Related posts
Site stats
241,055,568 views
"...the world's most viewed climate website"
- Fred Pearce
"...invaluable" - Steven F. Hayward,
"...changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming. -
"...flashy (apparently widely distributed)"
BUY THIS BOOK!
Shameless Plug
Donations accepted:
to help keep the
project going.
Follow WUWT via Email
Enter your email address to follow WUWT and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 31,971 other followers
Recent Posts
Top Posts & Pages
October 2011
Select Month
August 2015 &(47)
July 2015 &(146)
June 2015 &(144)
May 2015 &(157)
April 2015 &(125)
March 2015 &(126)
February 2015 &(115)
January 2015 &(106)
December 2014 &(130)
November 2014 &(136)
October 2014 &(163)
September 2014 &(185)
August 2014 &(190)
July 2014 &(173)
June 2014 &(195)
May 2014 &(216)
April 2014 &(182)
March 2014 &(185)
February 2014 &(164)
January 2014 &(202)
December 2013 &(144)
November 2013 &(147)
October 2013 &(147)
September 2013 &(148)
August 2013 &(165)
July 2013 &(174)
June 2013 &(164)
May 2013 &(193)
April 2013 &(171)
March 2013 &(164)
February 2013 &(165)
January 2013 &(172)
December 2012 &(126)
November 2012 &(139)
October 2012 &(176)
September 2012 &(151)
August 2012 &(144)
July 2012 &(175)
June 2012 &(179)
May 2012 &(177)
April 2012 &(178)
March 2012 &(190)
February 2012 &(161)
January 2012 &(142)
December 2011 &(161)
November 2011 &(168)
October 2011 &(180)
September 2011 &(189)
August 2011 &(190)
July 2011 &(170)
June 2011 &(187)
May 2011 &(177)
April 2011 &(177)
March 2011 &(172)
February 2011 &(183)
January 2011 &(193)
December 2010 &(183)
November 2010 &(168)
October 2010 &(191)
September 2010 &(179)
August 2010 &(200)
July 2010 &(188)
June 2010 &(140)
May 2010 &(124)
April 2010 &(122)
March 2010 &(136)
February 2010 &(142)
January 2010 &(157)
December 2009 &(168)
November 2009 &(163)
October 2009 &(132)
September 2009 &(106)
August 2009 &(92)
July 2009 &(96)
June 2009 &(94)
May 2009 &(89)
April 2009 &(99)
March 2009 &(99)
February 2009 &(60)
January 2009 &(60)
December 2008 &(58)
November 2008 &(45)
October 2008 &(63)
September 2008 &(75)
August 2008 &(77)
July 2008 &(68)
June 2008 &(72)
May 2008 &(54)
April 2008 &(54)
March 2008 &(39)
February 2008 &(40)
January 2008 &(31)
December 2007 &(27)
November 2007 &(37)
October 2007 &(29)
September 2007 &(17)
August 2007 &(31)
July 2007 &(20)
June 2007 &(25)
May 2007 &(31)
April 2007 &(31)
March 2007 &(27)
February 2007 &(24)
January 2007 &(25)
December 2006 &(22)
November 2006 &(11)
CategoriesCategories
Select Category
<option class="level-0" value="0.org connect the dots
97% consensus
99% certainty
Adjustments/Corrections
Agriculture
Air pollution
Announcements
Anthropogenic Ocean Warming
Attribution
Bad science
Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
Book Review
Cancun Climate Conference
Cap-and-trade
Carbon credits
Carbon dioxide
Carbon footprint
Carbon sequestration
Carbon soot
carbon tax
Celebrities on AGW
censorship
CFC’s
Chaos and Climate
Citizen science
Climate cash
Climate Communications
Climate Craziness of the Week
Climate data
Climate FAIL
Climate Models
Climate Myths
Climate News
Climate News Roundup
Climate reconciliation
Climate Reference Network
Climate sensitivity
Climate ugliness
Climategate
Climategate 3.0
Climate_change
COP conferences
Copenhagen Climate Conference
Cosmic rays
Cowtan & Way
Curious things
Current News
Desertification
disinvitation
Durban Climate Conference
dust storms
Earthquakes
Economy-health
Educational opportunity
El Nino Basics
Environment
Experiments
Extinction
extreme weather
Forecasting
Fusion power
Gavin Schmidt
Geoengineering
geothermal energy
Gergis et al
Global cooling
