Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Series

Exponent — the series

6 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The exponent fitted from the junctions, rather than assumed. Sweeping k and asking where r₀ᵏ = Σ rᵢᵏ holds best gives 3.000 — Murray's 3, recovered rather than imposed.

    Fitting the exponent

    Assuming the exponent is three and reporting the error says how far the data is from that assumption. Fitting the exponent and reporting what it comes out as says what the network is doing — and an estimator has to be shown returning something other than three, or it is not a fit.

    part 3 · branching
  2. 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.

    Which junctions say anything

    Da Vinci's rule and Murray's law differ by 12% at an even fork and by a tenth of a per cent at a twig. So one even fork settles which is right, and two thousand twigs do not — a factor of two thousand across a tree, decided entirely by the shape of the junction and not by how carefully it is measured.

    part 4 · branching
  3. 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.

    part 5 · branching
  4. A tree built at an exponent of 3, measured band by band. Six bands of daughter ratio, 300 junctions in each, all from trees built at an exponent of exactly 3 with the same 2% measurement error. The median implied exponent falls from 3.00 at an even fork to 1.58 at a twig, and the share of junctions that have any exponent at all falls from 100% to 53% over the same range. The rule across the top is a single fit over 200 junctions spanning the whole range: 2.85. A mixed sample is safe because least squares already weights by leverage — 42% of it sits in the most symmetric band and 0.06% in the twigs. The sample that is not safe is the one a person can reach.

    The band decides the answer

    A fit over a whole tree's junctions returns the exponent the tree was built at, even though most of its junctions are from bands that on their own return 1.6. Least squares is already weighting by leverage. The dangerous sample is not the mixed one — it is the one a person can reach.

    part 6 · branching
  5. The settling share at every rise, sampled two ways. How often a stem reaches a lattice, against the rise, at each of the four falloff exponents. The horizontal rule is the half share the wall is read at. At nine starting angles the four exponents cross it at rises spanning a factor of 1.96 and order themselves 2, 5, 3, 4; at twenty they span a factor of 1.18 and order themselves 5, 4, 2, 3. The ordering reverses and the spread collapses, so the conclusion that the exponents do not separate is confirmed and the numbers that had suggested otherwise were the coarser sampling's own error.

    A wall that stopped moving

    Four falloff exponents were reported not to move the rise below which stems stop reaching a lattice. Their measured walls spanned a factor of two and ordered themselves 2, 5, 3, 4. At twenty starting angles they span a fifth of one and order themselves 5, 4, 2, 3 — so the conclusion was right and its arithmetic was noise.

    part 7 · emergence
  6. The settling share against the rise, at 40 starting angles. One line per falloff exponent: how many of the 40 starting angles still reach a lattice at each rise, coarse on the left. The wall is where a line crosses a half, and the shaded band is the range of rises consistent with that crossing at one standard error — from the finest rise whose share is confidently above a half to the coarsest whose share is confidently below it. Every one of those bands is wider than the factor of 1.62 the four walls differ by, and at exponents 4 and 5 no rise in the table has a share confidently above a half at all.

    A wall that was never measured

    Three samplings of the starting angle give three orderings of the four falloff exponents' walls and a spread that does not shrink, while every error bar behind them halves. The reason is that a wall is a crossing of a nearly flat curve, and nobody had asked how well it is located.

    part 8 · emergence

All series