Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Broadback wrote:
> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
> but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
> bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
> short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
> pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
> with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
> border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Beauty, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder, and what "looks best"
is a very subjective decision. If you have a severely modern house and
straight paths, then a rectangular bed may be more appropriate, or you
may feel that something curved would relax the visual tension better.

For many years we have been advised to avoid straight edges to beds,
serpentine curves and the like being much admired.

That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out by
putting two sticks in at the "foci" and using a fixed length of rope
round the two pins and the moving marker. Your two standards could go
at the two focus points The classical ratio for length to width would
be the golden section, 1:1.618 .

If you want to get /very/ serious about proportion, you need to
consider from where the elliptical form would be viewed - from standing
close or far off, or from an upstairs window, and re-calculate on the
basis of foreshortening and inclination. But I wouldn't bother.

Peg some sheets of newspaper out in the shape you envisage, to see how
well it fits in with what you already have, and to get an idea for how
much room you will have at the ends for access etc.

Get some graph paper (it's printed with squares like a grid)...consider each
square to be a foot squared or 6 inches depending on the size of your
garden, then measure your garden (length width and any
features...sheds....trees...ponds...odd shapes...etc) and draw out the
measurements onto the graph paper, I would do a couple of these, therefore
you can look at different positions and shapes for your design, it's not
hard to do and when youv'e got the templates done you can have hours of fun
re-designing your garden without any costly mistakes. a surveyors measuring
tape will come in handy (click below)

http://www.toolfinder.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2 8_31&products_id=453&osCsid=4e9c037df7317bb4ff370372 60e4eb5f

Some canes and string is also essential for making curved edges and
eliptical shapes.


--

Regards
p.mc


<robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1151414567.591499.276870 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Broadback wrote:
>> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>> but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
>> bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
>> short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
>> pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses
>> with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good
>> border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?
>
> Beauty, as ever, is in the eye of the beholder, and what "looks best"
> is a very subjective decision. If you have a severely modern house and
> straight paths, then a rectangular bed may be more appropriate, or you
> may feel that something curved would relax the visual tension better.
>
> For many years we have been advised to avoid straight edges to beds,
> serpentine curves and the like being much admired.
>
> That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out by
> putting two sticks in at the "foci" and using a fixed length of rope
> round the two pins and the moving marker. Your two standards could go
> at the two focus points The classical ratio for length to width would
> be the golden section, 1:1.618 .
>
> If you want to get /very/ serious about proportion, you need to
> consider from where the elliptical form would be viewed - from standing
> close or far off, or from an upstairs window, and re-calculate on the
> basis of foreshortening and inclination. But I wouldn't bother.
>
> Peg some sheets of newspaper out in the shape you envisage, to see how
> well it fits in with what you already have, and to get an idea for how
> much room you will have at the ends for access etc.
>

"Broadback" <wen [at] towill.plus.com> wrote in message
news:4gco4eF1k8ma6U1 [at] individual.net...
> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens but
> lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed, what
> would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
> best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
> eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses with Hybrid teas
> around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good border, or would a
> miniature box hedge look better?

Depends on the size of your garden, the aspect, the elevation, view from the
kitchen window etc etc :~))

Stake out the shape and fill lightly with sand to see how it looks. You can
brush it into the lawn when you have the shape sorted.

Think about underplanting with something evergreen to give winter interest.
Rose beds are very bare in winter.
Jenny

Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
>bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular
>short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1
>pleasing to the eye?

Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
if I remember rightly.

>As for planting I am thinking of 2 standard roses with Hybrid teas
>around them. Then would dwarf patio roses make a good border, or would
>a miniature box hedge look better?

Dwarf lavender hedge?
--
Kay

"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens but
>>lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed, what
>>would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
>>best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
>>eye?
>
> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
> if I remember rightly.

The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
expense).

> --
> Kay

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>
>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens but
>>>lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed, what
>>>would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
>>>best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
>>>eye?
>>
>> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
>> if I remember rightly.
>
>The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
>Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
>expense).
>
Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the
rhs and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no
use to man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.

