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.
A stem that has settled into a lattice, with one organ removed from its recent
history, does one of two things. Usually it repairs: the divergence
wobbles for a few dozen organs and comes back to where it was. Sometimes it does not, and
reading those runs by lags rather than by
neighbours is what says what a wrecked stem
is. Exactly one hop — the angle from an organ to the one p places above
it — is unchanged from the undisturbed control, organ by organ, to within a tenth
of a degree, while the divergence itself swings through eighty. The block of
angles the stem repeats has period p. The stem is one family of the original
lattice, still standing, with everything else rebuilt around it.
That left a question stated in one line and answered in none: which p. The
same lattice cut four places back keeps its five-family and cut six places back
keeps its eight, and nothing on the table predicted that.
Fig. 1 The measurement the question is about. Every lag’s hop in one wrecked stem, with one bar on the floor and the rest at sixty degrees and more.
This essay sweeps the offset across every organ of the
front, at twelve lattices on two branches, and
tabulates the survivor. The answer is not a formula. It is a much shorter list
than anybody had a right to expect — short enough that the two obvious ways to
finish it, by length and by
offset, can both be put to the census and both
fail.
Twelve lattices: eight golden and four Lucas, at
rises from 0.005 to 0.032, carrying counted
pairs of 2/3, 3/5, 4/7, 5/8, 7/11 and 8/13. At each of them
every offset from the tip out to two organs past the front is cut, one organ at a
time, and the resulting stem is compared
with a control that shares its history to the last digit.
Fig. 2 The intervention, drawn at the moment it is made. One organ removed from a settled stem and the rule left to place what comes next against what is left.
Thirty of those offsets never repair. Two of the twelve lattices contribute none
at all — the 3/5 lattice at a rise of 0.032 and the 3/4 Lucas lattice at 0.026
recover from every single removal, at every offset — and they are in the census
for that reason. A table showing only the lattices with an answer would be a
picture of the selection rather than of the sweep.
Fig. 3 The whole census. A row per lattice, a column per offset, and the surviving lag written in the cell. The two empty rows are the lattices no single removal wrecks.Fig. 4 Why the empty rows are not an artefact of the sweep being too short. The fate of a single removal, offset by offset, at three rises: a coarse stem repairs everywhere and a fine one does not.
The sweep also has to be shown to be the whole of the question, and that is
cheap. Past the front nothing wrecks. At the
8/13 lattice the front is thirteen organs deep, and every cut made from sixteen organs back out to forty repairs
without exception. So the offsets the census covers are the offsets that can
produce a wrecked stem at all, and the ones it omits are omitted because there is
nothing there.
Fig. 5 What “the front” means, measured rather than assumed: the run of offsets at which a removal is felt at all, which is the larger of the two counts.
What “rigid” is, and why the threshold is not doing the work #
A claim that one lag holds still while the others do not needs a number for
“holds still”, and the interesting thing about this one is how little it matters
what the number is.
Over the last hundred and twenty organs of a wrecked run, the surviving hop’s
standard deviation is between 0.00° and 0.12°. The steadiest lag that is not a
multiple of it is never under 54°. That is a gap of two and a half orders of
magnitude, and it means any threshold between half a degree and fifty degrees
sorts the census identically. The one in the machinery is half a degree, stated
rather than fitted, because a fitted threshold on a quantity with a gap like that
in it is how a claim gets made true rather than tested.
Fig. 6 The gap, at a second lattice. One bar on the floor, its multiples beside it, and everything else in a band four orders of magnitude above.
The second half of the definition is that the surviving hop has not moved: its
mean sits within three degrees of where the control put it. That matters more
than it looks. A stem could in principle settle into a new lattice with its own
perfectly steady five-hop, and every bar in the figure would look the same. The
shift measurement is what says the family is the one the stem started with, and
across the census it runs from 0.01° to 2.97° against divergences that have moved
by forty-five to a hundred and three.
Fig. 7 Why “unchanged” is not the same as “steady”: the divergence of a wrecked stem is perfectly reproducible and completely different from what it was.
The survivor is one of the two families a counter returns #
Rank every lag of a lattice by how long its step is across the surface of the
stem. The two shortest are the contact families — that is what a contact
family is, and it is what a spiral counter finds when it is shown the positions
and told nothing else.
Fig. 8 One lattice’s hops ordered by the length of their step, with the lags a wrecked stem here leaves standing picked out. The slider walks the ten lattices that wreck.
