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 274:
:
[[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
== Plot ==
There are errors in this:
[[Image:Fibonacci Sequence Plot.PNG|thumb]]
[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick|talk]]) 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
: Errors fixed. Thankyou[[User:Sarindam7|sarindam7]] ([[User talk:Sarindam7|talk]]) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
::There were still errors and poor features. I have removed the plot.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fibonacci_number&diff=232581956&oldid=232580834] [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 00:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
== Identity? ==
[[Image:Fibonacci identity.jpg|thumb|An identity?]]I had a somewhat quick breeze through the article and the talk page archives and I couldn't find this mentioned anywhere (see picture). The sums of the diagonals shown are equivalent to the next number in the sequence minus one. I haven't got around to finding a proof for it yet, though :-(.--[[User:Steven Weston|Steven Weston]] ([[User talk:Steven Weston|talk]]) 09:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, it was a very simple matter of proof by induction. Unless anyone is against it, I might put it in the identities section within the next week.--[[User:Steven Weston|Steven Weston]] ([[User talk:Steven Weston|talk]]) 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::It's acceptable in the article if you have a source for it; otherwise it's [[WP:Original Research]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::[[Image:Fibonacci_spiral.png|thumb|left|300px|A [[proof without words]]. [[User:Gandalf61|Gandalf61]] ([[User talk:Gandalf61|talk]]) 15:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)]]
<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
::I can see how "original research" exists in medicine and other sciences, but when something like this is as basic as 2+2, I see no gain in hiding people from an interesting and verifiable truth, which can be sourced simply and directly from the very axioms of mathematics. A child could verify this logic, whereas I can see how a supposed discovery of some new elementary particle could be classed as original research. I can also see original research in some obscure theorem in the far reaches of group theory. But, if it so pleases the bureaucracy, we could ask the [[Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard|No original research noticeboard]]. If they decree that it is, I guess someone will have to find someone else's original research that will say exactly the same. Furthermore, Gandalf61's proof without words may actually need some words, or an animation...--[[User:Steven Weston|Steven Weston]] ([[User talk:Steven Weston|talk]]) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:In this case it's not original research, anyway. It's the second and third formulas in the book "Fibonacci Numbers" by Mircea Martin. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you. Glad this is resolved. If no-one puts it up by Monday, I'll do it then. Though I don't have the book, so if someone can source it after I'm done, that'd be appreciated.--[[User:Steven Weston|Steven Weston]] ([[User talk:Steven Weston|talk]]) 00:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::[http://books.google.com/books?id=uVE_LiXbSpoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Mircea+Martin%22+intitle:Fibonacci&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=SON_SI7_NoeOswOWsPXhDw&sig=ACfU3U0cUSZE6xzpxxbByphFOR7gdad0RQ Here is the book]. You'll need to find the page... [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
| |||