#
Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God

Tensu wrote:

You can make as big a deal about this Pi thing as you want to but the fact of the matter is it is a silly reason to cast doubt on a religion and you will not get any Chrisitans to renounce their beliefs because of it

Yeah I KNOW, it seems all you need for atheists to scrutinize your holy book is to claim your god is perfect and infallible and he wrote it. Man!

_________________

.

Tensu wrote:

You can make as big a deal about this Pi thing as you want to but the fact of the matter is it is a silly reason to cast doubt on a religion and you will not get any Chrisitans to renounce their beliefs because of it, so there is no point discussing it any further.

I'm certainly not talking about the renunciation of beliefs. Rather, I am talking about the reconciliation of faith with science. If we accept that scripture is allegorical, then the existence of a divine creator can still be encompassed within our scientific knowledge.

_________________

--James

Oodain

Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011

Age: 29

Gender: Male

Posts: 5,022

Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

at least untill you start extrapolating the various teachings.

some of them provide one thing, arguments that they in essence are non workable.

_________________

//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,

woe be to the nose who nears it.

Vexcalibur wrote:

Robdemanc never said it was not interesting, just that it is not godly.

For a theist (at least the flavor that I happen to be), God is the source of all truth and beauty. I probably wouldn't have put it as "the Fibonacci numbers are godly", but they are beautiful and true, so I think describing them as like 'fingerprints of God' (as in the thread title) is reasonable.

**Quote:**

And well, it is just a sequence. It is mundane.

It has a society dedicated to it, and a mathematical journal that has been running since the 60's, and I've seen at least one book (although there are almost certainly quite a few). So, no, it really isn't mundane.

**Quote:**

So what? This is true for any linear recurrence (The Fibonacci sequence is a linear recurrence).

Assuming this is correct (I'm not familiar with linear recurrences in general), that's something nice about linear recurrences too.

**Quote:**

Edit: In fact, if you have any 2 consecutive Fibonacci numbers, you can get

*any*pair of consecutive numbers next in the sequence using a formula that contains a matrix exponentiation and product. And yes, this is also true for any linear recurrence.I'm aware of the matrix formula for calculating Fibonacci numbers. It is computationally more expensive than the formulas for doubling the index. The matrix form tracks 3 numbers instead of 2, and in a 2x2 grid, so it duplicates one of the numbers once.

There is also a formula that lets you take 2 pairs of Fibonacci numbers and essentially add their indexes together, so you can use that together with the doubling formulas to get an O(log n) algorithm for calculating Fibonacci numbers.

If you still think they're mundane, consider this: if you have any recurrence like the Fibonacci sequence, where F(n) is the nth Fibonacci number and a(n) = a(n-1) + a(n-2), then a(n) = F(n)a(1) + F(n-1)a(0). For instance, the powers of phi (aka "the golden ratio") fit this format, so phi^n = F(n)phi^1 + F(n-1)phi^0 = F(n)*phi + F(n-1). You can't do that with just any sequence.

_________________

"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Tensu wrote:

You can make as big a deal about this Pi thing as you want to but the fact of the matter is it is a silly reason to cast doubt on a religion and you will not get any Chrisitans to renounce their beliefs because of it, so there is no point discussing it any further.

Soooo... leave the discussion, if you don't find it worthwhile; other people here obviously

**do.**

johansen wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Rounding to 3.0 is crude and primative. Even the Egyptians did better.

ruveyn

ruveyn

well if you take a look at the pyramid, they knew pi to like 1/1000 or something.

The Ancient Egyptians estimated pi to be 3.16 which is off by 0.02 or 1/50.

Archimedes got it much closer. To about 5 or 6 decimal place equivalent.

ruven

Vexcalibur wrote:

Tensu wrote:

You can make as big a deal about this Pi thing as you want to but the fact of the matter is it is a silly reason to cast doubt on a religion and you will not get any Chrisitans to renounce their beliefs because of it

Yeah I KNOW, it seems all you need for atheists to scrutinize your holy book is to claim your god is perfect and infallible and he wrote it. Man!

What about "Atlas Shrugged"?

Oh wait, Ayn Rand wrote that...

Ancalagon wrote:

Vexcalibur wrote:

Robdemanc never said it was not interesting, just that it is not godly.

For a theist (at least the flavor that I happen to be), God is the source of all truth and beauty. I probably wouldn't have put it as "the Fibonacci numbers are godly", but they are beautiful and true, so I think describing them as like 'fingerprints of God' (as in the thread title) is reasonable.

You can believe so. But this thread is more about claiming it to be proof of creationism and disturb evolution. That's sort of lame.

