Fibonacci Flim Flam
lhup.edu
Fibonacci Flim Flam
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#2I am not much of a mathematician but I know a little about art and photography. Generally this piece was well written and I don't doubt a lot of it. Two comments though:
Using pictures of swimsuit models is a potentially deeply flawed methodology. Photoshop is of course liberally applied to these images and proportions of many aspects (leg length and waist length being perhaps the most germane here) are thus distorted.
In regards to painting and the arts in general, people talk about the rule of thirds or the golden spiral but artists are not so good about sticking to "rules". The general principle may apply but no one is measuring. Remember that engineers designed guitar amplifiers originally not to cause distortion. Everything changed when Link Wray put a pencil through the cone of his cabinet. ;)
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#3[deleted]
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#4Or, if you don't have the patience to give this mumbo-jumbo the benefit of the doubt, just see this: https://xkcd.com/spiral/
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#5I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make.
That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature?
That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature?
That photoshop exists?
That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only?
That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things?
This is written as if it's supposed to be an indictment of sorts, but after reading it, I'm no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature, or the incredible contributions of a man who brought advanced Indian and Arabic math back home to white people who were still using Roman numerals.
Lots of source and good explorations of them, but this did nothing to show me that Fibonacci numbers are, in a general sense, "flim flam."
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#6I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make. That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature? That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature? That photoshop exists? That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only? That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things? This is written as if it's supposed to be…
The point was, I thought, that Fibonacci numbers don't appear in nature, and nor does the golden ratio. Spirals, yes; logarithmic growth patterns, yes; fixed ratios, yes; but Fibonacci... no, not specifically. Did you have an example in mind where you believe the Fibonacci sequence actually does crop up, naturally?
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#7I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make. That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature? That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature? That photoshop exists? That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only? That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things? This is written as if it's supposed to be…
> I'm no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature
Can you name an example of where it occurs?
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#8I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make. That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature? That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature? That photoshop exists? That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only? That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things? This is written as if it's supposed to be…
The point was, I thought, that Fibonacci numbers don't appear in nature, and nor does the golden ratio. Spirals, yes; logarithmic growth patterns, yes; fixed ratios, yes; but Fibonacci... no, not specifically. Did you have an example in mind where you believe the Fibonacci sequence actually does crop up, naturally?
Really? It's like we're reading a different article. The author says several times that, sure, spirals that approximately but predictably implement the golden ratio exist, but so do others.
As if that's supposed to convince the reader of something.
I took this to be the thesis:
> We have noted above that not all spirals in mathematics or in nature are golden spirals. Likewise, spirals can be produced by non-biological processes if the discrete elements which make up the spiral are laid down according to some simple rules. The problem for biologists is to find those rules. Merely asserting that "nature seems to prefer fibonacci numbers" (most of the time, in certain particular cases) isn't an explanation.
If this is the "flim flam" that's being debunked, it's blaspheming a religion with no followers.
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#9I'm not sure what point the author is trying to make. That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature? That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature? That photoshop exists? That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only? That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things? This is written as if it's supposed to be…
> I'm no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature Can you name an example of where it occurs?
...yes, of course. Are you saying that the article claims that there are no examples? Because it doesn't say that.
> "This is one part of nature where the fibonacci sequence and related sequences seem to show up uncommonly often, and it's legitimate to inquire why. The interesting cases are seedheads in plants such as sunflowers, and the bract patterns of pinecones and pineapples."
Reducing seedhead patterns to "one part of nature" is obviously loaded verbage, but even if it weren't, I still don't understand what "flim flam" this is debunking.
Re: Fibonacci Flim Flam
#10I am not much of a mathematician but I know a little about art and photography. Generally this piece was well written and I don't doubt a lot of it. Two comments though: Using pictures of swimsuit models is a potentially deeply flawed methodology. Photoshop is of course liberally applied to these images and proportions of many aspects (leg length and waist length being perhaps the most germane here) are thus distorte…
> Using pictures of swimsuit models is a potentially deeply flawed methodology. Photoshop is of course liberally applied to these images and proportions of many aspects (leg length and waist length being perhaps the most germane here) are thus distorted.
What's the flawed methodology? I understood the author to be making the same point you're making here.