Talk:Fibonacci

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Fibonacci is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Mathematics
Mathematics Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating: Start Class High Priority  Field: Mathematicians
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article.
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Fibonacci is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents

[edit] Copyvio

This article is copyrighted, you can check the original article and the license here: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Fibonacci.html 82.54.140.235 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed copyvio material, reverted to this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonardo_of_Pisa&diff=prev&oldid=30500067 which appears to have been the last version before the introduction of the copyvio material. --Francis Schonken 17:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support --Francis Schonken 17:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, but perhaps we should add a disambig message for the numbers at the top of the page because I think they are what many people will be looking for. Stefán Ingi 15:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support with disambig message at top. Leonardo Pisano would be my second preference. Rd232 talk 11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Okay, I did a bit of searching around. This is how other online encyclopedias list the guy:

  • Britannica — Leonardo Pisano (English: Leonardo of Pisa, original name: Leonardo Fibonacci)
  • Columbia — Leonardo Fibonacci (a.k.a. Leonardo da Pisa)
  • Encarta — Leonardo Fibonacci (a.k.a. Leonardo of Pisa)

This gives us four possibilities for our article title. Searching for them all on boos.google.com yields this:

  • 69 pages on "Leonardo da Pisa"
  • 427 pages on "Leonardo Fibonacci"
  • 744 pages on "Leonardo of Pisa"
  • 1350 pages on "Leonardo Pisano"

I'm keeping in mind this sentence from WP:UE:

If you are talking about a person, country, town, movie or book, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice.

It's a tough call. I'll have to think some more about it. - Haukur 12:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to change the page name to "Leonardo Fibonacci", but to "Fibonacci", which yields 17300 hits at books.google.com. Even the odd computer programmer that names a computer routine "Fibonacci" still refers to the mathematician.
In several of these books one can find descriptions in the sense of:

...Leonardo of Pisa , who is better known by his nickname Fibonacci,... (quote from Fibonacci Numbers - emphasis added)