Global Temperature Update
Global warming
Global Warming Optimism
Gore-a-thon 2011
Gore-a-thon 2012
Gorefest11
Government funding of science
Government idiocy
Green Blob
Green Mafia
Green tech
Greenland ice sheet
Hiatus in Global Warming
Hits and Misses
hurricanes
hydroclimatology
Hydropower
IPCC AR5 leak
IPCC AR5 Report
James Hansen
Karl et al. 2015
Land use land cover change
Letters To The Editor
Lewis and Crok
Little Ice Age
Local_issues
Lower Troposphere Temperature
Marcott et al proxy paper
measurement
MedievalWarmPeriod
Michael E. Mann
modification
More On Series
National Climate Assessment Report
Natural CO2 sources
natural gas
Natural Warming
NOAA 2 year FOIA documents
Noble Cause Corruption
nuclear power
Obama Climate Plan
Obamas War on Energy
Obvious science
Ocean acidification
Ocean Heat Content
Ocean Temperatures
Open Thread
Optical phenonmena
Paleoclimatology
Papal Climate Encyclical
Peer review
Polar Vortex
Polarbeargate
Positive effects of CO2
Post-normal science
Presentations
Puzzling things
Quote of The Month
Quote of the Week
Radiative Imbalance
Reference Pages
reproducibility
Sea Ice News
Sea Surface Temperature
solar flare
solar power
Southern Annular Mode
Spaceweather
Specific Humidity
Spencer-Braswell and Dessler
statistics
Stephan Lewandowsky
Stern Review
Stratospheric water vapor
Surfacestations paper
Sustainability
Tabloid Climatology
TAO/TRITON Buoys
Technology
Temperature
The “Clitanic” aka Spirit of Mawson
The Rat-hole problem
The Skeptic’s Case
The Weather Channel
The WUWT Hot Sheet
The Yamal Deception
thorium power
Throwback Thursday Predictions
thunderstorms
Trenberth’s missing heats
UKMO HADCRUT4
Uncategorized
Uncertainty
United Nations
Waste heat
Watts et al 2012
Weather_stations
Willis Autobiography
wind power
Humor/Satire
Lukewarmers
Political Climate
Pro AGW Views
Skeptical Views
Transcendent Rant and way out there theory
Unreliable*
* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
Click for the:
Sea Ice Page
Solar Images & Data Page
Atmospheric Maps Page
ENSO/SST Page
ENSO Meter
Sponsored links
IT Certifications:
Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright (C) , by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission.
For permission, contact us. See the About&Contact menu under the header.
All rights reserved worldwide.
Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this:Also called the golden ratio or the golden mean, what is the value of the golden section?
A simple definition of Phi
There are just two numbers that remain the same when they are squared
namely 0 and 1.
Other numbers get bigger and some get smaller when we square them:
Squares that are biggerSquares that are smaller
1/2=0·5
and 0·52 is 0·25=1/4
1/5=0·2
and 0·22 is 0·04=1/25
102 is 100
1/10=0·1
and 0·12 is 0·01=1/100
One definition of the golden section number is that
to square it you just add 1
or, if we let this value be denoted by the upper-case Greek letter Phi
&P in mathematics:
Phi2 = Phi + 1
In fact, there are two numbers with this property, one is Phi and another
is closely related to it when we write out some of its decimal places.
Here is a mathematical derivation (or proof) of the two values.
to the answers at the foot of this paragraph if you like.
Phi2 = Phi + 1 or, subtracting Phi + 1 from both sides:
Phi2 & Phi & 1 = 0
We can solve this quadratic equation to find two possible
values for Phi
as follows:
First note that (Phi & 1/2)2 =
Phi2 & Phi + 1/4
Using this we can write Phi2 & Phi & 1 as (Phi & 1/2)2 & 5/4
Phi2 & Phi & 1 = 0 then (Phi & 1/2)2 must equal 5/4
Taking square-roots gives (Phi & 1/2) = +&5/2 or &&5/2.
so Phi = 1/2
The two values are :
1/2 + &5/2 and 1/2 & &5/2
1·... and
&0·...
