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 344:
Since I cannot edit the page, maybe somebody could put this into the article if you think it's worth it. It's a little confusing, so bear with me. As is stated in the article, every other number, starting with 5 is the largest in a Pythagorean Triple. There is a formula for finding proving that which is c = m^2 + n^2. (See [[Pythagorean Triple]]). m and n are both also in the Fibonacci series consecutively such that their indexes add up to give you the index of the Pythagorean triple. (For example, take 13, which is the 7th number in the series. It's m and n are 2 and 3, which are the 3rd and 4th numbers in the series, and 3 + 4 = 7). I'm not sure if that made sense, but I think that's it's definitely worth trying to fit into the article somehow if it can be worded better.
[[User:Apmcleod|Apmcleod]] ([[User talk:Apmcleod|talk]]) 02:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
== regarding external links ==
can i add my online calculator?
i think it's worth it, considering it's WAY faster than other online calculators (especially the one that was here before), and i don't make any money because there are no ads <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kerio00|Kerio00]] ([[User talk:Kerio00|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kerio00|contribs]]) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:See [[WP:EL]], in general links don't improve articles content does.[[User:TheRingess|TheRingess]] ([[User talk:TheRingess|talk]]) 20:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::I know, but having at least ONE online calculator is useful, IMHO (especially if someone is actually looking for a calculator, but is too lazy to look up on google or dmoz) [[User:Kerio00|Kerio00]] ([[User talk:Kerio00|talk]]) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:::If somebody needs a huge Fibonacci number then they probably already have a mathematical program to compute them, or can easily find what they need. A calculator with no significant information about Fibonacci numbers beyond the article does not appear useful enough for an external link. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::::There's actually an explanation regarding the algorithm, both in mathematical terms and in Python source code, so that would be also nice for coders. [[User:Kerio00|Kerio00]] ([[User talk:Kerio00|talk]]) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
== Composite Fibonacci numbers ==
Under "Fibonacci Primes", the article states, "There are arbitrarily long runs of composite numbers and therefore also of composite Fibonacci numbers." I do not know if there exist arbitrarily long runs of composite Fibonacci numbers, but the reason given is insufficient. There exist arbitrarily long runs of non-Fibonacci numbers, so the existence of arbitrarily long runs of numbers having any given property does not imply the existence of arbitrarily long runs of Fibonacci numbers having that property. If this were so, it would mean there are arbitrarily long runs of Fibonacci numbers which are not Fibonacci numbers, which is not the case. Can someone make this assertion more rigorous? [[User:Trouserman|Trouserman]] ([[User talk:Trouserman|talk]]) 21:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:It is already rigorous. If ''x'' is composite, so is ''F<sub>x</sub>'', as the article already states. ''n''!+2, ''n''!+3, ''n''!+4, ..., ''n''!+''n'' are all composite, so ''F''<sub>''n''!+2</sub>, ''F''<sub>''n''!+3</sub>, ''F''<sub>''n''!+4</sub>, ..., ''F''<sub>''n''!+''n''</sub> are also all composite. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
| |||