Talk:Random Fibonacci sequence: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:17, 28 April 2004

Latest revision as of 04:02, 9 March 2024

(8 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Mathematics}}

}}

I removed the following text from the article:

:the ratio of the absolute values of successive terms converges to the value of the constant

Line 4 ⟶ 7:

I replaced the above text with the definition from Viswanath's paper. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 23:17, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

== Is the definition correct? ==

Mathworld (see references) defines the random Fibonacci sequence as

<math>a_n = \pm a_{n-1} \pm a_{n-2} </math>

with +/- sign in front of the two terms. The definition in the main article has only one +/-.

[[User:TomyDuby|TomyDuby]] ([[User talk:TomyDuby|talk]]) 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:Yep, you're right. I checked against Viswanath's article, and he does the same. A bit unfortunate, in my opinion, because it just complicates the definition without making much difference. But we better follow the source, so I changed the article. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] ([[User talk:Jitse Niesen|talk]]) 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the latest "recursive" definition change, is that it implies that one should drop or change some of the true signs, since the formula of 4, is actually a reduced form of all 8 possible operations.

For example when a negative number is subtracted, it can be reduced to merely addition ofcourse.

However "recursively" that sequence will be different, if that negative number remains a reduced postive number upon recursion.

Anyways, I think it was inappropriate and/or inacurate to change this wikipedia definition from 1/2 probability to 1/4, instead of a more precise 1/8.

[[User:Primedivine|Primedivine]] ([[User talk:Primedivine|talk]]) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

== Significance ==

The second paragraph of this section appears to be meaningless speculation (rabbits ''preying'' on each other?), whereas only the first 2 sentences of the first paragraph are relevant to the article, and need to be highlighted sooner, as they provide a theoretical underpinning for exponential growth of the sequence. Is there any reason why the section has been preserved virtually in its original form for so long? [[User:Arcfrk|Arcfrk]] ([[User talk:Arcfrk|talk]]) 02:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

: Fixed it. [[User:Arcfrk|Arcfrk]] ([[User talk:Arcfrk|talk]]) 05:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)