Did you notice that their decimal parts are identical?
The larger value 1·618... we denote using the capital Greek letter
Phi written as &P
the smaller
value &0·618...
is written as &&
using the small Greek letter phi
the large P indicates the larger positive value 1·618...
the small p denotes the smaller positive value 0·618....
&P = (&5 + 1) / 2
& = (&5 & 1) / 2
Other names used for these values are the Golden Ratio and
the Golden number.
We will use
the two Greek letters
(&P) and phi (&)
in these pages,
although some mathematicians
use another Greek letters such as tau (&) or else
alpha (&) and beta (&).
Here, Phi (large P) is the larger value, 1.618033.... and phi (small p)
is the smaller positive value 0.618033...
which is also just Phi & 1.
As a little practice at algebra, use the expressions
above to show that
& & &P = 1.
Here is a summary of what we have found already
that we will find useful
in what follows:
Phi phi = 1&&&&Phi - phi = 1
Phi + phi = &5
Phi = 1.6180339.. phi = 0.6180339..
Phi = 1 + phi
phi = Phi & 1
Phi = 1/phi
phi = 1/Phi
Phi2 = Phi + 1
(&phi)2 = &phi + 1 or phi2 =
Phi = (&5 + 1)/2
phi = (&5 & 1)/2
A bit of history...
, the Greek mathematician of about 300BC,
wrote the Elements
which is a collection of 13 books on Geometry (written in Greek originally).
It was the most important mathematical work
until this century, when Geometry began to take a lower place on
school syllabuses, but it has had a major influence on mathematics.
It starts from basic definitions
called axioms or "postulates" (self-evident starting
points). An example is the fifth axiom that
there is only one line parallel to another line
through a given point.
From these
Euclid develops more results (called propositions)
about geometry which he proves based purely on the axioms and previously
proved propositions using logic alone.
The propositions involve constructing geometric figures
using a straight edge and compasses only
so that we can only draw straight lines and circles.
For instance, Book 1, Proposition 10
to find the exact centre of any line AB
Put your compass point on one end of the line at point A.
Open the compasses to the other end of the line, B, and draw the circle.
Draw another
circle in the same way with centre at the
other end of the line.
This gives two points where the two red circles cross and,
if we join these
points, we have a (green) straight line at 90 degrees to the
original line which goes through its exact centre.
In Book 6, Proposition 30, Euclid shows how to
divide a line in mean and extreme ratio
which we would call "finding the golden section G point
on the line".
He describes this geometrically.
&-------- 1 --------->
Euclid used this phrase to mean
the ratio of the smaller
part of this line, GB to the larger part AG (ie the ratio GB/AG)
is the SAME as the
ratio of the larger part, AG, to the whole line AB (i.e.
is the same as the ratio AG/AB).
We can see that this is indeed the golden section point if
we let the line AB have unit length
AG have length g (so that
GB is then just 1&g) then the definition means that
i.e. using the lengths of the sections
which we rearrange to get
1 & g = g2.
Notice that earlier we defined Phi2 as Phi+1 and here we have
g2 = 1&g or g2+g=1.
We can solve this :
g&=&
&1&+5
&&or&g&=&
&1&&&5
So there are two numbers which when added to their squares give 1.
For our geometrical problem, g is a positive number so the first value is
the one we want.
This is our friend phi also equal to Phi&1 (and the
other value is merely &Phi).
It seems that this ratio had been of interest to earlier Greek mathematicians,
especially
(580BC - 500BC) and his "school".
There is an interesting
article on
at the St Andrew's MacTutor History of Mathematics site.
Things to do
Suppose we labelled the parts of our line as follows:
so that AB is now has length 1+x.
If Euclid's "division of AB into mean and extreme
ratio" still applies to point G, what quadratic equation do you now get for x?
What is the value of x?
From Clarke University
comes D Joyce's exciting project
using Java applets.
But why not look at the books themselves:
they are classics in every sense!
This 3-volume set is
cheap and has been the standard book for many years:
all are by Thomas L Heath who translated and annotated
Euclid's work, each is about 464 pages, published by
Dover in paperback, second edition 1956.
