4 ms·
I did - with 2: fib(2) = fib(2-1) + fib(2-2) fib(2) = fib(1) + fib(0) fib(2) = 1 + 1 (rather than 1 + 0) No?
by amouat 16y ago
I did - with 2:
fib(2) = fib(2-1) + fib(2-2)
fib(2) = fib(1) + fib(0)
fib(2) = 1 + 1 (rather than 1 + 0)
No?
- amouat 16y agoIt's definitely wrong - just ran it in python to check in case I was missing something!
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jpd 16y agoI don't think it's explicitly wrong; I've seen both fib(0) = 1 and fib(0) = 0 before. Wikipedia shows: By definition, the first two Fibonacci numbers are 0 and 1, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two. Some sources omit the initial 0, instead beginning the sequence with two 1s.
- amouat 16y agoI think it's still wrong by that definition. I think it is just saying fib(1) is the first number, not fib(0). fib(2) should never be 2. EDIT: Actually, I think you're right: it's just an index thing (do we start at 1 or 0) - I was confusing the index of 2 with the value of 2.
- VMG 16y agoYou are right, the difference is that the one sequence is " 0 1 1 2 3 5 ... " while the other is " 1 1 2 3 5 ..." - so it is just shifted by one. The interesting properties of the sequence still remain.