Need help w/ Fibonnaci and Golden Ratio proof

billy2908
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Let F_n and F_n+1 be successive Fibonnaci numbers. Then |(F_n+1)/(F_n) - Phi | < 1/(2(F_n)^2)

Where Phi is the Golden ratio.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just use the formula for nth fibonacci number.
 
It's not that simple. I tried fracturing it many times but every time it just seem to leave to the same result.
 
Remember that the nth Fibonacci number is:

F_n = \frac {1} {\sqrt{5}} \left [ \phi^n - \left ( \frac {-1}{\phi}\right)^n\right]

and you can multiply Fn2 through your equation:

\left | F_{n+1} \times F_{n} - \phi \times F^2_n \right | &lt; \frac {1}{2}

What happens when you set the whole equation to terms of \phi?

Note that for the first 3 Fibonacci numbers: 0,1,1 the formula doesn't work. Additionally, as we get deeper into the Fibonacci sequence, F_n as n \to \infty, what does \left | F_{n+1} \times F_{n} - \phi \times F^2_n \right | approach? hint: you might see the value first for a specific very low n
 
Last edited:
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top