And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
--
Kay

"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:W2oCNBGwBboEFw6z [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>
>>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>>>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>>>>but
>>>>lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
>>>>what
>>>>would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
>>>>best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
>>>>eye?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
>>> if I remember rightly.
>>
>>The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
>>Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
>>expense).
>>
> Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the rhs
> and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
> man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.
>
> And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
> --
> Kay

0.618 is the solution which is also part of the Golden rule thing. I only
got that from Googling Fibonacci:-)

e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
God:-)

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
> e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
(except it isn't)

The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
and two are integers.

<robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1151475530.573235.293090 [at] y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
>> e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
> Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity
>
> Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
> but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
> that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
> (except it isn't)
>
> The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
> and two are integers.
>
Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
was it the Theoretical chemists:-)

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
> <robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1151475530.573235.293090 [at] y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> > Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
> >> e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
> > Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity
> >
> > Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
> > but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
> > that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
> > (except it isn't)
> >
> > The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
> > and two are integers.
> >
> Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
> was it the Theoretical chemists:-)

I just love it when people do this: makes me feel I'm mixing with the
intellectual aristocracy. Some of the Americans in alt.usage.english
are awe-inspiring with number theory and such-like: why wasn't I taught
real maths as a kid?

--
Mike.

Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk [at] yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
>Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
>> <robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:1151475530.573235.293090 [at] y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>> > Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
>> >> e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
>> > Euler's Idenity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity
>> >
>> > Extraordinary, linking five of the most fundamental numbers in maths,
>> > but a proof of God? Can't see it myself. It might just be a proof
>> > that mathematics is an unbounded, closed, non-involute manifold.
>> > (except it isn't)
>> >
>> > The astonishing thing is that two of the numbers are transcendental,
>> > and two are integers.
>> >
>> Agreed. It was the religious mathematicians that claimed "A God" thingy, or
>> was it the Theoretical chemists:-)
>
>I just love it when people do this: makes me feel I'm mixing with the
>intellectual aristocracy. Some of the Americans in alt.usage.english
>are awe-inspiring with number theory and such-like: why wasn't I taught
>real maths as a kid?
>
It's sad. Unfortunately 'sums' and arithmetic are of more immediate use
in counting your change and reading bus timetables, so that is what is
taught. GCSE does have more interesting topics than O-level (now we no
longer have to be adept in multi-base arithmetic (counting in 4s, 12s
and 20s in the same sum for example) and can use logarithms sensibly
instead of as an aid to multiplication). But it's A-level where things
start to become interesting (and easier, being application of concepts
rather than rote learning) and degree level even more so. Then when you
reach my age, you've forgotten the lot and just have a memory of
something beautiful that you once knew ;-)
--
Kay

"Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>
>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:W2oCNBGwBboEFw6z [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>>
>>>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>>>>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>>>>>but
>>>>>lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
>>>>>what
>>>>>would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short ends
>>>>>best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to the
>>>>>eye?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by 2
>>>> if I remember rightly.
>>>
>>>The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
>>>Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at vast
>>>expense).
>>>
>> Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the rhs
>> and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
>> man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.
>>
>> And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
>> --
>> Kay
>
>0.618 is the solution which is also part of the Golden rule thing.

Golden rule thing is that if you take a rectangle whose sides are 1 and
1+a, then chop off a 1 x 1 square from one end, the remaining piece is a
rectangle whose sides are in the same ration as the rectangle you
started with. That's where the equation comes from. You're right, the
solution is a=.618, which means the long side of the original rectangle
is 1.618.

> I only
>got that from Googling Fibonacci:-)

So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
successive terms tends to .618?

For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up
all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
so:
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....

and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction
then counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you
two successive terms of the Fibonacci series.
>
>e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
>substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
>Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
>God:-)
>
>

--
Kay

"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VrRSanEWrmoEFwqL [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>
>>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:W2oCNBGwBboEFw6z [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>>>>>Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>>>>>>but
>>>>>>lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
>>>>>>what
>>>>>>would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short
>>>>>>ends
>>>>>>best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>eye?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by
>>>>> 2
>>>>> if I remember rightly.
>>>>
>>>>The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
>>>>Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at
>>>>vast
>>>>expense).
>>>>
>>> Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the
>>> rhs
>>> and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
>>> man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.
>>>
>>> And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
>>> --
>>> Kay
>>
>><snip>

> So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
> successive terms tends to .618?
>

That's good enough for me and is explained here
http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibna t.html#golden

> For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up

> all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
> so:
> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....
>
> and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
> cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction then
> counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you two
> successive terms of the Fibonacci series.



