Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are too many examples and programming guides (which, e.g., an internet search for "recursive procedure Fibonacci" will turn up) to count that use Fibonacci numbers as an example to illustrate recursive programming. The motivation for this article is to show why the naive way of doing this is a bad idea, as it is horrendously inefficient. We will exhibit much more efficient ways of computing Fibonacci numbers, both iterative and recursive, and analyze and compare worst case running times and memory usages. Using some mathematical properties of Fibonacci numbers leads to the most efficient method for their computation. For illustration and benchmarking, we will use Maple and its programming language, however, similar behaviour can be demonstrated in almost any other programming language. This exposition combines and explores the mathematical properties of Fibonacci numbers, notions of algorithmic complexity, and efficient Maple programming and profiling techniques, and may be used as an introduction to any of these three subjects. The techniques described can be readily generalized to more general types of linear recurrences with constant coefficients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".