It is very surprising that distributions such as Fibonacci and the powers of two follow this law. Some number sequences that don't are numbers like pi and e. These numbers are said to be normal numbers, meaning they have an equal distribution amongst all digits. However, this hasn't been rigorously proven and is still an open problem.[1]
The distribution of the digits of pi and e is not the same as the distribution of first digits in a set of numbers; only the second is subject to Benford's Law. While both normal numbers and Benford's Law are interesting mathematical objects and deal with distributions of digits in a number, that is the complete extent to which they are related.
Just about any distribution where the distance between sequential numbers grows as the numbers grow will follow the law. Fibonacci and powers of two both fit that.
I worked at a hedge fund and we used this to figure out whether other funds were falsifying their returns or not. The most notable deviation was Bernie Madoff's.
Benford's law is so well known today, that many a "forger" will evade it easily. One way is to create random numbers and find a solution that fits both your goal and Benford's law.
I think this is what the German ADAC did when they falsified test results around a general "idea" what they wanted to see.
> [I]t has to do with relative growth/shrinkage and the base of the positional-numbering system you're using. If you have a random starting value (X) multiplied by a second random factor (Y), most of the time the result will start with a one.
> You're basically throwing darts at logarithmic graph paper! The area covered by squares which "start with 1" is larger than the area covered by square which "start with 9".
Assume stars are distributed roughly evenly in space. This is not true about the overall universe, they're clumped in galaxies, but fine for the dataset we're explaining, which maxes out at 3000 light-years from Earth.
Approximate the galaxy as a flat plane. This isn't a bad approximation since it's much flatter than it is wide.
Which stars are at a given distance D from earth? Those that lie on a circle of radius D centered at earth. But that count is just going to be proportional to the radius (circumference = 2pi times radius). So the count of stars does follow a power-law distribution, and that power is 1. There are KD stars at distance D, where K is a constant proportional to the overall density of stars in our neighborhood.
(I'm glossing over the fact that a circle is infinitely thin and stars are finite in number and so any given circle will probably have 0 stars on it.)
If you instead model the galaxy as a sphere, you get the same sort of result: count(stars) at distance D is proportional to the surface area of a sphere of radius D, 4pi*D^2. Still a power law. (The galaxy is about 1000 ly thick though, according to Wikipedia, and the data go out to 3000ly. So a sphere is probably not great here.)
Here's my explanation : assuming random distribution, the probability of finding a star at a given distance is proportional to the area of the sphere having that radius. So it follows a square law.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think any function with an increasing rate of change (ie. second derivative > 0) will yield a distribution with the same ordering of digits as Benford's if random numbers are taken from it.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2005/01/13/float...