> Kay

Rupert (W.Yorkshire) wrote:
> "K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:VrRSanEWrmoEFwqL [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>> "K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:W2oCNBGwBboEFw6z [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>>> "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)" <reply [at] newsgroups.com> writes
>>>>> "K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:73+ZtAEoMaoEFwPd [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>>>>>> Broadback <wen [at] towill.plus.com> writes
>>>>>>> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose bed,
>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>> would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with circular short
>>>>>>> ends
>>>>>>> best? Also what proportion of length to breadth, is 2:1 pleasing to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> eye?
>>>>>> Shouldn't the Golden Ratio come in here? (Square root of 5) divided by
>>>>>> 2
>>>>>> if I remember rightly.
>>>>> The answer is about 1.6 so summat is wrong. Looked it up (1+sqrt5)/2.
>>>>> Architect man spent ages wiffling away about this to me last week (at
>>>>> vast
>>>>> expense).
>>>>>
>>>> Yep. It's the solution to a = 1/(1+a). Keep substituting for a in the
>>>> rhs
>>>> and you get the 'continued fraction 1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+....))). Of no use to
>>>> man nor beast but a pretty mathematical form.
>>>>
>>>> And doesn't the Fibonacci series link into this somehow too?
>>>> --
>>>> Kay
>>> <snip>
>
>> So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
>> successive terms tends to .618?
>>
>
> That's good enough for me and is explained here
> http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibna t.html#golden
>
>> For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up
>
>> all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
>> so:
>> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....
>>
>> and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
>> cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction then
>> counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you two
>> successive terms of the Fibonacci series.
>
>
>
>> Kay
>
>
Thank you all for your help and useful suggestions.

In article <1151414567.591499.276870 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
robertharvey [at] my-deja.com writes
>
>That said, an ellipse is a very classical form, and easily laid out

My first thought is "will I be able to mow the lawn easily with this
shape?"

Some shapes look good but for practical purposes the grass cutting
becomes a nightmare of twists and turns, so whatever you end up with
make sure especially if you enjoy stripy lawn, that you can mow and
balance up the stripes properly.

Janet

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

Broadback wrote:
> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
> but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
> bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
> circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
> is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
> standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
> roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?

Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
will see is the lawn space around it.

From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.

The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best

pk

On 30/6/06 11:30, in article 0fmdnR6wQor5YDnZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d [at] bt.com, "p.k."
<pgkaddy-groups [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

> Broadback wrote:
>> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>> but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
>> bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
>> circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
>> is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
>> standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
>> roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?
>
> Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
> will see is the lawn space around it.
>
> From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
> rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
> and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.
>
> The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
> the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
> If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best
>
I don't wish to be the doomer and gloomer here but I don't know where the OP
is thinking of siting this bed. If it's visible from e.g. his living room
windows, they're going to be looking at a lot of naked sticks for much of
the year, until the roses come into leaf and then flower. Therefore, I'd
suggest that whatever shape is chosen, a lowish evergreen hedge is planted
which will give some colour to the eye and draw it away from the nakedness
going on in the centre of the bed.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(email address on website)

