Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Fibonacci number. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) from Talk:Fibonacci number. (ARCHIVE FULL) |
||
Line 852:
::Your function seems to get me to -18.1040617 + 24.5918696 i instead of i for some reason. [[User:Robo37|Robo37]] ([[User talk:Robo37|talk]]) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
== Example of Implementation in Programming ==
Seeing as calculation of the Fibonacci Number is a fundamental problem in recursive computer programming, I would find it only appropriate that this page contain at least one example implementation. I feel that many people looking into the Fibonacci Sequence may have some computer background and a quick topic containing some basic code to calculate it, ideally in a functional programming language, would be of great use to them. I would be more than happy to write this up and add it, but as somewhat of a newcomer to the contribution side of Wikipedia I felt it appropriate that I gauge people's feelings on this matter first. Thoughts? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Swat510|Swat510]] ([[User talk:Swat510|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Swat510|contribs]]) 07:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{wikibooks|Fibonacci number program}}
:Thanks for coming here first. [[Fibonacci number#External links]] has the box to the right with a link to a page which was originally a Wikipedia article at [[Fibonacci number program]], but it was transwikied to Wikibooks at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibonacci number program (2 nomination)]]. There are still several examples at [[Recursion (computer science)#Fibonacci]] where it seems more appropriate for the purpose you mention. I have added a link to [[Fibonacci number#See also]]. This seems sufficient for this article which is not suppsed to be about programming. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 14:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
::Ah, nifty. Didn't see that before. I agree the Recursion topic makes more sense.
| |||