Yes but the mathematician considers the numbers under 100 to be very small fraction of the numbers under, 1000, or 10^12 or something. Or, in math language, a very small portion of the natural numbers.
As some one who rights stats libraries, I can see it now.
"Bug: code does not work with an input of 1"
"1 is of approaching-zero-significance when you consider all of the other test cases we are meeting. 1 is not the responsibility of this lib. Feel free to fork. ======= issue closed."
Comments
I wrote an explicit-formula fibonacci function once. I think you lose precision before n=100. It was disappointing.
Yes but the mathematician considers the numbers under 100 to be very small fraction of the numbers under, 1000, or 10^12 or something. Or, in math language, a very small portion of the natural numbers.
As some one who rights stats libraries, I can see it now.
"Bug: code does not work with an input of 1"
"1 is of approaching-zero-significance when you consider all of the other test cases we are meeting. 1 is not the responsibility of this lib. Feel free to fork. ======= issue closed."