The placement rule — where it appears
Named by 90 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The noise that arrives through the neighbours
The two kinds of noise this site had were idealisations that bracket the rule's choice. The realistic disturbance is neither: a primordium is placed exactly, and then the organ grows, so by the time the next one forms its neighbours have moved. That is a third kind, and it is invisible in every measurement a plant offers.
A growing organ is part of the rule
Every model in the earlier essays places primordia on a surface and then treats the surface as furniture. But the surface grows between one placement and the next, and that growth reaches the rule through the only channel it has — where the neighbours are. What looks like a boundary condition turns out to be a term in the model.
A pattern with a rate
Every lattice in the essays before this one is a static object indexed by a parameter, and a plant is not. Put the rise on a clock, place each node where the repulsion from the ones below it is least, and the object that comes out has a history — which is the first thing here that could disagree with the ladder.
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 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.
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.
Noise is not a slow rate
A stem seeded on the Lucas branch keeps it below ninety nodes per rung and abandons it above — which invites the objection that a real apex's fluctuations would knock it off regardless. Measured across a hundred and sixty runs of two independent kinds of noise, one escapes, at the amplitude where the pattern is already coming apart.
The organ that was taken away
Every observable this site has is read off an arrangement that was finished before the reading began, and earlier work here showed what that costs. So remove one primordium from a settled stem and place the next one against what is left. The rule has to answer. The rival account cannot, because in it no organ's position was ever computed from its neighbours.
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.
Two-ranked, by two different routes
The rule produces a two-ranked stem at a coarse rise, where 180° is the only thing available, and that has been in the bifurcation diagram since the beginning. It also produces one at a fine rise, at a rise whose own answer is the golden angle, if a single organ is removed. The diagram cannot show the second, and the reason it cannot is how it is drawn.
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.
Where the noise gets in
Ninety runs of noise applied after the rule has chosen, and not one changes branch. Fifty-six of noise applied to the choice itself, and one does. Only a disturbance upstream of the decision can restructure which nodes are neighbours of which — which is what a branch is.
How far a primordium reaches
The placement rule's repulsion falls as an inverse cube because that is what two magnetised droplets do, and nothing about a plant supplies the exponent. Asking what it controls produced one tidy wrong answer and one measured right one — and the difference between them is the difference between a total and a variation.
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.
The exponent that barely matters
An unchecked claim, repeated since the first essays, held that the repulsion's falloff exponent hardly changes the answer. It could not be tested, because the function that would have taken it never passed one down. Tested at last, it is true on a disc — by three and a half degrees across a sixteenfold range — and on a stem it decides whether there is a pattern at all.
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.
A window that makes a pattern
A rule whose energy has no well-defined minimum produces a clean 8/13 lattice at 137.62°, with half a degree of scatter, when its neighbourhood is cut at three node spacings. Let it see twelve and the pattern is gone. Every simulation of this kind truncates something, and truncation manufactures exactly the result it is used to look for.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
An experiment a needle could run
For eight instalments the outstanding item has been a survey — photographs, a protractor, hundreds of specimens — and it has not been done. The intervention is a different kind of ask, and a cheaper one: a needle, one apex, and a yes-or-no per ablation. Here is what it would cost, what it would settle, and the four ways it could come out.
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.
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.
A grown stem halves its ladder
A bijugate stem at 68.754° was derived to pass the ordinary transitions at half their rises, because a lattice wrapped twice round is the ordinary lattice at twice the rise. No bijugate stem had been grown through them. Grown by the same rule that grows an ordinary shoot, stems of two, three and four organs a whorl walk the ordinary ladder with every pair multiplied by the jugacy, change pair at the ordinary rise divided by the jugacy between whorls — and by its square per organ — lag behind the static ladder by the same hundredth of a rung, and settle within three hundredths of a degree of 137.5078 over the jugacy.
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 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.
Which minimum was chosen
The rule takes an argmin, so there are two completely different things noise can do to it: move the answer, or move the question. One of them can change what is chosen and the other cannot, ever — and the difference is exactly zero against one or two placements in a thousand, at amplitudes where every other measurement says the two are identical.
