TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Generating Functions and Fibonacci Numbers

24 pointsby MidsizeBlowfishover 11 years ago

4 comments

sigilover 11 years ago
Another way to derive a closed form for the Fibonacci sequence: put the recurrence relation in vector form and solve by finding the eigenvalues. (Which, beautifully, turn out to be the golden ratio and its rational conjugate.)<p><a href="http://mathproofs.blogspot.com/2005/04/nth-term-of-fibonacci-sequence.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;mathproofs.blogspot.com&#x2F;2005&#x2F;04&#x2F;nth-term-of-fibonacci...</a>
评论 #6661302 未加载
domdipover 11 years ago
This is a fun example. The formula&#x27;s easy to prove by induction, but discovering it is less obvious and this is an interesting way.<p>It&#x27;s the tip of the iceberg though - generatingfunctionology is worth inspecting thoroughly.
评论 #6661205 未加载
jordighover 11 years ago
I&#x27;ve always preferred to write Binet&#x27;s formula like this:<p>(phi^n - psi^n)&#x2F;(phi - psi)<p>The only difference is writing the sqrt(5) denominator as phi-psi. The reason being, this exhibits that the Fibonacci numbers are a symmetric function of the roots of a polynomial. Thus, even though phi and psi involve irrational numbers, this symmetric function of them must be in the base rational field, and since the polynomial x^2 - x - 1 is <i>monic</i>, then these are plain integers.<p>This way it looks less surprising that a formula involving irrationals is always rational.<p>To show that the rational is actually an integer, you have to actually perform the division to get<p>phi^n + phi^(n-1) psi + phi^(n-2) psi^2 + ... + psi^n<p>and use the fact that algebraic integers form a ring and the only rational algebraic integers are plain integers.
jkarniover 11 years ago
This is pretty close to Knuth&#x27;s discussion of Fibonacci Numbers in TAOCP. I&#x27;m inclined that&#x27;s where this came from, and that this is missing an attribution.<p>In either case, if you enjoyed this post add one to the &quot;I-should-read-TAOCP&quot; (or &quot;I-should-continue-reading-TAOCP&quot;) tally. I did...
评论 #6661005 未加载
评论 #6660567 未加载