On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:27:03 -0400, Reef Fish
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 09:18:42 -0400, M. Bevelhimer <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:

( snip )


>>(You get a different answer if you start 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, ...)
>
>True.  But that would be the WRONG answer.  I already had the
>Fibonnaci numbers properly lined up with DIVE COUNTS, to make it
>mathematically COHERENT.
>
>             Dive        Fibonnaci count
>
>               1                 1
>               2                 2
>               3                 3
>               4                 5
>               5                 8

( snip )

>Strictly speaking, your webpage is wrong in sequencing the
>Fibonnaci numbers!   In a sequence, the index always starts with
>1.   Thus, f(1) = 0, f(2) = 1, f(3) = 1, f(4) = 2, ...
>There ain't no such thing as the 0th Fibonnaci number!  :-)


I noted elsewhere in the webpage, the author DID address the
question of a "sequence" and DID sequence the Fibonacci <:-)>
numbers correctly:

>http://math.holycross.edu/~davids/fibonacci/fibonacci.html

*>  The sequence generated (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13,...) is, of course,
*>  essentially the Fibonacci sequence.


Shall we go into fractals and Mendlebrot sets?  :-)))))))))

da Feeesh -- ain't Leonardo da Pisa nor Giovanni da Pizza.