Phyllotaxis
the spirals are counted, not admired
Series

Noise colour — the series

15 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. A lattice with independent errors. The autocorrelation of 759 divergence angles from a kinematic lattice at a divergence of 137.8261° and a rise of 0.005, with 0.5° of scatter on each azimuth. There is no placement rule anywhere in it: node i is put at exactly i times the divergence and then displaced. The only thing that differs between this figure and the control is the structure of the displacement — here, independent errors — that earlier work's control at 0.5° of independent scatter. The largest comb mean is 0.029 against a sampling band of 0.073, and the readout refuses.

    A disturbance with a memory

    That earlier work's control assumed that a plant's errors are independent from organ to organ, and nobody had tested it. Give the errors a memory — each one a fraction of the last, up to a coefficient of 0.97 — and the comb does not appear. The obvious threat to the result turns out to be empty, and the algebra says why before the measurement does.

    part 1 · mechanism
  2. A lattice with an error that repeats every 8 organs. The autocorrelation of 759 divergence angles from a kinematic lattice at a divergence of 137.8261° and a rise of 0.005, with 0.5° of scatter on each azimuth. There is no placement rule anywhere in it: node i is put at exactly i times the divergence and then displaced. The only thing that differs between this figure and the control is the structure of the displacement — here, an error that repeats every 8 organs at period 8, weight 0.7. The largest comb mean is 0.592 against a sampling band of 0.073, and the readout returns 8/10.

    A periodicity is not a lattice

    Give a lattice's errors a period of eight and a comb appears at spacing eight, on an arrangement with no rule in it. But the partner it names is 10, then 12, then 11, then nothing — an accident of the disturbance rather than a measurement of the pattern. The forgery is caught by reading a second stem, and by nothing else.

    part 2 · lattices
  3. What a lattice survives depends on the colour of the disturbance, sixfold. five stems for each of seven disturbances at each of six displacements, every stream normalised by its own measured spread so that a displacement of half a degree is half a degree in every row. A filled mark is a stem that still has a lattice — a divergence scatter under 2° — and an open one is a stem that does not. Independent errors survive to 0.5°; errors that remember the last one to 1.5°; errors inherited from the contact neighbours only to 0.25°. The number beside each row is the scatter a protractor would record where the lattice is standing, and it is the quantity that explains the table: what destroys a lattice is not how far an organ moves, but how far it moves relative to the organs it is placed against.

    The disturbance that travels

    If a lattice survives three times the displacement when the organs share it, then a disturbance passed between the organs that actually touch should be the gentlest of all — it is correlated at exactly the offsets the rule places against. It is the harshest. Half the displacement destroys what independent noise leaves standing, and the reason separates two things that had been one.

    part 3 · emergence
  4. Two combs, at a rise of 0.005. The autocorrelation of 760 divergence angles from one stem held at a rise of 0.005. The filled teeth are the lags at multiples of 8; the open teeth are the second comb, at the same spacing offset by 5. Reading the spacing off the first and the offset off the second gives the pair 8 and 13, which is what the position counter reports for the same stem — from angles alone, with no coordinate anywhere in the calculation.

    A disturbance that is not passed on

    The disturbance that forges every observable measured here does two things at once — it correlates an organ's error with its contact neighbours', and it hands that error on to be handed on again. Every result about it has been unable to say which half did the work. This is the control that takes the second half away and keeps the first.

    part 4 · mechanism
  5. Through the rule, the drift survives and the inheritance still does not. How much of a divergence sequence's variance survives being averaged over blocks, on stems the rule grew. The vertical quantity is B² times the variance of the block means divided by the variance of the sequence, which is one at every block size for independent errors — the arithmetic is normalised for a differenced stream, since a divergence is the difference of two organs' errors. A line that climbs is a sequence with power at frequencies below one per block. The disturbances that remember the last error climb to 46 at a block of 64. The ones inherited between touching organs do not climb at all — 1.51 and 1.90 at the same block — although their own deviates carry ×— and ×— an independent stream's variance in exactly this statistic. What they do instead is dig a hole: at block sizes of 8 and 13, which are the offsets they couple at, the statistic falls to 0.06 and 0.12.

