Talk:Fibonacci sequence/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Fibonacci sequence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Citation to Binet's vs. Abraham de Moivre's formula
In paragraph Fibonacci_number#Closed-form_expression citation is needed for disambiguation that closed-form formula was introduces by Abraham de Moivre and not Jacques Philippe Marie Binet. It can be found in the book The_Art_of_Computer_Programming and I think this book should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikicn (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Simple is best
To initially demonstrate the relationship between the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden Ratio, the Kepler solution is clearly the best. It is the simplest, clearest and most obvious therefore the most elegant solution. The other solutions are definitely worthy of mention but they are needlessly complex answers where a direct answer to a very simple question is already available. The Kepler solution should be the first listed followed by the Binet. Wading through the Binet solution only to find the obvious and to the point Kepler solution leads the reader to conclude that he has stumbled upon an Asperger's self stroking fest rather than an encyclopedia.74.178.137.190 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- Editors here are unlikely to take your suggestions seriously if you cannot express them without throwing in gratuitous playground insults. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Identities and combinatorial interpretations
There are two problems with the beginning of the "Identities" section. (1) The first sentence of this section asserts that "Most identities involving Fibonacci numbers draw from combinatorial arguments." This statement sounds subjective; unless reinforced by strong evidence I would remove it. In any case it's irrelevant to the statement of identities. (2) The first identity cannot be proved, as it is the definition. The proper way to handle it is to prove the "interpretation" given (without proof) in the previous section. That should be in a separate section on "Combinatorial interpretations of the Fibonacci numbers". Zaslav (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
1/89
The linked page misleadingly suggests that a certain Cody Birsner discovered the relationship between the series and the fraction, whereas it had been known for a considerable time before. Perhaps it would be better to link to another page, e.g. http://www.goldennumber.net/Number89.htm or http://www.fibonacci.name/1-89.html or http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath108.htm Dadge (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks for pointing this out. I changed it to:
- Köhler, Günter (1985). "Generating functions of Fibonacci-like sequences and decimal expansions of some fractions" (PDF). The Fibonacci Quarterly. 23 (1): 29–35. Retrieved December 31, 2011.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
- Köhler, Günter (1985). "Generating functions of Fibonacci-like sequences and decimal expansions of some fractions" (PDF). The Fibonacci Quarterly. 23 (1): 29–35. Retrieved December 31, 2011.
- which in turn cites some earlier papers from FQ. —Mark Dominus (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
add some formulas and proofs
put the even,odd,odd,even pattern on the article.and proofs.and before you do this:is there a pattern like this?yes or no and why?John kaiser (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- This pattern is mentioned in the section headed "Divisibility properties" and is described more generally in our article on Pisano periods. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)