Timeline for Find nth Fibonacci Number, using iteration and recursion
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2020 at 20:13 | comment | added | ALX23z | @PresidentJamesMoveonPolk exactly there is no exact question, only a vague one: how to compute fibinacchi numbers and what is the fastest way. It lacks necessary context what answer is perfectly correct - only what kind of answers are reasonable. Honestly, you have a severe lack of communication skills or common sense to make any form of judgement of what other people say. | |
| Feb 24, 2020 at 19:39 | comment | added | Sam Ginrich | @PresidentJamesMoveonPolk Thank you for your comment. I added a precondition according to limits of standard doubles. | |
| Feb 24, 2020 at 16:49 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | @ALX23z: There is no possibly way to read the original question and conclude that an approximation to Fib(n) is acceptable. It's either equal to Fib(n) or it's not and it's useless. | |
| Feb 24, 2020 at 13:59 | comment | added | ALX23z |
@PresidentJamesMoveonPolk who said that the task is to find fibonacci number exactly? There is function sin and sin(pi) is not 0 as it should be. Do you say that all sin also a total failure? Perhaps, also claim that PI in incorrectly represented?
|
|
| Feb 24, 2020 at 12:14 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | @ALX23z: The problem is to find the fibonacci number, not an estimate of the fibonacii number. 1e-14 relative accuracy represents a total and complete failure in this case. The method you're defending gets an incorrect, completely unrelated number. The integer iteration technique gets the exact correct answer. Do you not understand that a wrong answer is useless? | |
| Feb 24, 2020 at 4:15 | comment | added | ALX23z | @PresidentJamesMoveonPolk providing accurate answer within 1e-14 relative accuracy is a success in most situations. Getting a completely different unrelated number is typically considered a failure. Is it so hard? | |
| Feb 24, 2020 at 0:58 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | @ALX23z: Then by your own analysis the integer version is superior in an apple-to-apples comparison. Explain how the failure of this method starting at Fib(71) is less miserable than the failure of the integer iteration at Fib(93)? | |
| Feb 22, 2020 at 12:36 | comment | added | LittleEwok | I just hope this is meant as a joke as this answers almost none of OP's questions and totally misses the point. | |
| Feb 22, 2020 at 9:10 | history | edited | Sam Ginrich | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Feb 21, 2020 at 8:21 | comment | added | rcgldr | @ALX23z - for unsigned 64 bit integers, the limit is Fib(93). | |
| Feb 20, 2020 at 6:30 | comment | added | ALX23z |
@MonicaPolk it just has accuracy limitations due to numerical errors of double. Integer int64 based slower approach will hit integeroverflow around Fib(92) thus failing miserably and not just being inaccurate.
|
|
| Feb 20, 2020 at 1:05 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | This fails starting at Fib(71). | |
| Feb 19, 2020 at 22:10 | history | edited | Sam Ginrich | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Missing division added
|
| Feb 19, 2020 at 22:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Feb 19, 2020 at 23:01 | |||||
| Feb 19, 2020 at 22:02 | history | answered | Sam Ginrich | CC BY-SA 4.0 |