Specially because it is just the same old watchmaker's argument. "see? This is beautiful/complex/whatever" it must have been designed.

It is always ironic to see the watchmaker's argument to be used against evolution. When it was evolution which destroyed the watchmaker argument and made it invalid in regards to the complexity of nature. Darwin showed that simple natural laws can create this complexity and beauty. THAT's how it made science evolve. We no longer needed the watchmaker to explain things.

Ancalagon wrote:

**Quote:**

And well, it is just a sequence. It is mundane.

It has a society dedicated to it, and a mathematical journal that has been running since the 60's, and I've seen at least one book (although there are almost certainly quite a few). So, no, it really isn't mundane.

Tons of mundane things have societies dedicated to them and journals. Rocks are mundane and geologists are all over them.

**Quote:**

I'm aware of the matrix formula for calculating Fibonacci numbers. It is computationally more expensive than the formulas for doubling the index. The matrix form tracks 3 numbers instead of 2, and in a 2x2 grid, so it duplicates one of the numbers once.

The formula uses irrational square roots and thus it can't be computed accurately when n is large.**Quote:**

If you still think they're mundane, consider this: if you have any recurrence like the Fibonacci sequence, where F(n) is the nth Fibonacci number and a(n) = a(n-1) + a(n-2), then a(n) = F(n)a(1) + F(n-1)a(0). For instance, the powers of phi (aka "the golden ratio") fit this format, so phi^n = F(n)phi^1 + F(n-1)phi^0 = F(n)*phi + F(n-1). You can't do that with just any sequence.

You can with any linear one, and there are

*infinite*of them.

_________________

.

TallyMan wrote:

kxmode wrote:

...takes

**more**faith to believe something this complex appeared by mere chance.Your comment is a fairly common misconception by the scientifically illiterate. The fact of evolution and formation of the stars, galaxies etc is due to emergent properties of complex systems. Principles of positive and negative feedback at work at the atomic and molecular levels that catalyse the formation of more complex systems. A very simple example of this principle that you may understand is the formation of crystals from a saturated solution... try it for yourself, dissolve a lot of sugar in some hot water and leave it to cool slowly - observe the beautiful crystals that form. This is a trivial example of the principle; most molecules have no emergent properties more complex than the ability to form crystals.

All this is true - I've created it myself in a computer simulation. Randomly placed particles in a screen-sized universe soon formed a circle (which I realised was the result of them following the second law of thermodynamics - they were collapsing into their lowest possible energy state, which meant all being equidistant from each other and from the centre of the screen).

**Quote:**

However, other molecules have much more sophisticated abilities, such as RNA to duplicate itself from an organic soup.

I've never heard of any 'organic soup', not artificially formed, that would have a sufficient concentration of free RNA monomers for it to replicate very much - in any case, having oppositely charged hydrogen bonds line up with a molecule doesn't make it particularly more complex.

**Quote:**

The scope of the emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter is breathtaking in its magnitude and beauty - right up to all life on the planet; and it is all governed by simple rules of physics and chemistry but on a grand scale.

Yes, our bodies and DNA and everything that was being talked about is made out of atoms - nobody's debating that.

**Quote:**

No God required.

Non sequitur. The binding of ink to paper in a book and the reflection of light allowing my eyes to see it are all 'governed by simple rules of physics' too; the writing on the pages is also an emergent property, as is the whole collection of matter making the book - but none of that backs up the conclusion 'no author required'.

Doctor wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

kxmode wrote:

...takes

**more**faith to believe something this complex appeared by mere chance.Your comment is a fairly common misconception by the scientifically illiterate. The fact of evolution and formation of the stars, galaxies etc is due to emergent properties of complex systems. Principles of positive and negative feedback at work at the atomic and molecular levels that catalyse the formation of more complex systems. A very simple example of this principle that you may understand is the formation of crystals from a saturated solution... try it for yourself, dissolve a lot of sugar in some hot water and leave it to cool slowly - observe the beautiful crystals that form. This is a trivial example of the principle; most molecules have no emergent properties more complex than the ability to form crystals.

All this is true - I've created it myself in a computer simulation. Randomly placed particles in a screen-sized universe soon formed a circle (which I realised was the result of them following the second law of thermodynamics - they were collapsing into their lowest possible energy state, which meant all being equidistant from each other and from the centre of the screen).

**Quote:**

However, other molecules have much more sophisticated abilities, such as RNA to duplicate itself from an organic soup.