MacTutor's History of Maths Archives has an interesting page on
and Euclid's Elements.
The ratio itself is mentioned in several
places and, since Euclid seems to have collected already known methods and facts
then the golden ratio would have been known well before his time too.
Of course
is was not called the "golden ratio" then (a term originating in the 1820's probably),
but Euclid's term (translated into English) is dividing a line in mean and
extreme ratio.
: To cut a given finite straight line in extreme and mean ratio.
This proposition refers back to an earlier one:
To cut a given straight line so that the rectangle
contained by the whole and one of the segments equals the square on the remaining segment
The Rhind Papyrus of about 1650 BC is one of the oldest mathematical
works in existence, giving methods and problems used by the ancient Babylonians
and Egyptians. It includes the solution to
some problems about pyramids but it does not mention anything about the golden ratio Phi.
The ratio of the length of a face of the Great Pyramid
(from centre of the
bottom of a face to the apex of the pyramid)
to the distance from the same point
to the exact centre of the
pyramid's base square is about 1·6.
It is a matter of debate whether
this was "intended" to be the golden section number or not.
According to Elmer Robinson (see the
reference below), using the average of eight sets of data,
says that "the theory that the perimeter of the pyramid divided by twice its vertical
height is the value of pi" fits the data much better than the theory above about Phi.
The following references
will explain circumstantial evidence for and
The golden section in
How to Find the "Golden Number" without really trying
Roger Fischler, Fibonacci Quarterly, 1981, Vol 19, pp 406 - 410
Case studies include the
Great Pyramid of Cheops and the various theories propounded to explain its
dimensions, the golden section in architecture, its use by Le Corbusier and Seurat
and in the visual arts.
He concludes that several of the works that purport
to show Phi was used are, in fact, fallacious and "without any foundation whatever".
The Fibonacci Drawing Board Design of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh
Col. R S Beard in Fibonacci Quarterly vol 6, 1968, pages 85 - 87;
has three separate theories (only one of which involves the golden section)
which agree quite well with the dimensions as measured in 1880.
A Note on the Geometry of the Great Pyramid Elmer D Robinson in
The Fibonacci Quarterly vol 20 (1982) page 343
shows that the theory involving pi fits much better than the one regarding Phi.
George Markowsky's Misconceptions about the Golden ratio
The College Mathematics Journal
Vol 23, January 1992, pages 2-19.
This is readable and well presented.
You may or may not agree with
all that Markowsky says, but this is a very good article that
tries to debunk a simplistic and
unscientific "cult" status being attached to Phi, seeing it where it really is not! He
has some convincing arguments that Phi does not occur in the measurements of the
Egyptian pyramids.
Euclid (about 300BC) in his "Elements" calls dividing a line
at the 0.6180399.. point
dividing a line in the extreme and mean ratio.
This later gave rise to the name golden mean.
There are no extant records of the Greek architects' plans for their most famous
temples and buildings (such as the Parthenon).
So we do not know if they deliberately used the golden
section in their architectural plans.
The American mathematician Mark Barr used
the Greek letter
phi (&)
to represent the golden ratio, using the initial letter of the Greek
Phidias
who used the golden ratio in his sculptures.
(sometimes written as Paccioli), , wrote a book called
De Divina Proportione (The Divine Proportion)
in 1509.
It contains drawings made by Leonardo da Vinci of the 5 Platonic solids.
It was
probably Leonardo (da Vinci) who first called it the sectio aurea (Latin for
the golden section).
Today, some mathematicians use phi (&)
for the golden ratio as on these web pages and others
use the Greek letters alpha (&)
or
tau (&), the initial letter of
tome which is the Greek work for "cut".
R Herz-Fischler, Dover (1998) paperback.
This is an informative book, densely packed
with historical references to the golden mean and its other names.
The Value of Phi
Phi to 2000 decimal places
&P has the value&
&5 + 1
& and & is&
&5 & 1
&.
Both have identical fractional parts after the decimal point.
