cylinder-round-trip
Drawn at its defaults, in stems, and the ladder. It takes no options at all, so every essay calling it gets this exact drawing.
Called by 6 essays
the blast radius of changing it
Counting up the stem
The same counting machinery, pointed at a stem instead of a seed head, returns one answer three times where the head returned three answers. That contrast is a measurement rather than a preference, and it is the one the whole cylindrical argument rests on.
Stems and conesTwo numbers out of the points
A seed head's divergence angle can be recovered from its spiral counts only to within an interval, because a range of angles gives the same counts. On a stem the counts come with lengths attached, two measurements pin two unknowns, and the lattice comes back to the last digit it was built with.
The pattern itselfCounting without an index
A person counting spirals on a cone puts a finger on one scale, follows a family round, and counts how many distinct chains there are. That needs no order of arrival — and building it turns out to be strictly more general than the counter the site had, and to find a bug in the counting of a bijugate stem that no assertion would have caught.
Where the angle comes fromThe lag that is not there
A pattern built out of its own history should hold its old parastichy pair past the point where a fresh lattice would have changed, and the gap should grow as the shoot is hurried. Over a fifteenfold range of rate it does not — every transition lands within a tenth of a rung of where the static ladder puts it.
Stems and conesTransitions 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.
Stems and conesThe 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.