Re. Britannica reference: I think wikipedia's appreciation of Britannica has radically changed lately, see http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html - How's Wikipedia ever going to get rid of Britannica's errors if we keep referring to them?
And "original name: Leonardo Fibonacci" (as you quoted it from Britannica) is an error: Fibonacci is a nickname, not some sort of "original last name". Leonardo of Pisa is best known by his nickname, which is "Fibonacci", and that name is unambiguous (he didn't even have "less notorious relatives" that had the same name). Note that also "of Pisa/Pisano/da Pisa" is not a last name, it's just a "of <location>" format in several languages, but the use of the nickname largely supersedes all use of "<first name> of <location>" formats (I mean, of the three languages taken together). "Leonardo Fibonacci" is (1°) an error; and (2°) fairly seldomly used.
For completeness, one of his books (the Flos) he began with "Incipit flos Leonardi bigolli pisani ..." which means something like "Here starts Flos (= The Flower) by Leonardo bigolli of Pisa" - where historians think also "bigolli" rather refers to a nickname than anything that could be called a last name ("bigolli" is supposed to be an Italian word with a Latin inflection). But that nickname fell in oblivition, while "Fibonacci" stayed.
--Francis Schonken 14:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... Maybe so. But I'm not entirely convinced that the Fibonacci page shouldn't be a disambiguation page rather than redirecting here. Someone typing Fibonacci into the search box may well be looking for something on Fibonacci numbers (or some other mathematical concept) rather than the mathematician himself. And it seems a bit strange to omit the only name everyone agrees on — Leonardo — from the article title. - Haukur 14:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Everyone agrees on Sting's first name ("Gordon") and on his last name ("Sumner"), the combination of the two, which I think is unambiguous with any other person, has 281 hits on books.google.com (in fixed word order), yet his article is at Sting (musician). His artist's name is far less unambiguous, nonetheless Wikipedia disambiguates with a bracketed disambiguator, and not with something like Gordon Sting, which would be the same anomaly as "Leonardo Fibonacci".
The fact remains that "Leonardo Fibonacci" is how his name is listed in two out of the three English encyclopedias I'm able to check - it thus has more status than "Gordon Sting". - Haukur 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
For Fibonacci approximately only in one out of 10 cases his first name is mentioned, in the books.google.com search engine. So, what I propose in the WP:RM vote is to use the same format which is usually done with nicknames, stage names, and the like, only a disambiguator between brackets would not be needed, while there's natural disambiguation with Fibonacci numbers and the like. Note that Fibonacci currently redirects to the page of the mathematician, so I don't think anybody is thinking this should go over a disambiguation page. If you'd like to construct Fibonacci (disambiguation), go ahead, but I don't think anybody would say "a fibonacci" when they meant a "fibonacci number". --Francis Schonken 15:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was talking about - making the redirect into a disambiguation page. I think that might be more helpful to our readers. A quick check on Google reveals lots of references like these:
  • "Navigating through this Fibonacci and Phi site"
  • "Citations for this Fibonacci Web site"
What would you guess a "Fibonacci Web site" is? Is it a site about the mathematician? As it happens it is not in the case I came upon (though of course it could have been).
I think a person typing Fibonacci into the search box is not overwhelmingly likely to be looking for a biography of the mathematician.
We could, of course, have a disambiguation page at Fibonacci and rename this page Fibonacci (mathematician) but that is unnecessarily ugly compared to Leonardo Fibonacci or Leonardo Pisano which Encarta and Britannica use, respectively. - Haukur 16:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, do as you like. But may I remind you that I did the same with Augustus/Augustus (honorific) some time ago: I created Augustus (disambiguation) when someone had split the emperor article (then renamed Caesar Augustus) from the "honorific" article. In the mean time the disambiguation page is completely bypassed, and nowhere mentioned (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Augustus_%28disambiguation%29 - the only link is from the list of disambiguation pages).
Note that, for example, http://www.augustus.org/ exists. Non-notable websites (see: Wikipedia:Notability (websites)) are not something to take account of when designing disambiguation. Your vague stories about something that looks like a student's website to me, is not likely to become something with a separate page in the near future. Even if it did, it would be solved by
For other uses, see Fibonacci (disambiguation).
or something similar on top of the mathematician's page. But of course, you can drive this as far as you want. I'm sure others will clean up behind you, even if I wouldn't. --Francis Schonken 17:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You read such weird things into my comments. I was never suggesting that we make an article about a particular website. I was merely showing that often when people say things like "Fibonacci site" they don't mean "a site about Leonardo Pisano" but "a site about Fibonacci numbers". Thus the word "Fibonacci" alone does not necessarily indicate that the mathematician is being discussed. And someone entering 'fibonacci' into the search box is not overwhelmingly likely to be looking for this article.
On the other hand I somewhat dislike primary disambiguation and this article does contain a link to Fibonacci numbers in the first paragraph so no-one will get lost for long.
You don't have to egg me on to do something you think is stupid. I'm just trying to discuss the various possibilites, I haven't done anything yet - not even voted in your poll. - Haukur 17:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I was just replying to your weird plan to make fibonacci a disambiguation page. It isn't until now, while Fibonacci redirects to the mathematician. You can make Fibonacci a disambiguation page: the only thing I wanted to remark upon is that I don't think that solution would last, even if I don't interfere. I'd rather follow Stefan's suggestion, that is: top of the page disambiguation, only with fibonacci numbers. --Francis Schonken 17:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not a "weird plan" - it's just an idea I was throwing out for discussion. I'm still mulling it over myself and I'm interested in your opinions. What do you think the typical user typing Fibonacci into the search box is looking for? Do you, for example, think that 90% would be looking for the mathematician? 50%? Any idea? I have little. - Haukur 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
And I'm not sold on the idea that each time a programmer writes fibonacci(n) { ... } she is referring to the mathematician. Does a physicist refer to Isaac Newton every time she uses newton as a unit of force? Even an Icelandic physicist who spells it 'njúton'? Maybe in some sense, I don't know, but I'm not sure it has any bearing on the article title here.
On the other hand I am sympathetic to including Fibonacci in the article title because it is more familiar to me personally than Pisano is. But I'm trying to make a decision based on other criteria than my personal prejudices. - Haukur 15:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a good example to compare with but haven't been successful. I thought the Fourier disambiguation page might be it but it is complicated by the fact that there are two notable people named Fourier. - Haukur 15:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe try Augustus and Augustus (honorific) --Francis Schonken 15:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Isn't Fibonnacci "Fi-Bonacci", or son of Bonacci? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.79.228.207 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Result

