3 ms·
I've been doing it like that as well for years. Most people you explain it (replace the number with a sum of fibonacci numbers, and for each one, take the next)
by toolslive 7y ago
I've been doing it like that as well for years. Most people you explain it (replace the number with a sum of fibonacci numbers, and for each one, take the next)
to come back with "but it becomes less accurate for larger numbers, right?". After you say "hm, no!" there's a pause, and then the penny drops: Golden ratio!
Anyway, I can't remember where I learned it.
- edflsafoiewq 7y agoIt's better for large numbers since the asymptotic property dominates. It's questionable for small numbers since then the effect of the initial condition dominates. For example, the tweet's argument works the same way for the Fibonacci sequence that goes 1,3,4,7,11,... but obviously that gives different numbers.
- DerekL 7y agoBy the way, those are called the Lucas numbers.