Monthly Archives: October 2005

Exposing the ‘fib’ in ‘Fibonacci’

Posted on by
Reply

New Scientist letters: Not so Fibonacci

From Ian Stewart Coventry, Warwickshire, UK:

Gael Mariani and Martin Scott perpetuate a series of myths in their letter about Fibonacci numbers in nature (3 September, p 19). It is true that the Fibonacci numbers are associated with a particular kind of spiral – the logarithmic spiral – and they are also closely associated with the “golden number”, which is roughly 1.6. And the nautilus shell does have the form of a logarithmic spiral.

Unfortunately the correlation ends there, because there are many different logarithmic spirals. In such spirals the space between consecutive windings grows exponentially at a fixed rate, and this rate can be any positive number. The usual “Fibonacci” spiral has a growth rate of about 6.8 – the fourth power of the golden number – whereas that of the nautilus is about 3, meaning it is too tightly wound to be related to Fibonacci. This growth rate is different in different gastropod species.

The spirals in horns have even less to do with Fibonacci. The connection with elephant tusks is pretty much non-existent. The spirals of galaxies are not even logarithmic. In particular, most have two arms winding from the centre, whereas the logarithmic spiral has a single arm.

The connection between Fibonacci numbers, certain spirals, the golden number and the structure of many plants is genuine and increasingly well understood. Most other alleged occurrences of Fibonacci in nature are bogus.

A great example of people getting carried away by an interesting phenomenon.

Fitz did a great cartoon about Fibonacci spirals in snail shells many years ago. I must ask him if he still has a copy—but only maths anoraks will appreciate it.

Talking of obscure mathematical cartoons, see also: Challenge

Phyllis who?

Posted on by
Reply

I think I might be a philistine—and a criminal:

BBC: Literary greats ‘key to English’

A survey of thousands of teachers, pupils, parents, writers and advisers found great support for the classics.

Poet Laureate Andrew Motion said it was a “deep crime” never to have read key Shakespeare works, Paradise Lost or Great Expectations.

I’ve not read Paradise Lost, I’ve only read one of Shakespeare’s so-called comedies (which wasn’t in the least bit funny), and, although I have read Great Expectations, let’s just say it didn’t live up to its name.

I think Andrew Motion is wrong about the Shakespearean stuff. Shakespere wrote plays. Plays are supposed to be watched, not read. Reading A Midsummer Night’s Dream at school was enough to put me off the Immoral Bard for years: You called one of your characters Bottom? Stop it, Bill, you’re killing me! It wasn’t until I got to see an open-air amateur production of A Comedy of Errors (which actually was quite funny), that I finally appreciated how Shakespeare should be experienced. I also won a tea-tray and a bottle of shampoo in the raffle, which was nice.

Can you imagine the fuss Andrew Motion would kick up if people claimed to understand Jane Austen because they had seen the latest film adaptation of Pride & Prejudice? Well then! Horses for courses, and all that. If it’s a novel, read it; if it’s a play, go and see it.

Actually, I might have quite enjoyed Great Expectations, had our English teacher not thrown a wobbly with us for not having read it already. He told us we had two days to cram-read it. How stupid was that? Mind you, I could never get into any other Dickens stuff. His idea of a funny name was on a par with Shakespeare’s: Martin Chuzzlewit, my arse!

No more Mr Nice Guy

Posted on by
4

Genesis 6:

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Say what? Whoa, hang on a second there, LORD! Slight over-reaction, don’t You think? OK, so maybe us men have been a bit naughty, but what have the beasts, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air ever done to you? You’re omnipotent and omniscient, for Your sake! It seems to me You could easily resolve this situation with a little creative problem-solving and a couple of Your “Let there be”s. It took You almost a week to make all that stuff; it’d be a real shame to obliterate it, just because it doesn’t quite live up to Your expectations. Talk about sledgehammers and nuts!

…And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

A boat? You want me to build a boat? You’re taking the piss, right? In Your infinite wisdom, that’s the most practical solution You can come up with: put everything worth saving on a boat, and drown the rest. With all due respect, are You totally fucking nuts?

…or something like that.

The above account of the end of version 1.0 of life on earth is told in an anthology of historical fiction known as The Bible. It’s an international best-seller. In fact, it is the international best-seller, outselling even The da Vinci Code. And, just like The da Vinci Code, many people believe it to contain more than a grain of truth—even the really weird shit about making women out of ribs, and boats big enough to hold live specimens of every species on earth (except the fish, obviously).

I wouldn’t mind if these Bible-literalist saddoes kept their silly ideas to themselves, I really wouldn’t, but that’s not their style, I’m afraid:

Mark 16:15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

They’re only following orders, you see—although I hope even they would balk at preaching to creatures.

Unfortunately, in recent years, these nutters have grown more and more militant. They’ve started claiming that their (as opposed to any other) creation myth should be treated as just as valid as the scientific explanation of how we got here. In some parts of the world—parts that really should know better—it has even got to the stage where concerned parents have had to go to court to protect the teaching of real science in their children’s classrooms.

Now I’m no god or anything silly like that, but it seems to me that, with idiots like these prancing around the planet, version 1.1 of life on earth is heading down the pan as well. So before the LORD goes into a tizzy and takes it into His head to destroy us all again, why don’t we try to sort it out for ourselves this time?

It’s time these ridiculous people learnt the error of their ways.

I have previously gone on record as saying that I won’t get into debates with people who believe in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis—to do so would be to credit them as capable of rational argument—but that doesn’t mean I can’t fight the good fight with all my might. So, from now on, when it comes to creationists, religious fundamentalists and their ilk waging war against science, it’s no to polite debate, it’s no to respecting other people’s viewpoints, and it’s no more Mister Nice Guy! From now on, I’m going to use the most sophisticated weapon in my armoury:

From now on, I’m taking the piss!