Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Answer

coorrected links, . \n \
Source Link
edit approved Nov 4, 2013 at 8:33
Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
edit approved Nov 4, 2013 at 8:33
Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir
  • 347
  • 5
  • 17

For what it's worth, this is essentially A072649 in Sloane (http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072649http://oeis.org/A072649). All the formulas given there for that formula either are in terms of the logarithm or assume the Fibonacci numbers are already known and just search that sequence.

For what it's worth, this is essentially A072649 in Sloane (http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072649). All the formulas given there for that formula either are in terms of the logarithm or assume the Fibonacci numbers are already known and just search that sequence.

For what it's worth, this is essentially A072649 in Sloane (http://oeis.org/A072649). All the formulas given there for that formula either are in terms of the logarithm or assume the Fibonacci numbers are already known and just search that sequence.

Source Link
Michael Lugo
Michael Lugo
  • 14k
  • 7
  • 58
  • 80

For what it's worth, this is essentially A072649 in Sloane (http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A072649). All the formulas given there for that formula either are in terms of the logarithm or assume the Fibonacci numbers are already known and just search that sequence.