I've never heard of any 'organic soup', not artificially formed, that would have a sufficient concentration of free RNA monomers for it to replicate very much - in any case, having oppositely charged hydrogen bonds line up with a molecule doesn't make it particularly more complex.

**Quote:**

The scope of the emergent properties of complex arrangements of matter is breathtaking in its magnitude and beauty - right up to all life on the planet; and it is all governed by simple rules of physics and chemistry but on a grand scale.

Yes, our bodies and DNA and everything that was being talked about is made out of atoms - nobody's debating that.

**Quote:**

No God required.

Non sequitur. The binding of ink to paper in a book and the reflection of light allowing my eyes to see it are all 'governed by simple rules of physics' too; the writing on the pages is also an emergent property, as is the whole collection of matter making the book - but none of that backs up the conclusion 'no author required'.

**I suggest you look up emergent properties as you didn't mention that and it is key to the whole process of complex structures forming from less complex components.**Highly complex arrangements of matter can naturally form as their component molecules and atoms fall to their lowest energy state as governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is actually things like hydrogen bonds and repulsion and attraction between molecular chains that is responsible for the formation of complex 3D protein structures from their component molecules and their subsequent emergent properties to do things like transport oxygen or the other myriad features found in living organisms. Similarly with the formation of lipid bilayers and their natural ability to house other molecules. I could go on and on but if you are interested there are thousands of books on physics, chemistry, biochemistry etc going into all this in incredible detail and I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you.

It would be a non sequitur to say that God

**was**required in any of what I described. Whether there is such a creature as God is irrelevant to the whole thing. Complex structures and processes arise naturally without any external magic from hypothetical super-beings.

_________________

I've left WP indefinitely.

Vexcalibur wrote:

But this thread is more about claiming it to be proof of creationism and disturb evolution.

You can treat this thread as if it were about anything you want. I'm treating it as a good opportunity to talk about the Fibonacci numbers.

**Quote:**

Specially because it is just the same old watchmaker's argument. "see? This is beautiful/complex/whatever" it must have been designed.

If you're trying to debunk the watchmaker's argument, why spend time trying to say the Fibonacci numbers aren't beautiful? All your arguments so far only try to shift the beauty from the Fibonacci numbers to somewhere else.

For someone trying to make the watchmaker's argument with the Fibonacci numbers to be able to get around that, all they have to do is point to the new location of the beauty. If you attack the watchmaker's argument itself, that won't help them.

**Quote:**

Tons of mundane things have societies dedicated to them and journals. Rocks are mundane and geologists are all over them.

From what little I know of them, rocks are fascinating. This says more about either your knowledge of rocks or your ability to be interested in them than it does about rocks themselves.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

I'm aware of the matrix formula for calculating Fibonacci numbers. It is computationally more expensive than the formulas for doubling the index. The matrix form tracks 3 numbers instead of 2, and in a 2x2 grid, so it duplicates one of the numbers once.

The formula uses irrational square roots and thus it can't be computed accurately when n is large.You're thinking of a different formula.

I'm thinking of a pair of formulas:

F(2n-1) = F(n)^2 + F(n-1)^2

F(2n) = F(n)^2 + 2F(n)F(n-1)

And there's one for combining:

F(n+m) = F(n)F(m+1) + F(n-1)F(m)

Using the matrix formula requires you to also calculate F(2n+1) each time you double it (or combine it), and if you're using someone else's generic matrix multiplication code, you have to calculate F(2n) twice each time as well. And there's enormously more work if you multiply each matrix individually, instead of squaring as much as you can.

**Quote:**

**Quote:**

If you still think they're mundane, consider this: if you have any recurrence like the Fibonacci sequence, where F(n) is the nth Fibonacci number and a(n) = a(n-1) + a(n-2), then a(n) = F(n)a(1) + F(n-1)a(0). For instance, the powers of phi (aka "the golden ratio") fit this format, so phi^n = F(n)phi^1 + F(n-1)phi^0 = F(n)*phi + F(n-1). You can't do that with just any sequence.

You can with any linear one, and there are

*infinite*of them.

You can do what I said with any sequence of the form a(n) = a(n-1) + a(n-2). (For people who don't like formulas: any sequence where you can get the next number by adding the previous two.) There are infinitely many of them, too.

_________________

"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

Similar Topics | |
---|---|

Count by Fibonacci Numbers |
24 Nov 2017, 11:22 am |

fingerprint personality theory |
29 Feb 2016, 7:11 pm |

How to turn on fingerprint security on Lenovo B5070 |
01 Feb 2015, 4:19 am |

Fibonacci poetry |
27 Sep 2015, 10:56 pm |