Fibonacci Sequence Essay

1019 Words3 Pages

The Fibonacci sequence is often defined as {F_n }_(n=1)^∞ containing the numbers 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and so on [1]. A formula for determining the numbers contained in the set is given by F_1=1 and F_2=1, with the recursive formula F_n=F_(n-1)+F_(n-2). In other words, the formula doesn't start until n=3, and computing elements of the set just involves adding the two previous numbers together to get the next. Using the Fibonacci sequence, it is true that the infinite sequence r_n, {F_n }_(n=1)^∞ {r_n }_(n=1)^∞=F_(n+1)/F_n lim┬(n→∞)⁡〖F_(n+1)/F_n =φ〗 {1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,…} F_n=F_(n-1)+F_(n-2) F(x)={█(1,x=1@1, x=2@F(x-1)+F(x-2), x≥3)┤ is convergent and ends up converging to φ, the golden ratio [2]. This curious quantity is just a ratio, so what makes it so special? Why is it so mystifying? While the other major constant in mathematics, pi, is a ratio between a circle's circumference and its diameter, phi (φ) considers a rectangle with height, h, and width, w, and forms the following ratio: 1/w=w/(h+w) To get the value for φ, we should assume h=1. Despite the assumption, this does not lose generality for the ratio [2]. Thus, 1/w=w/(1+w) Cross multiplying gives us the following: w^2=1+w Algebraic manipulations yield a quadratic equation in terms of the width, w. w^2-w-1=0 This can easily be solved using the quadratic formula, which gives the result: w=(1±√5)/2 We cannot have a negative width, so the negative answer is not considered. Therefore, the golden ratio is given by: φ=(1+√5)/2 Therefore, φ is a solution to w^2=1+w. In fact, a rectangle with side lengths φ is said to be a golden rectangle, which is a result of the assumption that h=1 [2]. The number phi has even gripped theologians to ... ... middle of paper ... ...unappealing to me. With the awkward angle, the fact that the photograph is not centered correctly makes matters worse. There is no balance in the presentation of this picture in contrast to the other photographs available online. Take the Sacrament of the Last Supper by Salvador Dali for example. It's perspective is perfectly blended together to make a pleasing image to the viewer. Disregarding phi, the simple fact the there is a clear focus makes the image more likeable to me. Plenty of other pieces of artwork tend to follow the same idea by at least balancing the image on either side with action or activity in the center of the painting that is not necessarily the focus. There is a certain point where the landscape or picture "just isn't right." This stands for any piece of artwork or photograph, and is often attributed to the lack of a central focus in my case.

Open Document