A Lucas seed counts whorls
An ordinary stem seeded on the Lucas lattice keeps that ladder when its rise falls fast and gives it up when it falls slowly, with the edge near ninety nodes a rung. A stem that grows two organs a whorl is an ordinary stem folded twice round, so the identity predicts its edge — once it says whether the edge counts placements or whorls. Grown across the edge, stems of one, two and three organs a whorl keep a Lucas seed to 86.6, 87.6 and 87.9 whorls a rung: one number to within a per cent in whorls, and one, two and three times as far out in organs. No grid moves it and imposing exact whorls moves it not at all, even where free trijugate whorls come apart completely as the seed is lost.
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.
The boundary belongs to the pattern
Three kinds of noise, in three incommensurable units, destroy a lattice at the same place — about a degree and a half of divergence scatter. The earlier work measured that of two kinds and called it a scale rather than a constant. With a third it looks less like a coincidence and more like a property of what a lattice is.
A whorl that misses its share
A whorl of k organs is defined by its symmetry, and the rule that grows one places its members one after another, each against the members already there. Nothing tells it to put them a k-th of a turn apart. Grown that way, whorls of two, four and eight members sit exactly on their shares of the turn at every lattice measured, and whorls of three, five, six and seven do not — the pattern a mirror argument predicts, since only a power of two leaves every new member a position that mirrors every member already placed. A trijugate whorl misses by 6.5° at a coarse rise and not at all at a fine one, by an amount the rise sets almost everywhere, and none of it moves a single transition.
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 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.
A period the grid invented
A wrecked stem was reported as settling into a repeating block of three angles — 219.84°, 220.31°, 220.78° — which is the smaller of its two spiral counts and would have confirmed a standing prediction. Those three numbers are three consecutive samples of the azimuth grid. There is no block; there is a constant the grid cannot write down, and the routine that found the block was working perfectly.
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.
Removing a neighbour costs least
Take away an organ that is a direct chain-neighbour of the growing tip and the next organ moves by under thirty-one degrees. Take away anything else inside the front and it moves by at least sixty-three. Thirty cuts, two groups, a factor of two between them and nothing in the gap.
What the sharing costs a lattice
A disturbance inherited from the contact neighbours destroys a stem's lattice at half the displacement independent noise needs, and it moves the comb ratio a fifth of the way to a forgery's. Take the inheritance out and keep the sharing, and the damage stays and most of the ratio shift goes — so the two effects have different causes.
Two accounts of one number
A stem that never recovers from an ablation settles into a repeating block whose length was the smaller of its two spiral counts, at both arrangements it had been measured at. Two different explanations predicted exactly that and could not be told apart. Swept across four rises on the ordinary branch the premise itself fails: at one arrangement the block is the larger number, at another both appear, and the rule that seemed to be there was two measurements.
What a sample grid decides
The rule takes its minimum over 384 sampled azimuths, and that number has been a constant since this site's first commit. Tripling it changes nothing at the two rises the collection argues from — five runs of five, identical readings — and changes which answer appears at the one rise published as having no answer. A parameter of the program, measured rather than assumed.
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 stem on the other branch
Every stem an organ had been cut from carried Fibonacci counts, which is why two rival explanations of the block a wrecked stem settles into had never disagreed. A stem seeded on the Lucas lattice carries four and seven at the same rise, under the same rule. Cut, it settles on seven — the larger number, and not a Fibonacci one.
The pattern the cut leaves behind
A stem that never recovers from a removal is not disordered. Its divergences settle into a cycle of eight angles and repeat it exactly for the rest of the run, and a counter reading the positions calls the result 8/16 — a two-jugate lattice. The rule has a second attractor at the same growth parameter, and an ablation is how you get to it.
What a cut costs a whorl
A bijugate pattern is an ordinary lattice seen twice over, so the account that says a wrecked stem's repeating block is the repeat unit of the lattice underneath has a specific prediction here: three and five. It gets six and ten. And the thing a single missing organ does destroy on a whorled stem is the one property its counts cannot see.
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.
Seven rises and two seeds
One organ removed from a stem is felt out to the larger of its two spiral counts. Every test of that has confounded the count with the rise, because on one branch the two move together. Grow a second branch beside the first at the same rise and they come apart — and doing it at seven rises turns a matched pair into a design whose last column changes hands four times.
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.
