Hacker News Reader

Comment by wumms | Hacker News Reader

From an archived talk (2011) on wikipedia [0]:

"The linked page misleadingly suggests that a certain Cody Birsner discovered the relationship between the series and the fraction, whereas it had been known for a considerable time before".

Günter Köhler, 1983 (published in the The Fibonacci Quarterly, 1985; who cites earlier papers from 1977 and 1981): https://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/23-1/kohler.pdf

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AFibonacci_number%2FArch...

View on HN

It tickles me that there was a "Fibonacci Quarterly" where people shared their favorite new Fibonacci facts on a quarterly basis.

Not was, is. I was curious about that as well.

https://www.fq.math.ca/list-of-issues.html

Wow, almost 60 years of Fibonacci content!

It's a bit silly to chase down original authorship of an idea that is a minor detail visible to many people who work in a field.

It's like asking who was the first person to discover that all multiples of 11 have the same parity in the respective sums of their odd and even digits.

Since there had to be a first person who discovered that all multiples of 11 have the same parity in the respective sums of their odd and even digits, that question is obviously interesting to some historians. Due to what circumstances was that person first? What hindered others before that person? How long was the lag before use of decimal and the discovery?

It's important to remember that while technically there is a chronologically first person to discover X for all X, that doesn't imply that that person is the only person to discover X. For sufficiently obvious X, there are likely to be many independent discoverers and highlighting the chronologically first one heaps praise somewhat arbitrarily on one of them.

"History isn't perfect" is not a good reason to avoid doing history. Historians are all well aware of these facts.

Then it is also silly to (erroneously) mention who discovered such a property, don't you think?

The proof follows from this instance of the discovery, with an Oklahoma U student indepently discovering and an OU professor indepently proving. I think that's a perfectly reasonable way to track what happened.

I am unable to open the pdf or follow any of the links from the wiki talk page, so the proof may predate this instance, which would invalidate my point.

Sorry, can't edit the comment from here, those italics make it seem snarky. Should have been an asterisk after proving and before the next sentece that I forgot to escape.

Making a discovery in mathematics confers a kind of immortality. You're part of a conversation that has lasted centuries and will continue for the life of mankind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com