Talk:Jay Hambidge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. | ||
[edit] Merge proposal
There has been a merge proposal (from The Elements of Dynamic Symmetry) on the page for almost a year, but whoever placed it didn't open a discussion section for it, so I'm doing it. Seems like a good idea. In aggregate, Hambidge and his two books are somewhat notable; in isolation, probably not. So let's move that stuff here and make an article, either titled Jay Hambidge or Dynamic summetry. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise?
Hambidge also considered related sequences, such as:
- 118, 191, 309, 500, 809, 1309, 2118, 3427, 5545, 8972, 14517, etc.
which follows the same algorithm, but with a different seed; this is a portion of the Fibonacci sequence beginning with 1 and 5.
was what I always intended; sorry for the misedit. This explains that the series is not chosen from the random seed 118 191, which will put the reader to the trouble of finding out what it is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- that's better. But I just changed it to say more of what his claim was, by way of a quote; I incorporated the idea above, too. Actually, though, we don't know how the series was chosen, but almost certainly not from 1 and 5. Dicklyon (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- What does he say? The odds of beginning with an arbitrary seed and finding that it can be traced back to two small positive integers are quite small. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- He doesn't say much beyond what I quoted. I suspect he started with the ratio 1.618 and 500; since 1.618 is obviously a multiple of 1/500, the next number, 809, is attained with no rounding; from there he worked up and down to more numbers, but stopped going down when the ratio got further off than he wanted. Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- What does he say? The odds of beginning with an arbitrary seed and finding that it can be traced back to two small positive integers are quite small. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