A front with no middle
Take one organ out of a stem and the pattern sometimes never comes back — but that was measured on a front thirteen organs wide, where five of the thirteen offsets are beyond repair. Repeat it on a front of five and every single ablation heals. The band that cannot be undone is not a number the rule carries; it is what two fixed edges leave over.
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°.
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.
The response with a hole in it
Removing an organ is felt out to the larger parastichy number and no further — that is the intervention's headline, and it holds in the middle of a rung. Swept towards a transition the run of felt offsets stops early and one lone offset past it comes alive, with three quiet organs in between. The lone offset is one place inside the count the stem is about to have.
The organ that guards the second slot
An organ twelve places back is the furthest of any from where the next one goes, and removing it moves the next one by a whole divergence. The reason is that the rule's profile has two low points rather than one, the second is the slot after next, and that organ is holding it up. The comparison between what it holds up and how far behind it is decides the whole thing.
The block is the count it was cut from
A stem that never recovers from an ablation settles into a repeating block of eight angles precessing by 22.7°. Eight was also the smaller parastichy number of the lattice that was cut, which left two possibilities and no way to choose between them. Cut a stem one rung coarser and the block is five.
A cut of two organs
One organ removed from a stem is felt out to the larger parastichy number and no further, and at the coarsest arrangement the stem always repairs itself — so the one rung where the interesting prediction could be checked had no experiment that could reach it. Two organs can. The second cut brings a parameter with it, and that parameter turns out to be a control.
The stem that changed hands
A stem that never recovers from an ablation is supposed to end up somewhere worse than it started — a repeating block of angles, a pattern with the wrong counts in it. At the coarsest arrangement it ends up somewhere that is not worse at all: at 220.3125°, which is 360° minus the divergence it was cut from. The lattice is intact and its handedness is reversed.
Two lines that cross once
The divergence at which a lattice's two contact steps are exactly equal is a curve across each rung, computable from the geometry with nothing grown. The rule's own settled divergence is a second, shallower curve, and where they cross is where the step ordering changes hands.
The hop that survived
A stem that never repairs after an organ is removed settles into an exactly repeating block of angles, and the period of that block is a spiral count of the lattice it was cut from. Nobody could say why. Read the wrecked stem by lags rather than by neighbours and the answer is one line: one family of the original lattice is still standing, organ by organ, and the block is its period.
One turn per survivor
If a wrecked stem keeps one family of its old lattice exactly, then the angle it settles at is not free. Over the period of the family that survived, the pattern has to come back to where that family left it — which means the whole change in the divergence is a whole number of turns spread over a small whole number of organs. Measured, it is one turn, at seventeen of nineteen.
Three organs and no mirror
A coarse stem cut of two organs can end up as its own mirror image — the same lattice wound the other way, counts unchanged, handedness reversed. Finer stems never do it, and two accounts of why were on the table: coarseness, or the share of the neighbourhood removed. A three-organ cut at the finer arrangements settles it, and the answer is the first.
The share was not the thing
Two organs out of a front of five reverses a stem's handedness; three out of eight does not, and neither does five out of eight, which is a larger share of a larger neighbourhood. The hypothesis under test was that the dose decides the destination. It decides whether a stem falls off its lattice and nothing about where it lands.
A wreck has a short list
Cuts of one organ through five, over two hundred and forty-six stems that never came back, land on six settled divergences between them. Removing five organs instead of one wrecks nearly everything and reaches nowhere the single cut had not already found — and half the list turns out to be the old lattice slipped by a turn, while the other half is not the old lattice at all.
A survivor has to be a neighbour
A stem that never repairs after a removal keeps exactly one lattice hop rigid, and nothing predicted which one. Sweep every offset at twelve lattices and the answer narrows sharply: at twenty-nine of thirty the surviving hop is one of the two families a counter returns, and the one exception is a step six times too long to be one.
Not the shorter of the two
If a damaged stem keeps one contact family standing, the obvious guess is that it keeps the nearer one. Across thirty wrecked offsets that is true twelve times and false seventeen, and on one lattice the two steps differ by a quarter of a per cent — where the words shorter and longer are doing no work at all.
One offset, two answers
Which contact family a wrecked stem keeps is decided by where the cut landed, at twenty-five of thirty offsets, by the simplest rule anybody would write down. It is refuted by two runs: the same counted pair, the same offset, two different rises, and two different surviving families.
