Talk:Fibonacci sequence

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fibonacci sequence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 3 months

Mathematics B‑class High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Template:WPGoldenRatio

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

13 Popular Culture [[1]]

No mention here of the popular culture that exists in the Stock Trading business, Economics, Mysticism and other parts of the culture that are continually on the look out for Fibonacci Numbers in any series - it is because it is a "Natural" Series. Just look at the external links to see just how wide spread and deeply influential in popular culture this series is.

True or False??

True or false: It has been proven that 149 is the largest prime Tribonacci number.

regarding external links

can i add my online calculator? i think it's worth it, considering it's WAY faster than other online calculators (especially the one that was here before), and i don't make any money because there are no ads —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerio00 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL, in general links don't improve articles content does.TheRingess (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but having at least ONE online calculator is useful, IMHO (especially if someone is actually looking for a calculator, but is too lazy to look up on google or dmoz) Kerio00 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody needs a huge Fibonacci number then they probably already have a mathematical program to compute them, or can easily find what they need. A calculator with no significant information about Fibonacci numbers beyond the article does not appear useful enough for an external link. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually an explanation regarding the algorithm, both in mathematical terms and in Python source code, so that would be also nice for coders. Kerio00 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Fibonacci numbers

Under "Fibonacci Primes", the article states, "There are arbitrarily long runs of composite numbers and therefore also of composite Fibonacci numbers." I do not know if there exist arbitrarily long runs of composite Fibonacci numbers, but the reason given is insufficient. There exist arbitrarily long runs of non-Fibonacci numbers, so the existence of arbitrarily long runs of numbers having any given property does not imply the existence of arbitrarily long runs of Fibonacci numbers having that property. If this were so, it would mean there are arbitrarily long runs of Fibonacci numbers which are not Fibonacci numbers, which is not the case. Can someone make this assertion more rigorous? Trouserman (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is already rigorous. If x is composite, so is F_x, as the article already states. n!+2, n!+3, n!+4, ..., n!+n are all composite, so F_n!+2, F_n!+3, F_n!+4, ..., F_n!+n are also all composite. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

The rabbit population example is inconsistently presented: first the rule is that every pair has two pairs of offspring and then dies, but then the recursive relation is justified in terms of rabbit fertility. Both schemes (two offspring pairs then death vs. offspring every month from the second month on) give rise to the same sequence, but the presentation should not mix both. Should I fix this? 139.19.84.14 (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recognizing

1st way to recognize it listed in the article makes no sence at all, it is just as good as table look-up or, if no table is available, re-computing all the numbers up to z from scratch. 95.132.178.230 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]