Moved. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Here is the citation requested on the front page:

Some consider him the "the most talented mathematician of the Middle Ages." Template:An Introduction to the History of Mathematics, 6th, Howard Eves, pp261

I didn't do the edit because I felt I didn't know enough about citation.

I came here looking for something on the Fibonacci sequence. I'm using the Eve's text and that quote is right out of it on page 261.

Begs 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the quote I supplied is very similar but just a little different. Eves says, "the most talented" I suggest changing the quote in the article to match what I supplied above.24.12.168.88 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I realized that I could handle that. I did it. 24.12.168.88 05:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] red herring

Sigh. Yesterday I reworded the first sentence to remove any claim that Leonardo "discovered" the notorious number sequence. So what did Bharatveer do? Put it back so that he could denounce it! This is an unnecessary stirring-up of controversy where it does not belong. Yes it is relevant at Fibonacci number. It is not relevant in Leonardo's biography. —Tamfang 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

where is the controversy in this one? The fact that it is misattributed to Fibonacci due to Eurocentrism needs to be mentioned here.-Bharatveer 08:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? It needs to be mentioned at Fibonacci number. It's not relevant here: this article is about Leonardo Fibonacci the man, not about mathematics (let alone about cultural imperialism). You'd have us think Leonardo spent his evenings cackling, "I'll steal someone else's work, make myself famous, and get away with it because the true inventor wasn't a Christian or even a Jew." —Tamfang 05:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're not neglecting the other 194 articles that link (erroneously?) to Fibonacci number. —Tamfang 06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe you made a mathematical error. Its 237.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I see 327 in all, but do not count the following as "articles": 29 redirect pages; 5 images; 20 Talk pages; 1 Category talk page; 18 User pages; 25 User talk pages; 22 "Wikipedia:" pages; 8 Wikipedia talk pages. I also exclude pages that cite Binet's formula or Binet's Equation (which redirect), since they do not show the "error". This time I'll count Category:Fibonacci numbers and two subpages of Portal:Latin America/Did you know, bringing the total to 197. —Tamfang 03:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] erroneously

It says "He is best known, erroneously" for the Fibonacci numbers. That calls for explanation. Is it claimed that he never knew of that number sequence, or that he learned it from someone else, or what? Michael Hardy 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

His involvement with the sequence named after him is limited to an exercise on a rabbit population, where the solution involves the calculation of the first few numbers of the sequence. He did not single out the sequence as being interesting in itself. Anyway, he made far more signifificant contributions, e.g. promoting the Hindu-Arabic numerals in the Christian world at a time where we still used roman numerals. He'd be surprised to know that his fame today (at least with the majority of high school students around the world) is tied to sunflowers and such... How best to make the article reflect these facts, I'll leave to others. I gave up editing articles on Fibonacci numbers, the golden ratio and related subjects a while ago; it's too frustrating with all the nonsense so many people believe in and want to include.--Niels Ø 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Rather than getting frustrated ,Pls see this reference Fibonacci_Encyl.Brit . " Except for his role in spreading the use of the Hindu-Arabic numerals, Leonardo's contribution to mathematics has been largely overlooked. His name is known to modern mathematicians mainly because of the Fibonacci sequence (see below) derived from a problem in the Liber abaci . -Bharatveer 08:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
That quote is of course absolutely true. My frustration is more general - so much nonsense is being said about the golden ratio and related matters, and so little is documented by primary sources. --Niels Ø 08:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested External Link

