Talk:Pisano period: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Unclear, needs rewording: took a stab at clarification) |
(Coprime) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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 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) |
Revision as of 17:33, 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)