Add new comment

Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.
Generating electricity without the use of fossil fuels is not just an engineering and industrial challenge, it is also a huge mathematical challenge.
In this podcast author Coralie Colmez shares insights into her novel The irrational diary of Clara Valentine.
We talk to early career mathematicians who spent some of their summer holiday solving problems posed by industry — such as how to blend a perfect smoothie!
Don't like plantbased meat alternatives, but want to spare animals and the environment? There's hope on the horizon, aided by a good helping of maths.
Inverse problems are mathematical detective problems. They can help solve crimes, are used in medical imaging, and much more.
Another way we can define the Fibonacci (or 2bonacci) sequence is A(i) = A2(i1)  A(i3), where i is the index or position of number A in the sequence. Any number at i in the sequence equals the one just before, i1, multiplied by 2, minus the 3rd number back. So for example 34 = (21x2)  8. In general an nbonacci is defined by A(i) = A2(i1)  A(i(n+1)).
What if we add these two terms instead of subtracting them? What if we define an additive instead of a subtractive 3nacci, A(i) = 2A(i1) + A(i4)? I got a ratio constant of about 2.1069, the positive solution to x^4  2x^3  1 = 0. In the general case of an additive nnacci, or naddinacci, the constant also converges on 2 but from a direction opposite to the more familiar subtractive since the 0addinacci constant is 3 as A(i) = 2A(i1)+ A(i1) = 3A(i1). The 1addinacci (aka Pell sequence) at A(i) = 2(Ai1) + A(Ai2) has a constant of 2.414 (aka the Silver ratio), which is the positive solution for x^2  2x^1  1 = 0. The 2addinacci must have the polynomial x^3  2x^2  1 = 0, and the 0addinacci x^1  2x^0  1 = 0.
Now what about a family of sequences whose constants descend not from 3 but infinity? I suggest take the familiar Fibonacci polynomial x^2  x 1 = 0. The positive solution for x is here given by the fraction (1+√5)/2 ~ 1.618. Multiply just the first term of the polynomial by 2 to get the next family member 2x^2  x  1 = 0, and now x = (1+√9)/4 = 1. 3x^2  x  1 = 0 gets (1+√13)/6 ~0.768. The number under the radical increases by 4 each time, and the denominator decreases by 2. So if the first term of the polynomial is 0, as in 0x^2 + x  1 = 0, then we should get the fraction (0 + √1)/0.
The article says anything divided by 0 is undefined, but isn't there a case for saying any natural number divided by 0 is infinity? Most of us know that the Fibonacci sequence sets out the increase in the number of rabbits that can be expected if they breed at a certain rate starting in the second month of life, in this case about 1.618 per generation, the Fibonacci constant. In rabbit breeding terms a rate of infinity means rabbits breeding more rabbits as soon as they're born, and those baby rabbits doing the same.