Content deleted Content added
→Complementary?: Reply |
→Removing the OEIS number: new section |
||
Line 109:
::I find this terminology confusing, because it conflicts with the meaning of complementary in e.g. [[Lambek–Moser theorem]], where sequences are complementary when every positive integer belongs to exactly one of them. Moreover, its explanation cannot be found in [[Lucas sequence]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 17:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree. However, if there are reliable sources showing that "complementary" is a standard term here, it must be kept and defined in [[Lucas sequence]]. Otherwise, I suggest to replace it with "associated". [[User:D.Lazard|D.Lazard]] ([[User talk:D.Lazard|talk]]) 07:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
== Removing the OEIS number ==
Someone added the OEIS sequence number after the initial introduction of the series. I feel this is a kind of category error - WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the real world, not a kind of index to various works of administration. Supremely, the Fibonacci sequence is what it is defined to be, where each term is the sum of the two preceding terms. Everyone agrees on (at least this part of) the definition, and it stands above anyone's attempt to catalogue sequences, however valuable this attempt (OEIS) is. It reminds me of people who think that any character (such as a numeral digit 1) requires a list of all the ways it might be represented in Unicode. [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] ([[User talk:Imaginatorium|talk]]) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
| |||