One rung, two answers
The offset accounts for twenty-five wrecked stems of thirty and is refuted by a single pair of runs that differ in nothing but the rise. Sweep one rung at a thousandth and the refutation stops being an anomaly: the same offset on the same lattice keeps one family at the coarse end and the other at the fine one.
The family that lost a member
The offset rule restated in the arrangement predicts that the chain whose organ was taken is the chain that breaks. Scored on the nine offsets where the question can be asked, it is right none of the time and its opposite is right all nine.
The front deepens down a rung
The offsets that never repair grow from one to five across a single rung, while a counter returns the same pair at every rise. The extra offsets are not a random extension of the ones already there: they are the ones past the smaller counted number, and they are the ones that keep the larger family.
The shortest hop was a coin flip
The reading that a wrecked stem keeps its shortest hop was refuted at twelve of twenty-nine across the census. Re-scored along a single rung, where the counted pair is held and the step ordering reverses, it is right at sixteen of thirty-one — which is not a refutation but an absence of information.
The organ that was nobody's neighbour
Twenty-one of the thirty wrecked offsets remove an organ that lies on neither contact chain through the tip. The reading that explains the other nine has nothing to say about them, and the honest thing is to say so rather than to widen the definition until it does.
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.
A stem too fine to settle
Below a rise of about four thousandths the counter stops returning contact families and starts returning pairs like 2/13 and 13/24. Lengthening the stem does not fix it. That is a ceiling on every sweep this collection runs up the ladder, and it has never been written down.
The band was not the sampling
Five rises in the middle of the coarse rung stick on three eighths of a turn, and the ladder that found them is swept at five thousandths — coarse enough that a band of the same kind could sit inside any finer rung unsampled. Swept at a tenth of that across a whole finer rung, nothing locks.
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.
The slide a counter holds constant
Inside one rung the settled divergence moves by more than a degree, monotonically, with no flat stretch anywhere — measured at a thousandth on one rung and at half a ten-thousandth on another. A rung is a plateau in one reported number laid over a geometry that never stops moving.
The ordering was not the actor
Cut an organ out of every rise of a band where the counted pair and the settled divergence are held and the two contact steps change places, and the family left standing does not change. Fifty-five wrecked cuts on two branches, and the ordering reverses underneath every one of them.
The organ that moved furthest
A reading that works on nine of thirty rows needs a reference organ, and the obvious repair is to measure one rather than to choose it. Measured, the disturbance turns out to have no far edge at all, so there is no organ that moved furthest in any sense the reading can use — and the generalisation that does work needs no reference organ.
A wall or a fade
A basin's border is either a change of destination or a stretch where the angles stop settling at all, and nothing here could tell the two apart. Two instruments were pointed at the question: the settling clock, which looked obviously right and fails, and the tail spread, which was already being computed on every run and had never been read.
A steeper rule walls nowhere else
The account of the wall at the fine end was that the basin narrows because the neighbourhood deepens, which predicts a steeper falloff walling somewhere else. Grown at four exponents, the four columns settle 30, 31, 29 and 27 of 72 — a spread of 0.056 against an error of 0.058.
The clock a share cannot see
Settling takes nothing to 290 organs, and four rounds of this collection have carried that as a property of the rule. At a steeper falloff the slowest is 808 — and not one of the 72 pairs of runs settles at 3,200 organs after failing at 1,200, so the fine end is still a wall.
Destinations only a steep rule reaches
A settled stem's divergence is the sharpest instrument in the sweep and the cheapest: it is already in every run, it does not average, and it is read on one grid at every exponent. Exponents 4 and 5 reach 42.3°, 47.9° and 148.1°, and the two shallower ones reach none of them.
A counter on the settling table
The settling table has reported an angle for every run that reaches a lattice, and nobody has ever counted one. A hundred and seventeen settled runs, regrown and counted: every one of them has a parastichy pair, and sixty-five of them land on sequences the ladder does not carry.
What a steep rule counts as
Exponents four and five settle stems on 42.3°, 47.9° and 148.1°, and the two shallower ones reach none of them. All three count: 8/9, 8/15 and 2/5. None is a rung of either ladder, and one of them is the coarsest rung of a sequence the table already had.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
MeasurementHonest limitsParastichy pairDivergence angleRiseLatticeNegative resultNoiseAblationRungEnsembleEquilibrium