←back to thread

105 points mathgenius | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.501s | source
Show context
PollardsRho ◴[] No.43625111[source]
Very cool!

What's meant by "it’s already too much to ask for a closed form for fibonacci numbers"? Binet's formula is usually called a closed form in my experience. Is "closed form" here supposed to mean "closed form we can evaluate without needing arbitrary-precision arithmetic"?

replies(3): >>43625353 #>>43626182 #>>43626796 #
sfpotter ◴[] No.43625353[source]
Author probably just unaware of Binet's formula. But I'd agree with their assessment that there's unlikely to be a closed form for the (indeed, much more complicated!) quantity that they're interested in.
replies(2): >>43625380 #>>43625678 #
LegionMammal978 ◴[] No.43625678[source]
In fact, for that 'warmup' problem, the leading term has a base and coefficient that are roots of cubic polynomials, given in the OEIS entry. But often the coefficient will be trancendental for these sorts of problems.
replies(1): >>43632090 #
1. aleph_minus_one ◴[] No.43632090[source]
> But often the coefficient will be tran[s]cendental for these sorts of problems.

What makes you believe that the coefficient will be transcendental? I'd rather expect some non-trivial algebraic number (i.e. root of some polynomial with rational coefficients).