Both are also irrational which means that
They cannot be written as M/N for any whole numbers M and N;
their decimal fraction parts have no pattern in their digits, that
is, they never end up repeating a fixed cycle of digits
Later on this page we will show why &P and &
cannot be written as exact fractions.
There is another surprise in store later when we find which fractions are the best approximations to
Here is the
decimal value of &P
to 2000 places grouped in blocks of 5 decimal
The value of & is identical but begins with 0·6.. instead of
1·6.. .
Read this as ordinary text, in lines across,
so &P is 1·...)
Dps:
1·
is a text file of the first 10,000 decimal places
(opens in a new window, 12K).
Phi to 1,500,000,000 places!
Simon Plouffe
of Simon Fraser University notes that Greg J Fee programmed
a method of his to compute
the golden ratio (Phi) to ten million places in December 1996.
He used Maple and it took 29 minutes and 16 seconds on an SGI RMHz computer.
He lists .
The
is 100,000,000,000 places in 2008 by S Kondo & S Pagliarulo.
Phi in Binary
Using base 2 (binary), is there a pattern in the digits of Phi?
Let's have a look
at the first 500 binary-digits (or bits):
is a text file of 25,000
binary places (opens in a new window, 28K).
Neither the decimal form of Phi, nor the binary one nor
any other base have any ultimate repeating pattern in their
digits.
Phi and the Fibonacci numbers
On the Fibonacci and Nature page we saw a graph which showed that
.
Here is the connection the other way round, where we can discover the Fibonacci
numbers arising from the number &P.
The graph on the right shows a line whose gradient is &P, that is the line
y = &P x = 1·6180339.. x
Since &P is not the ratio of any two integers, the graph will never go
through any points of the form (i,j) where i and
j are whole numbers
- apart from one trivial exception - can you spot it?
So we can ask
What are the nearest integer-coordinate points to the &P line?
Let's start at the origin and work up the line.
The first is (0,0) of course, so these are the two integer coordinates
of the only whole-number
point exactly on the line!
In fact ANY line y = k x
will go through the origin,
so that is why we will ignore this point as a "trivial exception" (as mathematicians
like to put it).
The next point close to the line looks like (0,1) although
(1,2) is nearer still.
The next nearest seems even closer: (2,3) and
(3,5) is even closer again.
So far our sequence of "integer coordinate points close to the Phi line"
is as follows:
(0,1), (1,2), (2,3), (3,5)
What is the next closest point? and the next?
Surprised?
The coordinates are successive Fibonacci numbers!
Let's call these the Fibonacci points.
Notice that the ratio y/x for each Fibonacci point (x,y)
gets closer and closer to Phi = 1·618...
but the interesting point that we see on this graph is that
the Fibonacci points are the closest points to the &P line.
page we saw that
soon settled down
to a particular value near 1·6:
In fact,
the exact value is &P.
As we take larger and larger
Fibonacci numbers,
so their ratio gets
and closer to Phi.
Here we show how this happens.
The basic Fibonacci relationship is
F(i+2) = F(i+1) + F(i)
The Fibonacci relationship
The graph shows that the ratio F(i+1)/F(i)
seems to get closer and closer to a particular value, which
for now we will call X.
If we take three neighbouring Fibonacci numbers, F(i), F(i+1) and
F(i+2) then,
for very large values of i, the ratio of F(i) and
F(i+1) will be almost the same as the ratio of
F(i+1) and F(i+2),
so let's see what happens if both of these are the same value: X.
F(i+1)&= F(i+2)&= XF(i)F(i+1)
But, using the The Fibonacci relationship we can replace F(i+2)
by F(i+1) + F(i)
and then simplify
the resulting fraction, as follows:
F(i+2)F(i+1)
&= F(i+1) + F(i)F(i+1)
F(i+1)&+ F(i)F(i+1)F(i+1)
1 + F(i)F(i+1)
So, replacing F(i+2)/F(i+1) in (A) by the right hand side of (B), we have:
X = F(i+1)&= 1 + F(i)F(i)F(i+1)
But the last fraction is F(i)/F(i+1) and
is the reciprocal of F(i+1)/F(i) which, from (A)
is just X.
