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 :() |
|||
| (4 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 on helper functions like '''go''' and '''next''', or are expressed in terms of '''zipWith''', '''scanl''' etc, which
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)
| |||