Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Generator

ratio-across-a-rung

The ratio of the second comb to the main comb, on five stems at each of 15 rises spanning two rungs, against the ladder's own coordinate for where each rise sits inside its rung. Both rungs give the same shape: a floor of 0.71 and 0.79 about two thirds of the way up, climbing towards the transition at either end. The dashed line is a transported disturbance with no rule in it at 1.29, which does not vary with the rise at all — a kinematic lattice's angle sequence has no rise in it. Where the rule's curve crosses that line the two accounts are indistinguishable.
The ratio is a U across every rung, and its floor is the number that was reportedThe ratio of the second comb to the main comb, on five stems at each of 15 rises spanning two rungs, against the ladder's own coordinate for where each rise sits inside its rung. Both rungs give the same shape: a floor of 0.71 and 0.79 about two thirds of the way up, climbing towards the transition at either end. The dashed line is a transported disturbance with no rule in it at 1.29, which does not vary with the rise at all — a kinematic lattice's angle sequence has no rise in it. Where the rule's curve crosses that line the two accounts are indistinguishable.1200.2500.5000.7501where the rise sits in its rung — 0 at the next transition down, 1 at the last onesecond comb ÷ main comb5/8 rung8/13 runga transported disturbance, no rulethe floor, 0.795 stems a point · 1152 azimuthsgenerated from a stated rule, not drawn to look right

Drawn at its defaults, in the ratio, across a rung. It takes no options at all, so every essay calling it gets this exact drawing.

Called by 3 essays

the blast radius of changing it

What a plant might be doing

The ratio was never about the rule

One phase ago the comb was retracted as evidence that a plant computes its pattern, and one quantity was exempted from the retraction: the ratio of the two combs, which a placement rule and a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.

 The claims, measured

The survey loses its second outcome

The specification written one phase ago names three results the survey could return, and the second — a ratio near or above 1.30, read as evidence against the placement rule — is the one that would have been worth publishing. It does not survive this phase. The ratio moves with where the plant sits between two transitions, and it moves again with the colour of the plant's own disturbance.

 Stems and cones

The ratio was the floor of a curve

The last phase left one number standing between a placement rule and a transported disturbance, measured at one rise, with the explanation that the geometry there happens to favour the larger parastichy number. Swept across two rungs the number is a U — a floor of about 0.79 two thirds of the way up a rung, climbing past 2.8 as a transition approaches — and the geometry is flat exactly where the curve is steepest.

All 144 generators