places back. Each bar is how far the next organ placed moves when those are removed, against a control sharing the same history. Either alone is a cheap removal: 25.8° and 12.0°, both inside the 45° that separates taking a neighbour from taking anything else. Together they move it 12.0°, against 37.7° for the two effects added, so the interaction is -25.8°. The slot is not two independent walls.

A removal that changes nothing

On one of the six lattices, taking away both walls of the slot moves the next organ 11.953125° — which is exactly, to the last digit, what taking away the larger wall alone moves it. The smaller wall's removal contributes nothing at all when the larger one is already gone.

mechanism · Both walls Which hops survive one wall, the other, and both. One row per lattice. The last three columns are the lags whose hop the cut stem still holds, unchanged from a control that shares its history — the measurement that identifies what a wrecked stem has become. Removing a single wall always leaves something standing, which is what every single-organ cut in this collection does. Removing both leaves nothing at all on two of six lattices, including the coarse rung that no single removal can wreck. A stem that keeps no rigid hop is not a wrecked lattice with a slip in it; it is a stem that is no longer a lattice.

The rung that two organs wreck

On the coarse 3/5 stem both walls of the slot heal when removed alone and wreck when removed together — and the wreck keeps no rigid hop at all. Two of the six pairs in the design end at a destination single removals almost never reach.

mechanism · Both walls What removing both walls does that removing each does not. One row per lattice, drawn at the difference between how far the next organ moves when both walls of the slot are removed and how far the two removals move it separately added together. Zero would mean the walls act independently. five of six lattices are more than 10° from it, three above and two below — so the pair is reliably not the sum of its parts and is not reliably larger than it either. On four of them the pair throws the next organ past the 45° that separates a cheap removal from an expensive one, which neither wall alone comes near.

Six lattices were not enough

The interaction between the two walls of a slot came back at −25.8° to +132.9° on six lattices, three above zero and three below, with no ordering by rise, by counted pair or by branch. A quantity that looks free on six rows is usually a quantity that has been sampled at six rows.

mechanism · Both walls Where taking the second wall as well changes nothing. Each row is one lattice, with three marks: how far the next organ moves when the smaller wall alone is removed, when the larger alone is removed, and when both are. On these lattices the third mark sits on the second, to within two steps of the azimuth grid. The smaller wall is free — taking it away as well changes nothing — and on a row like that the interaction is minus the smaller wall's own cost by construction, which is arithmetic and not a measurement. Three of them are the whole of one rung and the others are the fine ends of two more.

When the second wall is free

On six of thirty lattices, removing both walls of the slot costs exactly what removing the larger one alone costs — 35.9° and 35.9°, 12.0° and 12.0°, agreeing to the last digit of the grid the azimuths sit on. The smaller wall is not a wall on those rows.

mechanism · Both walls Five accounts of the sign, on the 24 lattices that are measurements. Each bar is how many of the lattices an account puts on the right side of zero. The six rows where the second wall is free are left out, because their value is minus the first wall's cost by construction and any rule scores whatever it happens to say about them. Position inside the rung, the rise and the branch all fail. The larger counted number sorts 22 of the 24, and the misses are one rung's worth of rows rather than a scatter.

The rung decides the sign

Twenty-four lattices where both walls of the slot are really there. Thirteen give a strongly positive interaction, at 85° to 135°; eleven give a negative or null one, at −25° to −0.5°. Nothing lies between. Every rung's lattices fall on the same side as each other.

mechanism · Both walls The interaction across each rung, coarse end to fine end. One line per rung, drawn against where in the rung each lattice sits — nought at the coarse end, one at the fine end, measured in the logarithm of the rise. The lines are flat. Inside a rung the interaction moves by 3.3 to 13.6 degrees, against a spread of 240 degrees across the ladder, and it falls from the coarse end to the fine one on 6 of the 7 rungs. Position inside a rung was the candidate this design was built to test and it is not what decides the sign.

The exception was already labelled

The larger counted number sorts twenty-two of twenty-four lattices by the sign of their slot interaction. Both misses are on the Lucas 3/4 rung — the one rung a different measurement had already singled out, for reasons with nothing to do with this one.

mechanism · Both walls The deeper rule against the disturbance's memory, at three contact scales. How many of six seeds agree that the deeper rule passed more drift, swept across the correlation length of the disturbance, at three rises. The rule, the amplitude and the run length are identical in every panel; only the rise differs, and with it the contact numbers — 3 and 5, then 5 and 8, then 8 and 13. The shapes are not the same: 3/5 is crossing, 5/8 is no corner, 8/13 is crossing. A corner that sat at a fixed number of organs would look the same in all three, and it does not.

The corner moves with the rise

The corner was either the contact scale or simply any memory at all, and nothing in the thread had ever varied the rise — the one knob that moves the contact numbers while leaving the rule, the amplitude and the run length alone. Swept over it, the comparison does not keep its shape.

emergence · Noise colour Where the deeper rule changes hands, and where it never does. One row per rise, with the contact numbers on the left and what the comparison does on the right. At the coarsest the deeper rule wins at both ends and loses in the middle; at the middle rise it wins throughout; at the finest it crosses once, from losing to winning. The contact scale runs over a factor of 2.6 across these three rises and the behaviour is not a translation of one curve — it is three different curves. That refutes a corner fixed at a short correlation, and it does not by itself establish one that tracks the contacts.

The panel with no corner

Sweeping the rise gave three shapes where one was expected, and the middle one is the informative panel: at the 5/8 contact scale the deeper rule wins at every correlation and there is no crossing to locate. That is either a fact about the lattice or a fact about the pair of exponents, and one measurement separates them.

emergence · Noise colour

Named alongside it

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

MeasurementNegative resultNeighbourhoodThe placement ruleControlHonest limitsLattice offsetClaim testingNearest neighbourParastichy pairRiseAblation

All concepts