So we can replace F(i)/F(i+1) by 1/X
and we then have an equation purely in terms of X:
F(i+1)&= 1 +
F(i)
F(i+1)
X
Multiplying both sides by X gives:
1 + 1X
X2 = X + 1
But we have seen this equation before in
so know that X is, indeed, exactly &P!
Remember, this supposed that the ratio of two pairs of neighbours in the Fibonacci series
was the same value.
This only happens "in the limit" as mathematicians say.
So what happens is that, as the
series progresses, the ratios get closer and closer to this limiting value, or,
in other words, the ratios get closer and closer to &P the further down the series
that we go.
Did you notice that we have not used the two starting values in this proof?
No matter what two values we start with, if we apply the
Fibonacci relationship to continue the series, the ratio of two terms
will (in the limit) always be Phi!
But there are two values that satisfy X2 = X + 1 aren't there?
Yes, there are.
The other value, &phi
which is &0·618... is revealed if we
extend the Fibonacci series backwards.
We still maintain the same Fibonacci
relationship but we can find numbers before 0 and still keep this relationship:
i...&10&9&8&7&6&5&4
&3&2&1012345
Fib(i)...&5534&21 13 &8
5 &3 2 &1 1 0
1 1 235 8 13
21 34 55 ...
When we use this complete Fibonacci series and plot the ratios F(i)/F(i&1) we see that
the ratios on the left-hand side of 0 are
&1&= &0.5,&& 2&= &0.666..,&& &3&= &0.6,&& 5&= &0.625, ...
Plotting these shows both solutions to X2 = X + 1:-
More on Fibonacci Number ratios
What if we take the ratio not of neighbouring Fibonacci numbers but
Fibonacci numbers one apart, i.e. F(n)/F(n-2)?
Experiment with a spreadsheet (or calculator) and you will soon find that
F(n)/F(n-2) gets closer and closer to 2.618...
as n gets larger.
This is &P+1 and also
&P2.
What if the numbers are 3 apart i.e. F(n)/F(n-3)?
This time the ratio gets closer to 4.236...
or &P3
Is there a general rule for the limit of F(n)/F(n-k)?
This ratio gets closer and closer to &Pk.
If is easy to verify this using a small variation on the method above (where we showed
F(i)/F(i+1) gets closer to &P as
i gets larger), or using
that we met earlier on the
page called .
Another definition of Phi
We defined &P to be (one of the two values given by)
Phi2 = Phi+1
Suppose we divide both sides of this equation by Phi:
Phi = 1 + 1/Phi
Here is another definition of &P -
that number which is 1 more than its reciprocal
(the reciprocal of a number is 1 over it so that, for example,
the reciprocal of 2 is 1/2 and
the reciprocal of 9 is 1/9).
Phi as a continued fraction
Look again at the last equation:
Phi = 1 + 1/Phi
This means that wherever we see Phi (&P) we can substitute
(1 + 1/Phi).
Since we see Phi on the right hand side,
lets substitute it in there!
Phi = 1 + 1/(1 + 1/Phi)
In fact, we can do this again and again and get:
Phi = 1 + 1
This unusual expression is called a continued fraction since we continue
to form fractions underneath fractions underneath fractions.
This continued fraction has a big surprise in store for us....
Phi is not a fraction
But Phi is a fraction .. it is
(&5 + 1)/2.
Here, by a fraction we mean a number fraction such as 2/3
or 12/7. The first
is a proper fraction since it are less than 1.
Also 5.61 is a fraction, a decimal fraction
since it is
561/100, the ratio of a whole number and a power of ten.
Strictly, all whole numbers can be written as fractions if we make
the denominator (the part below the line) equal to 1!
However, we commonly use the word fraction
when there really is a fraction in the value.
Mathematicians call all
these fractional (and whole) numbers rational numbers because they are the ratio of two
whole numbers and it is these number fractions that we will mean by fraction in this section.
It may seem as if all number can be written as fractions - but this is, in fact, false.
There are numbers which are not
the ratio of any two whole numbers, e.g.
&2 = 1.... , & = 3.14159...,
e = 2.71828... .
Such values are called ir-ratio-nal since they cannot be
represented as a ratio of two whole numbers (i.e. a fraction).
A simple consequence of this
is that their decimal fraction expansions go on for ever and never repeat at any stage!