At twenty-nine of the thirty wrecked offsets the surviving lag is one of those
two. Every survivor in the whole census is a 4, a 5, a 7 or an 8, and each of
them is a contact number of the lattice it came from.
Fig. 9 The quantity the ranking is made on. Each lag’s step measured across the cylinder rather than up the stem, which is the distance the rule itself uses.
That is worth stating carefully, because it is easy to hear as a tautology and it
is not one. The rigid-hop measurement makes no reference to counting: it compares
a wrecked stem with its own control, lag by lag, and reports which lag did not
move. Nothing in it knows what the contact families are. The counting is done by
separate machinery on the positions. The two agree at twenty-nine of thirty, and
they could have disagreed at all of them.
Fig. 10 The counting half of the agreement, done independently. The pair extracted from the angles alone, with no knowledge of what was cut or of which lag stayed still.Fig. 11 And the counting done a third way, on the positions of a head, for the same reason: a claim about which families a rule holds is worth nothing if one instrument produces both halves of it.
The exception is what makes it a claim about hops #
One offset refuses. At the 8/13 lattice with a rise of 0.005, an organ removed six
places back leaves a stem whose rigid lag is four — which is not a contact
number of an 8/13 lattice, is not returned by any counter shown the positions, and
sits thirty-seventh in the length ranking. Its step is 6.82 times the shortest
step on the lattice.
Fig. 12 The exception, drawn the same way as the rest. The bar on the floor is a lag no census would report, and it is as rigid as any of them.
It would be tidier without it, and the tidier version would be false in a way that
mattered. The rule does not hold spiral counts. It holds hops, and a hop is
usually a short one because short steps are what a placement rule can keep
rigid — so the period that comes out is usually a number a botanist would
recognise. When it is not, it still comes out, and the arithmetic of the slip
works exactly as it does everywhere else: four times the change in the divergence
closes on one whole turn.
Fig. 13 Where the exception first showed up, before there was any account of it: the block a wrecked stem repeats, offset by offset, with one cell carrying a period the lattice has no number for.
So the honest form of the result is a strong claim with one flag on it. The
surviving lag is a contact family at twenty-nine of thirty offsets, and at the
thirtieth it is a long hop that no count reports. Both halves are asserted in
the machinery, and a version of the census restricted to lattices where the first
half holds would have quietly lost the second.
The block and the survivor agree at every offset #
There is a second measurement in each of these runs, made by different machinery
and for a different reason, and it is worth reporting that the two now agree
everywhere.
A wrecked stem repeats a fixed sequence of divergence angles — the block —
and its length is found by looking for the shortest period the tail of the run
repeats at, with no reference to hops at all. The rigid-lag measurement compares
two runs organ by organ and reports which lag did not move. In the census here the
block equals the surviving lag at thirty of thirty offsets, with no exceptions.
Fig. 14 The block, measured on its own terms: the shortest period the tail of a wrecked run repeats at, offset by offset, with no hop anywhere in the computation.
The earlier statement of this was eighteen of nineteen, and the one that disagreed
was a case where the period-finder had reported a motif narrower than the azimuth
grid — a constant the grid could not write down rather than an orbit. Widening the
sweep did not weaken the agreement; it removed the only exception, because the
wider census has more offsets whose motifs are unambiguously wide.
Fig. 15 The run the two measurements are made on: a wrecked stem’s divergences after the removal, settling into the motif whose length one instrument reports and whose hop the other one does.
Why a short list of hops is a short list of destinations #
The reason this narrowing is worth having is arithmetic rather than aesthetic.
If a wrecked stem keeps the p-hop rigid, then p times the change in the
divergence is a whole number of turns. The destinations available to a wreck are
therefore the divergence it was cut from, plus 360° divided by p, times a small
whole number. That is the shape of the short list measured
directly: across hundreds of wrecked stems at
one lattice, six settled divergences and no others, with the largest cuts reaching nowhere the smallest had not.
Fig. 16 The short list, measured. Every place a cut of one to five organs sends a stem at one lattice, over more than three hundred wrecked runs.
Before this sweep, “the handful of lags the rule can hold rigid” was a phrase
with no number in it. Now it has one. Across twelve lattices, two branches, six
counted pairs and thirty wrecked offsets, the lags the rule holds are the two
contact families — and once, a long hop. The list of destinations is short
because the list of hops is short, and the list of hops is short because a rule
that minimises a sum of inverse powers of distance is a rule about touching
neighbours.
