Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chromotron t1_jeg24iz wrote

There are multiple ways to define Fibonacci numbers:

  • Set the first two to be 0 and 1, and every after as the sum of those two preceding it: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... .
  • The number of different ways to form a strip of fixed length by glueing strips of lengths 1 and 2 together.
  • The number of binary (only 0 and 1 allowed) sequences with a fixed number of digits, and 1s must not be consecutive.
  • Via Binet's formula as ( φ^n - (-1/φ)^n ) / sqrt(5).
  • [many more]

> how it it's supposed to be in all nature and that's sacres geometry...

That's a myth at best, and a lie at worst. There are some very few instances where they somewhat appear, but those are one in a million things. None of the claims of golden ratios appearing within humans, plants or animals has ever withstood scrutiny, sqrt(2), 1.5 and sqrt(3) are just as probable and nonsensical.

Edit: spelling.

322

MervynChippington t1_jeg4sle wrote

THAAAANK you

Numbers aren’t sacred. They’re effin numbers.

76

Huntalot713 t1_jegshyq wrote

I would argue that the only thing making anything sacred is the beliefs of the person or people who believe in that thing.

The Bible or the Quran are only “sacred” because people say so.

I’m with Pythagoras on this one.

42

halpless2112 t1_jeh118g wrote

I got downvoted on r/spaceporn because I replied to someone who said “this galaxy is the Fibonacci sequence.” When I asked how, it made the folks there upset lol. They would Just post the sequence of numbers, which is obviously not an explaination.

Left the fuck outta that sub. Pics are cool, but r/astrophotography is waaaaay better, and less filled with morons

26

Randvek t1_jeh3kmj wrote

I mean, 299,792,458 is kind of a sacred number, as far as we can tell so far.

0

TheRoadsMustRoll t1_jeh0e45 wrote

>... a myth at best, and a lie at worst.

so thankful i'm not the only one. i saw this presented in a nova docu and i couldn't help but notice that all of the examples they used were organic in origin.

earth is the only place that we know of that has organic matter and all organisms on earth are related to each other. so, in the Fibonacci numbers we're likely looking at iteration patterns of DNA controller genes (or another related organic phenomena) which is vastly different from a "universal secret number system."

7

BigPawh t1_jegx8v4 wrote

Are Fibonacci numbers different than the golden ratio? Cuz to me with no discerning eye, I find it convincing enough when they show that curve on like acorns and stuff

6

halpless2112 t1_jeh1hvn wrote

The golden ratio is obtained by dividing a Fibonacci number by its previous number.

As you do this for larger and larger Fibonacci numbers, you get closer and closer to the golden ratio (phi)

26

NuclearFoodie t1_jeh4i7j wrote

I never knew the name of Binet’s formula until now. I thought it was one of the neat things when I derived it from the matrix power form of the sequence.

1

DSPbuckle t1_jeh530g wrote

A five year would have no idea what math equations with parenthesis are

−7

kemakol t1_jegghia wrote

They wanted the hype explained. Why would you answer if you don't get it either?

−12

Chromotron t1_jeghsj9 wrote

The hype is just that: a hype. It is not based on anything real. Also, it was a fad at best, it never was THE big thing everyone talks about.

Anyway, the explanation goes as with most hypes: a few people made up things, consciously or not, excitedly told others, and it spread. What else do you want one to say?

17

kemakol t1_jegmi6a wrote

It mimics the way cells divide, the ratio between any successive numbers gets closer and closer to Phi the higher you get, the western musical scale is based on the sequence with one octave having 13 notes and a scale having 8 notes, tons of classical musicians used that ratio as a template in the process of making music, tons of architects over many cultures have used that ratio in their buildings, Our DNA strands measure 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral, the ratio between our moons radius and the Earth's radius is phi... And so on.

You know... reasons for hype.. like they asked

−18

Chromotron t1_jegq6cj wrote

To put it mildly, your post is full of lies and blatantly wrong statements. Most of them not even close even if one rounds the numbers very generously.

> It mimics the way cells divide

No.

> the ratio between any successive numbers gets closer and closer to Phi

Yes but that is definitely not behind the hype. I can write down a lot of sequences that converge to whatever number you like.

> the western musical scale is based on the sequence with one octave having 13 notes and a scale having 8 notes

It is actually based on powers of 2^(1/12), namely those close to rational numbers.

> tons of architects over many cultures have used that ratio in their buildings

Tons? maybe one in a thousand, at best. Which is not because the number is great, but because they fell for the hype.

> Our DNA strands measure 34 angstroms long by 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of its double helix spiral

This is completely random, measure it with any other unit and it becomes wrong. And it is completely false, too. Their length is way higher (in the order of centimeters per chromosome!), varies between chromosomes a lot, and more. And googling says it's actually 18 Angstroms in diameter, not 21, but whatever, that is random at this point anyway.

> the ratio between our moons radius and the Earth's radius is phi

Just no. Don't invent random things. The ratio is ~3.667, what the heck did you even smoke to confuse that with phi? At least check your claims sometimes?

Edit: fixed quote.

20

kemakol t1_jegsbbh wrote

The earth/moon thing is a little off, but not incorrect. The right triangle you'd create based on their radiuses is Phi. If you knew as much as you'd like to think, you could have corrected that. Everything else stands and your first sentence is just you projecting. Like, go look at a piano, wise guy... Missing the forest for the trees

−16

Chromotron t1_jegt060 wrote

> The right triangle you'd create based on their radiuses is Phi.

What does that even mean? A triangle is just a number?! Still begging the question what drug you are on.

> If you knew as much as you'd like to think, you could have corrected that.

Correct it to what? I gave you the correct ratio!

> Like, go look at a piano

Read up on musical theory and don't act the way you do if you have no idea what you are talking about...

> Everything else stands

Like... all the other things I debunked, such as you seriously claiming that human DNA is only 3.4 nanometers long (and while so, by your own claim, not even twice as long as wide!), when in reality it is centimeters per strand and ~3 meters total, per cell?

10