Why Can't the Sum of Any m Consecutive Fibonacci Numbers Always Be Odd?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pandaren
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the impossibility of the sum of any m consecutive Fibonacci numbers being odd. It is established that for any chosen natural number m, at least one subset of m consecutive Fibonacci numbers will yield an even sum. For instance, with m = 3, the sums of the sets {1, 1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}, and others are all even. The thread seeks a proof to demonstrate that no positive integer m can result in all sums of m consecutive Fibonacci numbers being odd. This mathematical assertion relies on logical reasoning and established principles within number theory.
Pandaren
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Fibonacci numbers are the sequence 1,1,2,3,5,18,13,21... where after the initial two 1's, each number in the sequence is the sum of the previous two. Prove that there is no postive integer m such that the sum of every m consecutive Fibonacci numbers is odd.
Can anyone explain to me what's the underlined part mean? Thanks a lot for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means that if you pick a natural number, m, then taking all the sets of m consecutive fibonacci numbers will always guarantee that the sum of the elements of at least one of those subsets will be even.

For example, if m = 3 then the sets of consecutive fibonaccis would be

{1, 1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}, {2, 3, 5}, {3, 5, 8} and so forth. Respectively, the sums of the elements of these sets are 4, 6, , 10, 16 and so forth. Obviously, when m = 3 the sums will always be even. The question is will that always be the case when m > 3.
 
!The underlined part is asking for a proof that there does not exist a positive integer m such that the sum of every m consecutive Fibonacci numbers is odd. In other words, it is asking for evidence or reasoning to support the statement that it is impossible for there to be a pattern where the sum of any consecutive set of m Fibonacci numbers will always result in an odd number. This is a mathematical concept that can be proven using logical arguments and mathematical principles.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top