Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Concept

Selection — where it appears

The exclusion of observations on a criterion related to the quantity being estimated, which displaces the estimate rather than widening it. Fibonacci counts are more likely to be recorded than the exceptions, so a literature frequency is not a population frequency.

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

The uninformative sample does not say so — it says something else. Above: how many junctions of a given asymmetry it takes to distinguish an exponent of 3 from an exponent of 2, at 2% measurement error on each radius. An even fork needs one; a junction whose small daughter is a twentieth of the large one needs 2195. Below: 50 junctions from each end of the range, on a synthetic tree built at exactly 3. The even forks return 3.01; the twigs return 1.69, with an interval no wider — because 47% of them measure as a parent thinner than its own larger daughter, and dropping those keeps only the half where the noise ran the right way.

A sample that is confidently wrong

Fifty lopsided junctions from a tree built at an exponent of exactly 3 return 1.7, with an interval that excludes 3 and excludes 2 as well. The sample carrying almost no information does not give a wide answer — it gives a narrow wrong one, and the cause is a selection nobody applies on purpose.

branching · Exponent One junction's bias moves 1.36-fold across the range its leverage moves 308,352-fold, at an exponent of 3. The bias a single junction of daughter ratio γ contributes to a least-squares fit, as a multiple of the squared measurement error, drawn against the leverage that junction carries — both computed from the expansion about a true exponent of 3 rather than fitted to anything. Across the whole range from an even fork to a twentieth the bias moves by a factor of 1.36 and the leverage by a factor of 308,352, and the uninformative junction contributes the larger share: 6.00σ² at γ = 0.05 against 4.50σ² at an even fork.

The fragile junctions are the informative ones

That is the obvious worry once the radii are uncertain, and it is false. Across the whole range of asymmetry a junction's contribution to the bias moves by a factor of 1.36 while its leverage moves by a factor of 308,352, so the junction that says nothing damages the answer as badly as the one that says everything — and a sample is spoiled by counting rather than by weight.

branching · Exponent error 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 Which family survives, along the 5/8 rung. The family a wrecked stem keeps, at every offset that wrecks and every rise on one rung. A counter shown any of these stems returns 5 and 8 spirals, at all twelve rises, so nothing in the pair distinguishes the columns. The cells say otherwise: at an offset of 4 the stem keeps the 5-family at the coarse end of the rung and the other one at the fine end. The offsets that wreck at all grow from 1 to 5 as the rise falls, because the front deepens, and the extra offsets are the ones that keep the larger number. So the rule stated over the offset alone is a rule with the rise left out of it.

One rise per rung is a sample

Every census on this site takes one rise from each rung, because the question was always which pair. Any rule later scored on those rows inherits a variable that was never varied — and two of this collection's results turn out to be about the sampling as much as about the rule.

emergence · Survey spec

Named alongside it

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

Summary statisticBiasBranching exponentMeasurementSamplingDa Vinci's ruleHonest limitsMurray's lawSample sizeSpecimenSurveyAllometry

All concepts