Sacha wrote:
> On 30/6/06 11:30, in article 0fmdnR6wQor5YDnZnZ2dnUVZ8smdnZ2d [at] bt.com, "p.k."
> <pgkaddy-groups [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Broadback wrote:
>>> Not being an artistic sort of chap, I can admire well designed gardens
>>> but lack the vision to design them. I am planning on an island rose
>>> bed, what would be a pleasing shape, is an oval or oblong with
>>> circular short ends best? Also what proportion of length to breadth,
>>> is 2:1 pleasing to the eye? As for planting I am thinking of 2
>>> standard roses with Hybrid teas around them. Then would dwarf patio
>>> roses make a good border, or would a miniature box hedge look better?
>> Remember, when planted you will no longer see the shape of the bed. What you
>> will see is the lawn space around it.
>>
>> From a design point of view, design the spaces you will see and plant the
>> rest. The mistake we all make at the start is to do it the other way round
>> and end up with random strip and lumps of lawn that make no sense.
>>
>> The formal oval or formal ellipse are only likely to work in a garden where
>> the rest is also geometric and then best if central.
>> If the rest is informal, an irregular offset kidney shape would be best
>>
> I don't wish to be the doomer and gloomer here but I don't know where the OP
> is thinking of siting this bed. If it's visible from e.g. his living room
> windows, they're going to be looking at a lot of naked sticks for much of
> the year, until the roses come into leaf and then flower. Therefore, I'd
> suggest that whatever shape is chosen, a lowish evergreen hedge is planted
> which will give some colour to the eye and draw it away from the nakedness
> going on in the centre of the bed.
I'm always torn between trying to be short or possibly giving too much
information. It will be seen from the house, the "lawn" is not very good
as there is no topsoil. The total area is large so I thought a bed of
roses, I will have to dig, well pickaxe actually out and import top
soil. As the house looks down on the area I thought that the shape
would be seen. I take on board the "dead" Winter, so perhaps I will
plant a very low box hedge around the perimeter and not patio roses as I
first thought. though nakedness going on in the centre of the bed
sounds interesting! ;-)

Mike Lyle wrote:
> why wasn't I taught real maths as a kid?

I don't understand that either. I bet loads of 7-year olds would be
turned on by the idea of old Euler teaching himself by chalking on
gravestones, or the discovies of Srinivasa Ramanujan in basic
arithmetic. I suspect that the problem is that people are taught by
teachers, not mathematicians.

I had a similar experience with Chemistry. they spent 3 years teaching
me random reactions, then suddenly told us of old Dmitri Mendeleev and
his periodic table, which let you work out in advance how things might
react from other things you knew. Then when I thought I'd peeped
behind the curtain at last, it was 2 years before I found out about the
physics of electron orbitals, which was a closer look at why it worked.

It was as though I had to repeat, in my own lifetime, all the stumbling
through fog that mankind had done, before discovering the wonderful
inner secrets. Just telling us the underlying mechanism first was
somehow cheating.

So we are taught long division, or methods of multiplying fractions
parrot fashion, by people who learned them parrot fashion. Any kid
that gets a clue as to /why/ the method works, and adapts it for
themselves is not regarded as clever, but as wrong. "That's not the
way it is done", they are told. Never "This is how it works".

I was lucky. My father taught me to multiply by legitimate discard, I
met a student teacher when I was 8 who bothered to explain some of the
properties of 9, including why the digits of multiples of 9 add up to
9. But for the vast majority of people they never, ever, get to hear
any real maths at school - except Pythagoras' theorem. I can tell
tales based around that bit of maths that will keep you enthralled for
hours, and have seen people use it in the most extraordinary places.
But our kids plod through it without enthusiasm, becuse no-one ever
shows any enthusiasm when they are presenting it.

It's not just sad, it's a form of child abuse in my opinion. Failing
to tell them one of the most wonderful stories we have ever learned.

<robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1151690792.353475.133300 [at] 75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>> why wasn't I taught real maths as a kid?
>
> I don't understand that either. I bet loads of 7-year olds would be
> turned on by the idea of old Euler teaching himself by chalking on
> gravestones, or the discovies of Srinivasa Ramanujan in basic
> arithmetic. I suspect that the problem is that people are taught by
> teachers, not mathematicians.

Indeed and mine had very bad breath..............I never asked questions
when i didn't understand to avoid him leaning over me !

> So we are taught long division, or methods of multiplying fractions
> parrot fashion, by people who learned them parrot fashion. Any kid
> that gets a clue as to /why/ the method works, and adapts it for
> themselves is not regarded as clever, but as wrong. "That's not the
> way it is done", they are told. Never "This is how it works".

Then my father would ry to help me with my homework.......he'd learnt a
totally differnt system for doing things and we would have huge fights about
it..........stopped asking j=him in the end too.

