Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Fibonacci number. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Fibonacci number. |
||
Line 258:
I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fibonacci_number&diff=204392272&oldid=204387467 fixed an error] in the proof of the third identity. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
== Fibonacci Name ==
I have always known these specific numbers as the Fibonacci Sequence. I was surprised to find them named Fibonacci Number. Does anyone now if Fibonacci Number is the exact name? Or which name would be more recognizable?
WebberTakito 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:They are both common. I currently get 208000 Google hits on [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Fibonacci+sequence%22 "Fibonacci sequence"] and 249000 on [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Fibonacci+numbers%22 "Fibonacci numbers"]. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
== AfD of popular culture article ==
This article links to [[Fibonacci numbers in popular culture]]. That article has been nominated for deletion. If such deleteion were to happen, this present article would be effected in two ways: (1) that link to be deleted; (2) an abbreviated popular culture section would probably get added to this article. I think the culture article is probably worth keeping but needs improvement, and probably best kept as a separate article. Here are some thoughts I put on the AfD page and on the culture article's talk page:
:
: The topic is notable for this reason: allusions to the Fibonacci numbers in writing or speaking on virtually any subject are widely understood.
:
: Now the fact is, many of the items now listed on this page are not sufficiently notable to be a topic in an encyclopedia. That shouldn't matter here, since it is not necessary for individual instances of a mode of allusion to be notable in order for them to illustrate that the allusion itself is notable. But I think priority should be given to examples that do illustrate that.
:
[[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
| |||