listen; there's a hell of a good universe next door: let's go.
•
• go there

Typography geek? If you like the geometry and mathematics of these posters, you may enjoy something more lettered. Visions of type: Type Peep Show: The Private Curves of Letters posters.

Numbers are a lot of fun. They can start conversations—the interesting number paradox is a party favourite: every number must be interesting because the first number that wasn't would be very interesting! Of course, in the wrong company they can just as easily end conversations.

The art here is my attempt at transforming famous numbers in mathematics into pretty visual forms, start some of these conversations and awaken emotions for mathematics—other than dislike and confusion

Numerology is bogus, but art based on numbers can be beautiful. Proclus got it right when he said (as quoted by M. Kline in *Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times*)

Wherever there is number, there is beauty.

The consequence of the interesting number paradox is that all numbers are interesting. But some are more interesting than others—how Orwellian!

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

—George Orwell (Animal Farm)

Numbers such as `pi` (or `tau` if you're a revolutionary), `phi`, `e`, `i = \sqrt{-1}`, and `0` have captivated imagination. Chances are at least one of them appears in the next physics equation you come across.

π φ e

= 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 ... = 1.61803 39887 49894 84820 45868 34365 63811 77203 09179 ... = 2.71828 18284 59045 23536 02874 71352 66249 77572 47093 ...

Of these three transcendental numbers, `\pi` (3.14159265...) is the most well known. It is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (`d = \pi r`) and appears in the formula for the area of the circle (`a = \pi r^2`).

The Golden Ratio (`\phi`, 1.61803398...) is the attractive proportion of values `a > b` that satisfy `{a+b}/2 = a/b`, which solves to `a/b = {1 + \sqrt{5}}/2`.

The last of the three numbers, `e` (2.71828182...) is Euler's number and also known as the base of the natural logarithm. It, too, can be defined geometrically—it is the unique real number, `e`, for which the function `f(x) = e^x` has a tangent of slope 1 at `x=0`. Like `\pi`, `e` appears throughout mathematics. For example, `e` is central in the expression for the normal distribution as well as the definition of entropy. And if you've ever heard of someone talking about log plots ... well, there's `e` again!

Two of these numbers can be seen together in mathematics' most beautiful equation, the Euler identity: `e^{i pi} = -1`. The tau-oists would argue that this is even prettier: `e^{i tau} = 1`.

These three numbers have the curious property that they are almost Pythagorean. In other words, if they are made into sides of a triangle, the triangle is nearly a right-angled triangle (89.1°).

Did you notice how the 13th digit of all three numbers is the same (9)? This accidental similarity generates its own number—the Accidental Similarity Number (ASN).

It is not yet known whether the digits of π are normal—determining this is an important problem in mathematics. In other words, is the distribution of digit frequencies in π uniform? Do each of the digits 0–9 appear exactly 1/10th of the time, does every two-digit string appear exactly 1/100th of the time and so on for every finite-length string^{1}?

^{1} One interesting finite-length string is the 6-digit Fenyman Point (...999999...) which appears at digit 762 in π. The Feynman Point was the subject of 2014 `pi` Day art.

This question can be posed for different representations of π—in different bases. The distribution frequencies of 1/10, 1/100, and so on above refer to the representation of π in base 10. This is the way we're used to seeing numbers. However, if π is encoded as binary (base 2), would all the digits in 11.00100100001111... be normal? The table below shows the first several digits of π in each base from 2 to 16, as well as the natural logarithm base, `e`.

base, `b` | `pi_b` | base, `b` | `pi_b` |

2 | 11.00100100001111 | 10 | 3.14159265358979 |

3 | 10.01021101222201 | 11 | 3.16150702865A48 |

4 | 3.02100333122220 | 12 | 3.184809493B9186 |

5 | 3.03232214303343 | 13 | 3.1AC1049052A2C7 |

6 | 3.05033005141512 | 14 | 3.1DA75CDA813752 |

7 | 3.06636514320361 | 15 | 3.21CD1DC46C2B7A |

8 | 3.11037552421026 | 16 | 3.243F6A8885A300 |

`e` | 10.10100202000211 | ||

source: virtuescience.com |

Because the digits in the numbers are essentially random (this is a conjecture), the essence of the art is based on randomness.