    What the rule does to a drift

    A placement rule was supposed to leave no slow wander in a divergence sequence, because its errors are corrections rather than inheritances. Driven by a disturbance that drifts, it leaves a larger one than a lattice with no rule in it at all — while cutting the per-organ scatter by more than half. The rule removes what is relative between neighbours, and a drift is not.

    part 5 · mechanism
  6. The loop bound is not the neighbourhood. The wander a placement rule leaves in its divergences, against how many recently placed organs the rule sums over, at four correlation lengths of the disturbance driving it. The loop runs from 15 organs to 85 and nothing moves: the largest change along any line is smaller than the change between random seeds at one setting. That is the shape a parameter has when it is not binding, and it is the same shape a robust result has, which is why the sweep is drawn with the seed spread rather than reported as a number.

    The window was not the neighbourhood

    A placement rule corrects what is relative between neighbours and passes what moves them all together, so how much of a slow disturbance gets through should depend on how deep the neighbourhood is. The obvious knob is how many organs the rule sums over. Swept across a factor of six, it changes nothing at all — and a parameter that is not binding produces exactly the flat sweep a robust result produces.

    part 6 · mechanism
  7. A deeper rule passes more of a drift, not less. The wander left in a stem's divergences, against how many organs its disturbance stays correlated over, for rules whose neighbourhoods run from 3 organs to 182. The prediction under test said a rule should pass a drift once the drift outlasts its neighbourhood, so the shallow rules should be the leaky ones and each line should turn where its own depth is crossed. Every line rises smoothly and the deepest rule is the highest of them at every correlation length — 82 against 22 at the longest drift. There is no crossover anywhere in the sweep.

    The drift goes the other way

    A rule that corrects what its neighbourhood shares should let through any disturbance slower than its own reach, and should suppress anything faster — a crossover, tracking the depth. Swept over a neighbourhood that changes by a factor of sixty, there is no crossover anywhere, and the deep rule passes nearly four times as much as the shallow one. The prediction is not weakly supported; it is backwards.

    part 7 · mechanism
  8. The wander climbs because its denominator falls. Three quantities across the same sweep of the rule's depth, each divided by its own value for the shallowest rule so that they share an axis. The wander rises by a factor of 3.7 as the neighbourhood goes from 3 organs to 182. The scatter between neighbouring divergences falls by 1.57, because that is the part of a disturbance a placement rule corrects and a deeper rule corrects it better. What is left — how many degrees of slow drift actually reach the divergences — changes by 1.20, from 1.52 to 1.82 degrees. The rule barely filters a drift at any depth.

    What the ratio was hiding

    The statistic that says a rule sharpens a drift rises by a factor of nearly four across a sweep of the rule's depth. Undo the normalisation and ask instead how many degrees of drift actually reach the divergences, and the answer changes by a fifth. Nearly all of the effect was in the denominator, and the denominator is the thing the rule is good at.

    part 8 · mechanism
  9. Four ways to count the rule's neighbourhood, and one ordering. How many organs the placement rule is looking at, as its falloff exponent is swept from 1.5 to 6, by four different definitions. Counting the organs that carry half the profile gives 33, 12, 3, 2, 1. Counting the organs that carry nine tenths gives 182, 120, 30, 8, 3. Counting the organs that carry ninety-nine hundredths gives 284, 263, 149, 54, 9. Counting the organs that carry the weighted mean lag gives 68, 45, 21, 14, 11. They disagree about the size of the neighbourhood by a factor of 10 — the widest moves by 61 times across the sweep and the narrowest by 6.1 — and every one of them falls as the exponent rises. So no choice among them changes which rule is the deeper, and no redefinition can turn a result about the depth around.

    Four ways to count a neighbourhood

    How deep does the placement rule look? Counting the organs that carry nine tenths of its profile gives 182 down to 3 as the falloff steepens. Counting the ones that carry half gives 33 down to 1. The weighted mean lag gives 68 down to 11. The four disagree by an order of magnitude about the size and agree exactly about the order.

    part 9 · mechanism
  10. Four ways to count the rule's neighbourhood, and one ordering. How many organs the placement rule is looking at, as its falloff exponent is swept from 1.5 to 6, by three different definitions. Counting the organs that carry half the profile gives 33, 12, 3, 2, 1. Counting the organs that carry nine tenths gives 182, 120, 30, 8, 3. Counting the organs that carry the weighted mean lag gives 68, 45, 21, 14, 11. They disagree about the size of the neighbourhood by a factor of 10 — the widest moves by 61 times across the sweep and the narrowest by 6.1 — and every one of them falls as the exponent rises. So no choice among them changes which rule is the deeper, and no redefinition can turn a result about the depth around.

