Talk:Fibonacci sequence

That, IM-very-HO, was a new, interesting form of vandalism, as well as its sister article 'Fibonacci to the 1000th number'. I wonder why nobody, at CP, defined pi to a precision of n thousand numbers? Ed @^{but not the Poor one!} 15:00, 15 January 2008 (EST)

I wouldn't even call it "vandalism" - some one did that with our fun:pi article - only probelm is it makes the article huge. When I undid it I encouraged them to put it in it's own home (ideally a sub-page). I assume that became the sister article? human 15:38, 15 January 2008 (EST)

fibonacci sequence is pseudoscience

pls read this article about the fibonacci sequence:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

mystical numbers? numerology? on *rational wiki*? ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.141.141.56 / talk / contribs}

The Fibonacci sequence is just a sequence. As described in the article. --Sean^talk 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

1. 84.141.141.56 also posted this at Talk:Golden ratio, but I deleted that comment to keep the conversation on one page.
2. Neither of the offending articles contain any mystical or pseudoscientific statements. They just cover the basics and say that people have considered the golden ratio significant - which is true. There is no issue here. -- Mei (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: there was some merit ([1]) in the article after all. I think we're all good now. -- Mei (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, it just looked like an unsubstantiated rant to me. Not so much a "source" as "some angry person's webshite". ħuman 05:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, was there? Looked lame to me.... ħuman 09:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)