IN MY LAST POST I ASSERTED THAT I HAD PROVEN THAT, CONTRARY TO THE PROOFS ASSERTED BY SOME MATHEMATICAL EGGHEAD THE FIBONACCI SERIES CONTAINED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF "PERFECT SQUARES" AND WENT SO FAR AS TO NOMINATE MYSELF FOR A NOBEL PRIZE.
Of course I have been assailed by mathematicians who heatedly assert that I am - what was the word they used? - Oh, yeah. "Wrong". In what way??
After all, if you repeat the steps I did, running a column of Fibonacci numbers down to the 2000th number in the series; then using the "SQRT" function to extract the square roots, and running a column of the ratios between adjacent Fibonacci numbers, you get these results:
Every number after the 137th in the series has as a ratio of exactly 1.618033988749890 (thus verifying that all those numbers are of the Fibonacci sequence) and
From Fibonacci number #138 on down, the square root of the number is a whole number with only zeroes after the decimal out to the max decimal places available on Excel.
Plus, as a verifier; multiplying the cells containing the square roots by themselves yields a square that matches the original Fibonacci number.
If you then take the square root and write it as an independent whole number, and multiply that number by itself, you get a result that differs - in the case of series # 138 - by 100,000,000,000,000.
Fibonacci Number 138 is 19,134,702,400,093,300,000,000,000,000. A whopper. It's square root (as calculated by Microsoft Excel) is 138,328,241,513,052.000000000000000000000000000000. This number is (in my spreadsheet) contained in cell E-138.
The calculation "E138xE138" equals the aforementioned Fibonacci number EXACTLY.
However, when Excel multiplies 138,328,241,513,052, entered into a separate cell as a whole number, by itself with no decimal points, the product is 19,134,702,400,093,200,000,000,000,000. A difference of one hundred billion. Just why this is I don't know; I have been experimenting around with placing 9 in the decimal series, but past 26 decimal places a 9 just doesn't approach becoming part of the whole number to the left of the point. Nevertheless, there it is. Actual computation with a sophisticated computer program yielding two different results.
I have wondered about this for about two years now. See, I have known there was something clunky about this "infinite perfect squares" idea for a while, and I performed the operations to uncover the discrepancy as soon as I saw the apparent result of the first set of calculations. That was two years ago at least. So I knew I was probably mistaken all along.
I suppose I could probably figure this out if I took enough time, but that last post wasn't about math in the first place. It was about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.
Just as so many people have gone about trumpeting their cock-sure opinions about that case, basing them on second-hand "evidence" (that in fact turns out to have been doctored by the so-called "objective, neutral" news media); So I trumpeted my "genius" discovery and presented evidence which would - to most folks - seem credible. However, a complete investigation using facts produced quite a different result.
If I, in the face of all this, were to go about spouting off that I was right, the mathematicians were wrong, and there must be something wrong with Microsoft Excel, I would then be a double-dip moron, because I would be crowing about making a "discovery" with the use of a tool which I had just said was possibly faulty.
So the previous post was a sort of spoof. But there is one factor not present in my faux hubris that is present in the heated discussions of this Florida shooting: Human emotion and the tendency toward ulterior motives. The characteristics of the Fibonacci sequence do not lend themselves easily to the stirring of passions.
And the tongue-in-cheek claim I made in that last post was backed by far more credible evidence than anything being cited by those who are making all the deranged comments about this case of what may or may not be justifiable homicide. But no matter. There is money and votes and political leverage to be gained by exploiting ignorance.
All I wanted was a lousy Nobel.