    The nearest organ is not the nearest neighbour

    Rank the terms of the sum the rule minimises and read off which organs the biggest ones belong to. At every falloff exponent from 1.5 to 6 the answer is the same five: lags 13, 8, 5, 21 and 26. The organ placed immediately before is not among them, and counting the neighbourhood in organs was the wrong unit.

    part 10 · mechanism
  11. Which rule passes more drift — exponent 1.5 against exponent 6. The same disturbance is given to two placement rules, one with a falloff exponent of 1.5 and one of 6, and the bar counts how many of six seeds let more of it through under the deeper rule. Above the line means the deeper rule passed more. Reading left to right the disturbance is given a longer memory, from white noise to a correlation length of 99 organs. The two change hands: the shallower rule passes more up to a correlation length of 1.4 organs and the deeper one from 2.8 organs onward. The comparison is made seed by seed rather than between two averages, because the spread between seeds at one setting is larger than the difference being measured.

    The corner that does not move

    Read as degrees of drift getting through rather than as a ratio, and compared seed by seed, the deep and shallow rules change hands. The share that goes to the deeper rule climbs from twenty-three per cent under white noise to ninety-four at a correlation length of a hundred organs — and the crossing sits at two or three organs whether the two rules differ by a factor of four or sixty-one.

    part 11 · mechanism
  12. The deeper rule against the disturbance's memory, at three contact scales. How many of six seeds agree that the deeper rule passed more drift, swept across the correlation length of the disturbance, at three rises. The rule, the amplitude and the run length are identical in every panel; only the rise differs, and with it the contact numbers — 3 and 5, then 5 and 8, then 8 and 13. The shapes are not the same: 3/5 is crossing, 5/8 is no corner, 8/13 is crossing. A corner that sat at a fixed number of organs would look the same in all three, and it does not.

    The corner moves with the rise

    The corner was either the contact scale or simply any memory at all, and nothing in the thread had ever varied the rise — the one knob that moves the contact numbers while leaving the rule, the amplitude and the run length alone. Swept over it, the comparison does not keep its shape.

    part 12 · emergence
  13. Every transition as the rise falls. The pair climbs 1/2 → 2/3 → 3/5 → 5/8 → 8/13. Consecutive transitions are 0.381, 0.382, 0.382 of the previous rise — 1/φ² is 0.3820.

    A stem too fine to settle

    Below a rise of about four thousandths the counter stops returning contact families and starts returning pairs like 2/13 and 13/24. Lengthening the stem does not fix it. That is a ceiling on every sweep this collection runs up the ladder, and it has never been written down.

    part 13 · emergence
  14. Where the deeper rule changes hands, and where it never does. One row per rise, with the contact numbers on the left and what the comparison does on the right. At the coarsest the deeper rule wins at both ends and loses in the middle; at the middle rise it wins throughout; at the finest it crosses once, from losing to winning. The contact scale runs over a factor of 2.6 across these three rises and the behaviour is not a translation of one curve — it is three different curves. That refutes a corner fixed at a short correlation, and it does not by itself establish one that tracks the contacts.

    The panel with no corner

    Sweeping the rise gave three shapes where one was expected, and the middle one is the informative panel: at the 5/8 contact scale the deeper rule wins at every correlation and there is no crossing to locate. That is either a fact about the lattice or a fact about the pair of exponents, and one measurement separates them.

    part 14 · emergence
  15. The same comparison at three sizes of disturbance. Each row is one panel: how many of six seeds the deeper rule beats the shallower one on, at six correlation lengths, on the lattice at a rise of 0.013. At the size of jostle the thread used, cells across the middle sit at six of six — the largest number the panel can print — so no feature could have appeared there whatever the lattice did, and the reading that this rise has no corner was a reading of that ceiling. Raised, the cells come down, and at the largest disturbance the panel shows a clean crossing: the deeper rule loses at white noise and takes every seed once the disturbance remembers itself for a few organs. The corner is there, and the flat middle was the instrument.

    Six of six is not a measurement

    A panel comparing two rules seed by seed reported the deeper one winning every one of six seeds at four correlation lengths out of six, and was read as a lattice with no corner in it. Six of six is the largest number the panel can print, so the flat middle was a reading of the ceiling — and raising the disturbance brings a corner out of it.

    part 15 · emergence

All series