Please consider inclusion of the following page on my website:

as a recreational exercise for students that illustrates Simson's discovery. Paul Niquette 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me (a new wikipedian) for putting this in the wrong place. I shall appreciate guidance in putting it in the right place. Paul Niquette 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] his father's nickname

At some point someone changed Leonardo's father's nickname from Bonaccio to Bonacci throughout. On grammatical grounds I think this very unlikely to be correct. Can someone defend it? —Tamfang 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information on Origin of "Fibonacci Numbers "

Fibonacci certainly did not discover the sequence named after him. The earliest known mention of the these numbers is in the ancient indian sulbhasutras written around 800 BC -500 BC . Pingala an indian mathematician (~450 BC or 200 BC) later mentions these numbers.

The Indian mathematician Virahanka (6th century AD) showed how the Fibonacci sequence arose in the analysis of metres with long and short syllables. Subsequently, the Jain philosopher Hemachandra (c.1150) composed a well known text on these. A commentary on Virahanka by Gopāla in the 12th century also revisits the problem in some detail.

So it is certain that the numbers should be more appropriately named "SulbhaSutra Numbers " instead of Fibonacci Numbers . Of course eurocentric math historians always make every effort to deny the indians due credit and show them as mere imitators of european mathematicians . —Rajarshi

We've been over this till we're sick of it. It does not belong in this article. Go to Fibonacci number and raise the issue there if that article doesn't assign credit properly. —Tamfang 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)and also (BUTT)

[edit] Part of a sentence seems not to make sense

Nevertheless, the use of decimal numerals did not become widespread until the invention of printing almost three centuries later, in 1585 (see, e.g., Ptolemy's world map printed in 1482 by Lienhart Holle in Ulm).

I don’t know what is being got at. We say that the Liber abaci was ‘published’ (whatever that means, exactly) in 1203 and that Fibonacci died in 1250: so 1585 is more than 300 years later. Somehow the Ptolemaic map of 1482 (printed before printing had been invented) is relevant to the acceptance (or non-acceptance?) of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system in Europe: but we don’t say how. Somehow the invention of printing is relevant to the spread of the system: again we need to say how. Is it simply that the book—or other texts based on it—only became sufficiently widespread once moveable-type printing had become widespread? Or that Arabic numerals are somehow easier to print than Roman ones? Or what?

I am sure that the sentence must have meant something at one time, but it seems to have been wikified into nonsense, so I’ll cut it off in its prime for now. —Ian Spackman (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in finance

The Fibonacci Sequence (Fibonacci Retracement, Fibonacci Fan, Fibonacci Time Zone, and Fibonacci Arc) were often used by global traders (Forex, Stock, Commodities) as the most powerful indicator for predicting movement of the market prices.

I'm not happy about the language, given that the power of the indicator is controversial. A reference to how FNs are useful here would also be good. —Tamfang (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality

I find it strange to call Fibonacci italian and print the italian flag in the article. As far as I know both the country and the flag didn't exist when he lived. Have I missed a Wiki-policy or what? Jon Tofte-Hansen (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly second this remark, Pisa was one of the most powerful states at that time and Italy as we know it today was only to be formed an odd 700 years later in the 19th century. This is indeed not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Another concept not really known at those times was "nationality" it really seems to make sense to remove the Italian flag, as much as I like Italy BTW, I used to live there for some years :). Of course it would be nice to say something like Pisa located in nowadays Italy or something of that sort.

Cheers and keep the good work up, of course nobody is everything writing comments in the discussion pages of the thousands of articles we are consulting and that are perfectly correct!

Robert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.139.30.219 (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)