Talk:Fibonacci sequence/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:47, 30 March 2011

Revision as of 05:49, 2 May 2011

Line 551:

:It gets too large for a regular calculator ({{#expr:((1+5^.5)/2)^100/5^.5}}), but with pen and paper it may be nice for a rainy day.--[[User:Patrick|Patrick]] ([[User talk:Patrick|talk]]) 14:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

== A matter of style ==

In the article we have: "the (n + 2)'''nd''' Fibonacci number". Why "nd"? Is it because it's preceded by a "2"? To stop people saying "n plus tooth"? I think "th" is better.

But the article isn't consistent: lower down we have: "we consider the (n + 1)'''th''' summand". To be consistent it would say: "(n + 1)st". I think "th" is better.

Show of hands for an edit? Change "(n + 2)nd" to "(n + 2)th"?

[[User:AstroWiki|R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK)]] ([[User talk:AstroWiki|talk]]) 14:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the two-letter suffix is "stretching" the usage too far. I'd say that a more-elaborate construction is better.

(Fwiw, I was employed as an editor for a couple of years, and had very few copy-edit changes to what I typed.) [[User:Nikevich|Nikevich]] ([[User talk:Nikevich|talk]]) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

== Contradicting Connotations? ==

In the "In nature" section, there seem to be some balancing problems in the first paragraph:

"Fibonacci sequences appear in biological settings, [various examples of the sequence in nature]. In addition, numerous poorly substantiated claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature are found in popular sources..."

The use of "In addition" and "poorly" is slightly awkward and contradictory. I'd recommend something like "There are numerous claims of Fibonacci numbers or golden sections in nature, although many are poorly substantiated." Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/174.91.190.188|174.91.190.188]] ([[User talk:174.91.190.188|talk]]) 03:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

:Okay with me. —[[User:Dominus|Mark Dominus]] ([[User talk:Dominus|talk]]) 04:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)