Any and every fraction has a decimal fraction expansion that either
stops as in, for example, 1/8 = 0.125 exactly or else
eventually gets into a repeating pattern that repeats for ever
e.g. 5/12 = 0.... , 3/7 = 0.571 428571 ...
Can we write Phi as a fraction?
The answer is "No!" and there is a surprisingly simple
proof of this.
Here it is.
[with thanks to Prof Shigeki Matsumoto of Konan University, Japan]
First we suppose that &P can be written as a fraction and then show this leads to a contradiction,
so we are forced to the conclusion &P cannot be written as a fraction:
Suppose &P = a/b and that this fraction is in its lowest
terms which means that:
a and b are whole numbers
a and b are the smallest whole numbers to represent the fraction for Phi
Since &P & 1 then a & b
But we know from the alternative
definitions of &P and & that
&P = 1/& and
& = &P & 1 which we put in the fraction for &P:
&P = 1/(&P &1).
Now we substitute
a/b for &P:
a/b
= 1/(a/b &1) = b/(a & b)
But here we have another fraction for &P that has a
smaller numerator,
b since a & b
which is a contradiction because we said we had chosen a and b
were chosen to be the smallest whole numbers.
So we have a logical impossibility
if we assume &P can be
written as a proper fraction
and the only possibility that
logic allows
is that &P cannot
be written as a proper fraction -
&P is irrational.
If no fraction can be the exact value of &P, what fractions are good
approximations to &P?
The answer lies in the continued fraction for &P that we saw earlier on this page.
If we stop the
for &P at various points,
we get values which approximate to &P:
&P = 1 +&1
&P = 1 +&1
&P = 1 +&1
The next approximation is always
1 + 1/(the previous approximation)
shown in green.
Did you notice
that this series of fractions is just the ratios of successive
Fibonacci numbers - surprise!
The proper mathematical term for these fractions which are formed from stopping a continued fraction for
&P at various points
is the convergents
The series of convergents is
1,&&2,&&3,&&
5,&&8,&&13,&&
Why do Fibonacci numbers occur in the convergents?
This is an optional section where we show exactly why the Fibonacci numbers appear
in the successive approximations (the convergents) above.
The convergents start with 1/1 = F(1)/F(0)
where F(n) represents the n-th Fibonacci number.
To get from one fraction to the next,
we saw that we just take the reciprocal of the
fraction and add 1:
so the next one after F(1)/F(0) is
1 + 1F(1) / F(0)
= 1 + F(0)F(1)
= F(1) + F(0)F(1)
But the Fibonacci numbers have the property that
two successive numbers add to give the next,
so F(1) + F(0) = F(2) and our next fraction can be written as
F(1) + F(0)F(1)
So starting with the ratio of the first two Fibonacci numbers
the next convergent to &P is the ratio of the
two Fibonacci numbers.
This always happens:
if we have F(n)/F(n & 1) as a convergent to &P, then the
next convergent is F(n+1)/F(n).
We will get all the ratios of successive Fibonacci numbers
as values which get closer and closer to &P.
You can find out more about continued fractions and how they relate to splitting a rectangle into squares
and also to Euclid's algorithm on the
page at this site.
Other ways to find Phi using your calculator
Here are two more interesting ways to find it.
Calculator Method 1: Invert and Add 1
Enter 1 to start the process.
Take its reciprocal (the
button or else
and power y:-1).
Take its reciprocal.
Take its reciprocal.
Keep repeating the last step until the display is constant.
Keep repeating these two operations (take the reciprocal, add 1)
and you will find that soon
the display does not alter and settles down
("converging" as mathematicians call it) to a particular value,
namely 1.61803... .
In fact, you can start with many values but not all (for instance 0 or -1
will cause problems)
and it will still converge to the same value: Phi.
The formula &P = 1 + 1/&P shows us where the two
instructions come from.
To start, we note that the simplest approximation
to the continued fraction above is just 1.
Things to do
In Calculator method 1, 0 causes a problem because we cannot take its reciprocal.
So if x is -1,
when we take its reciprocal (1/-1 = -1 )
and add 1 we get 0.
So 0 and -1 are bad choices since they don't lead to Phi.