Fig. 17 What the destinations look like from inside a run: an exactly repeating sequence of divergence angles, at two lattices, rather than a wander or a return.
Three things, and they are worth separating because two of them are the subject of
the next two essays and one of them is a limit.
It does not say which of the two. Both contact families survive somewhere in
the census. The 5/8 lattice keeps its five at some offsets and its eight at
others; the 4/7 keeps its four at some and its seven at others. Which one comes
out is not settled by anything here.
Fig. 18 The offsets in play at one lattice, and how few of them there are. Two of eight single removals never recover, and the surviving family is not the same at both.
It does not say the shortest wins. It would be natural to guess that the
family the rule holds is the shorter of the two — the one whose step is nearest.
Across the census that is true at twelve of thirty offsets and false at the rest.
And it does not extend to larger cuts. A stem with several organs removed can
reach destinations with no rigid lag at all, so “a wreck keeps a hop” is a
statement about single removals until somebody shows otherwise. It has been
measured, and it does not extend.
Fig. 19 The limit, drawn. More organs removed wrecks more arrangements, and past a single removal the description in this essay stops applying to some of what comes out.Fig. 20 The first step past the limit: every arrangement of two organs removed at one lattice, which is where the destinations with no surviving hop start to appear.
The two empty rows are worth a section, because they are the only part of the
census where the answer to “which lag survives” is that the question does not
arise.
At a rise of 0.032 the golden branch carries 3/5, and every one of its seven
offsets recovers. At 0.026 the Lucas branch carries 3/4, and every one of its six
does. Both are cut at every offset out to two organs past the front, both are
compared against controls sharing their histories to the last digit, and in every
case the divergence wobbles for a few dozen organs and comes back.
Fig. 21 The coarse rung’s answer to a single removal, offset by offset: a transient of a few dozen organs and a return, at every offset there is.
That is not the same as saying a coarse stem is undamageable. Two organs removed
from a 3/5 stem wrecks it, and what it settles into is the lattice it came from
wound the other way — an outcome no finer rung reaches. So the coarse rung is
robust to the intervention this census makes and not to a slightly larger one,
which is the ordinary shape of a threshold.
Fig. 22 What it takes to wreck one of the empty rows: two organs rather than one, and the result is a reflection rather than a slip.
It matters here for one reason. A rule about which family survives has to be a
rule about the cases where a family survives, and a census assembled from the
rises that produce survivors would have been a census of its own selection
criterion. The two empty rows cost eleven runs and they are what says the sweep
was over the offsets rather than over the answers.
What has changed is the size of the question rather than the question. Before,
“which lag survives” ranged over every whole number the rule could conceivably
hold. Now it ranges over two, with a stated exception and a stated boundary — and
the two are not arbitrary numbers but the pair that a counter, shown the same
stem and told nothing about the cut, would write down.
Fig. 23 The census again, marked the other way. Shaded cells are the ones where the surviving family is the second-shortest step rather than the shortest, which is the reading the next essay takes apart.
There is a version of this collection’s habit that applies here in an unusual
direction. A result that says “one of two” rather than “this one” is normally a
disappointment. Here it is the finding: the object being described — a stem that
has been damaged and has settled into something that is not what it was — turns
out to have two states available to it and no more, and which of the two it takes
is a separate question with a separate answer. Narrowing the range is the work.
What fills it is next.
Essays that name at least two of the same things, and that neither author linked.
A period that is not a count— both name ablation, counting blind, falsifiability, honest limits, lattice, lattice offset, measurement, nearest neighbour, parastichy pair, rigid hop
Three organs and no mirror— both name ablation, counting blind, falsifiability, honest limits, lattice, measurement, parastichy pair, the placement rule, rise, rung
Two accounts of one number— both name ablation, counting blind, honest limits, lattice, measurement, negative result, parastichy pair, the placement rule, rise, rung
A stem on the other branch— both name ablation, counting blind, honest limits, lattice, measurement, parastichy pair, the placement rule, rise, rung
The block is the count it was cut from— both name ablation, counting blind, honest limits, lattice, measurement, parastichy pair, the placement rule, rise, rung
The organ that guards the second slot— both name ablation, falsifiability, honest limits, lattice offset, measurement, nearest neighbour, parastichy pair, the placement rule, rise