Talk:Fibonacci sequence: Difference between revisions
→Alternative: Thanks - you caught the what I hope is one of the last of *many* formulae with Gerard accidentally made invisible :(
(→Alternative: Thanks - you caught the what I hope is one of the last of *many* formulae with Gerard accidentally made invisible :() |
|||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 51:
<!-- Sorry for the "changing" of someone's comment, but I couldn't read the original formula, so I though an enlarged version would be beneficial to everyone. --- Gerard Schildberger. -->
Fibonacci sequence can also be calculated using this formula.
Size of the floating-point type (float, double, long double etc..) will limit how high n can be calulated.
Line 207:
Hi [[User:WillNess|WillNess]] , I notice that the ('''fibonacci by folding''') Haskell example has just been moved under the heading 'Iterative'. I wonder if that doesn't risk confusing a little, or even possibly misleading ?
Folds are implemented recursively (either directly or indirectly) in the Prelude, and are generally understood as 'recursion schemes' in the sense of
I also notice that other examples which have ended up in the 'Iteration' section might risk compounding a reader's confusion – they are either implemented by direct and immediate recursion
Perhaps 'iteration' is not quite the clearest or best
[[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 19:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I would argue that if we need to subdivide, then the main distinction here is '''memoising vs not memoising'''. If we feel a need to subdivide further, and perhaps capture something like the category now labelled "Iterative", then perhaps what we really mean here is closer to ''direct and indirect recursion'' ? [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 19:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
|