A vexing consequence of π being normal is that, because it is non-terminating, π would contain *all* patterns. Any word you might think of, encoded into numbers in any way, would appear infinitely many times. The entire works of Shakespeare, too. As well, all his plays in which each sentence is reversed, or has one spelling mistake, or two! In fact, you would eventually find π within π, but only if you have infinite patience.

This is why any attempts to use the digits of `pi` to infer meaning about anything is ridiculous. The exact opposite of what you find is also in `pi`.

A number can be normal in one base, but another. For example, Stoneham's constant,

`\alpha_{2,3} = 1/2 + 1/(2^{3^1} 3^1) + 1/(2^{3^2} 3^2) + 1/(2^{3^3} 3^3) + ... + 1/(2^{3^k} 3^k) + ... `

is 0.54188368083150298507... in base 10 and 0.100010101011100011100011100... in base 2.

Stoneham's constant is provably normal in base 2. In some other bases, such 6, Stoneham's constant is provably not normal.

Some of the numerical art reveals interesting and unexpected observations. For example, the sequence 999999 in π at digit 762 called the Feynman Point. Or that if you calculate π to 13,099,586 digits you will find love.

Celebrate `pi` Day (March 14th) with splitting its digit endlessly. This year I use a treemap approach to encode the digits in the style of Piet Mondrian.

The art has been featured in Ana Swanson's Wonkblog article at the Washington Post—10 Stunning Images Show The Beauty Hidden in `pi`.

I also have art from 2013 `pi` Day and 2014 `pi` Day.

The split plot design originated in agriculture, where applying some factors on a small scale is more difficult than others. For example, it's harder to cost-effectively irrigate a small piece of land than a large one. These differences are also present in biological experiments. For example, temperature and housing conditions are easier to vary for groups of animals than for individuals.

The split plot design is an expansion on the concept of blocking—all split plot designs include at least one randomized complete block design. The split plot design is also useful for cases where one wants to increase the sensitivity in one factor (sub-plot) more than another (whole plot).

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2015) Points of Significance: Split Plot Design *Nature Methods* **12**:165-166.

1. Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Designing Comparative Experiments *Nature Methods* **11**:597-598.

2. Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and blocking *Nature Methods* **11**:699-700.

3. Blainey, P., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Replication *Nature Methods* **11**:879-880.

In an audience of 8 men and 8 women, chances are 50% that at least one has some degree of color blindness^{1}. When encoding information or designing content, use colors that is color-blind safe.

Nature Methods has announced the launch of a new statistics collection for biologists.

As part of that collection, announced that the entire Points of Significance collection is now open access.

This is great news for educators—the column can now be freely distributed in classrooms.

I've posted a writeup about the design and redesign process behind the figures in our Nature Methods Points of Significance column.

I have selected several figures from our past columns and show how they evolved from their draft to published versions.

Clarity, concision and space constraints—we have only 3.4" of horizontal space— all have to be balanced for a figure to be effective.

It's nearly impossible to find case studies of scientific articles (or figures) through the editing and review process. Nobody wants to show their drafts. With this writeup I hope to add to this space and encourage others to reveal their process. Students love this. See whether you agree with my decisions!

Past columns have described experimental designs that mitigate the effect of variation: random assignment, blocking and replication.

The goal of these designs is to observe a reproducible effect that can be due only to the treatment, avoiding confounding and bias. Simultaneously, to sample enough variability to estimate how much we expect the effect to differ if the measurements are repeated with similar but not identical samples (replicates).

We need to distinguish between sources of variation that are nuisance factors in our goal to measure mean biological effects from those that are required to assess how much effects vary in the population.

Altman, N. & Krzywinski, M. (2014) Points of Significance: Two Factor Designs *Nature Methods* **11**:5-6.

1. Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Designing Comparative Experiments *Nature Methods* **11**:597-598.

2. Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and blocking *Nature Methods* **11**:699-700.

3. Blainey, P., Krzywinski, M. & Altman, N. (2014) Points of Significance: Replication *Nature Methods* **11**:879-880.