> It's not just sad, it's a form of child abuse in my opinion. Failing
> to tell them one of the most wonderful stories we have ever learned.

True, but I still have a career in computers :~))))
Jenny

K wrote:
> So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
> successive terms tends to .618?

Nothing so simple. There is a formula by Jacques Binet which lets you
calculate the n-th Fibonacci number directly rather than by itteration,
based on raising the golden ratio to the power of n. In its own way it
is nearly as remarkable as the Euler identity we started with, as there
is no obvious reason why the two are related. They appear to share
some hidden scaffolding round the back of the universe, one of the best
reasons for stydying maths.


Binet is another of those imortals produced by the Ecole Polytechnique
in Paris. The whole history of 20th century technology appears to
depend on that group of mathematicians (Fourier, Dirac, etc) from the
E-P, of whome Binet is just another.

A friend of mine describes theoretical mathematicians as "mad
toolmakers". They produce shelf after shelf of bizzare contraptions,
with jaws and teeth and ratchets and clamps and wheels in seemingly
pointles juxtaposition. Then, usually a couple of hundred years later,
someone comes into the the shop looking for something to "hold this
just here and twist it like that", and on the shelf somewhere is a
dusty old thing that will do it perfectly.

Broadback wrote:
>. As the house looks down on the area I thought that
> the shape would be seen.

That is then a valid reason for having a "shape", but still think about the
spaces around the bed and how they work when you are in them.

pk

<robertharvey [at] my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1151733184.453889.71500 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>K wrote:
>> So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
>> successive terms tends to .618?
>
> Nothing so simple. There is a formula by Jacques Binet which lets you
> calculate the n-th Fibonacci number directly rather than by itteration,
> based on raising the golden ratio to the power of n. In its own way it
> is nearly as remarkable as the Euler identity we started with, as there
> is no obvious reason why the two are related. They appear to share
> some hidden scaffolding round the back of the universe, one of the best
> reasons for stydying maths.
>
>
> Binet is another of those imortals produced by the Ecole Polytechnique
> in Paris. The whole history of 20th century technology appears to
> depend on that group of mathematicians (Fourier, Dirac, etc) from the
> E-P, of whome Binet is just another.
>
> A friend of mine describes theoretical mathematicians as "mad
> toolmakers". They produce shelf after shelf of bizzare contraptions,
> with jaws and teeth and ratchets and clamps and wheels in seemingly
> pointles juxtaposition. Then, usually a couple of hundred years later,
> someone comes into the the shop looking for something to "hold this
> just here and twist it like that", and on the shelf somewhere is a
> dusty old thing that will do it perfectly.
>

I know some of them "mad toolmakers" they are called theoretical chemists.
When you track down their background you find they were mathematicians or
physicists who suddenly saw the light and decided Chemistry is fun.

"K" <k [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VrRSanEWrmoEFwqL [at] scarboro.demon.co.uk...
>
> So what exactly is the link to Fibonacci - is it that the ratio of
> successive terms tends to .618?
>
> For those who think we are drifting OT - the Fibonacci series turns up
> all over nature. Each term is the sum of the two previous, starting 0 1,
> so:
> 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 35 56 91 ....
>
> and whenever you see a set of spirals - sunflower, that spirally
> cauliflower, cacti, fircones - counting the spirals in one direction
> then counting the spirals in the direction crossing the first, gives you
> two successive terms of the Fibonacci series.
> >
> >e to the power i (pie) = -1 where i = sqrt -1
> >substitute j for i (if you are younger than me)
> >Also a bit of useless information but could explain the existence of a
> >God:-)
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kay



The number of petals found on most flowers are Fabonacci numbers.
Douady and Couder produced an explanation for such botanical
arrangements - specifically in terms of phyllotaxy - in the 1990's.

http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/comment.htm

5th paragraph down starting with "Apparently".

What it probably boils down to is that 3D geometry means these
are the most efficient packing arrangements and so plants exhibiting
these traits will have a selective advantage. Or that surviving
plant species will exhibit the most efficient arrangement of
parts.




michael adams

....