What value of x will give -1?
And what value of x would give that value?
Can you find a whole series of numbers which, in fact, do not lead to Phi with
Calculator method 1?
[Thanks to Warren Criswell for this problem.]
C A L C U L A T O R
R E S U L T S
<input type=button value="Show the value of Phi" onClick="outF=this.form.putmsg('Phi: '+(Math.sqrt(5)+1)/2+'')">
Calculator Method 2: Add 1 and take the square-root
Here is another way to get &P on your calculator.
Enter any number (whole or fractional) but it must be bigger than &1.
Take its square root.
Take its square root.
Keep repeating the last step until the display is constant
Keep repeating these two instructions and you will find
it too converges to &P.
This time we have used the other definition of Phi, namely
&P2 = &P + 1
or, taking the square root of both sides:
&P = &&P + 1
Can you see why we must start with a number which is not
(i.e. is not more negative)
Similar numbers
Robert Kerr Baxter wrote to me about other numbers that have the &P property that when you
square them their decimal parts remain the same:
Phi = 1.618033.. and Phi2 is 2.618033..
has the value&
Rob had noticed that this happens if we replace the 5 with
13 or 17
or 21 and so on.
The series of number here is
5, (9), 13, 17, 21, (25), 29, ... which are the numbers that are 1 more than the multiples of 4. The numbers
9 and 25 are in brackets because they are perfect squares, so taking their square roots gives a whole number - in fact, an
odd number - so when we add 1 and divide the result by two we just get a whole number with .00000... as the decimal
part.
Why does this happen?
Algebra can come to our help here and it is a nice application of "Solving Quadratics" that we have
in the first section on this page.
We want to find a formula for the numbers (x, say) "that have the same decimal part as their squares".
So, if we subtract x from x2,
the result will be a whole number because the
decimal parts were identical.
Let's call this difference N, remembering that it is a whole number.
So the difference between x2
and x is N, a whole number
is a description of these numbers in words.
We can write this in the language of mathematics as follows:
x2 & x = N
adding x to both sides:
x2 = N + x
and we can "solve" it in exactly the
x2 = 1 + x.
The formula for
x this time is
x = 1 & &1 + 4 N2
You can see that, under the square-root sign, we have 1 plus a multiple of 4 which gives the series:
N:12345...
1+4N:59131721...
just as Rob had found.
For example: if we choose N = 5,
then the number x (that increases by exactly 5
when squared) is
x = 1 & &1 + 4&5&=1 & 21&= 2...
and x2 = 7.... = 5 + x22
Checking we see that the square of this x is exactly
N = 5 more than the original number x.
Another example: take &P, which is
(1 + &5)/2 or
(1 + &(1+4&1))/2
so that N = 1.
Thus we can "predict" that &P squared will be >1 more than
&P itself
and, indeed, Phi = 1.618033.. and Phi2 = 2.618033.. .
We can do the same for other whole number values for N.
More generally: There is nothing in the maths of this section that prevents N
from being any number, for instance
0·5 or &.
Suppose N is &pi = 3.... .
We can find the number x that, when squared,
increases by exactly &!
x = 1 & &1 + 4 &&=1 & &12....&= 2·...22
and x2 = 5·... = 2·... + 3....
C A L C U L A T O R
Things to do
Make a table of the first few numbers similar to Phi in this way, starting with Phi and its square.
We have only used the + sign in the formula for x above, giving positive values of x.
What negative values of x are there, that is negative numbers which, when squared (becoming positive)
exactly the same decimal fraction part?
What is the number that can be squared by just adding 0·5?
Is there an upper limit to the size of N?
Can you use the formula to find two numbers that increase by one million (1,000,000)
when squared?
Can N be negative?
For instance, can we use the formula to find a number (as we have seen, there are two of them)
that is 0·5 smaller when it is squared?
What about a number that decreases by 1 when it is squared?
Is there a lower limit for the value of N?
We look at some other numbers similar to Phi but in a different way
on the (optional)
page.
This time we find numbers which are like the Golden Mean, Phi,
in that their decimal fraction parts are the same when we take their
reciprocals, i.e. find 1/x.
They are called .
updated 9 December 2011
