Talk:Pisano period: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
Let call pisano, the Pisano period (pisano(2) = 3).
Let call pisano, the Pisano period (pisano(2) = 3).
Confused me anyway. I grok π(2)==3 (as one of many) from the wikipedia page, but not entirely sure what the wordage should be here. How about
Confused me anyway. I grok π(2)==3 (as one of many) from the wikipedia page, but not entirely sure what the wordage should be here. How about
Let pisano(n) denote the Pisano period (e.g. pisano(2) is 3). --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 03:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Let pisano(n) denote the Pisano period (e.g. pisano(2) is 3).
--[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 03:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
:Much improved, thanks. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 12:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at trying to clarify the task header a bit. It seems better to me but opinions may differ --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 13:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
:I re-introduced coprime and mentioned prime factorisation as they are mentioned on the wp page and seem to be an important part of the calculation. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we must start from 1 to 180 instead of 2 to 180. The clarifications are well done. --[[User:Blek|Blek]] ([[User talk:Blek|talk]]) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:16, 4 March 2020

Unclear, needs rewording

 Let call pisano, the Pisano period (pisano(2) = 3).

Confused me anyway. I grok π(2)==3 (as one of many) from the wikipedia page, but not entirely sure what the wordage should be here. How about

 Let pisano(n) denote the Pisano period (e.g. pisano(2) is 3).

--Pete Lomax (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks. --Pete Lomax (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab at trying to clarify the task header a bit. It seems better to me but opinions may differ --Thundergnat (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I re-introduced coprime and mentioned prime factorisation as they are mentioned on the wp page and seem to be an important part of the calculation. --Paddy3118 (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we must start from 1 to 180 instead of 2 to 180. The clarifications are well done. --Blek (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)