# [Fwd: Re: [Tutor] Need more precise digits]

**Lloyd Hugh Allen
**
lha2@columbia.edu

*Sun, 02 Dec 2001 16:55:48 -0500*

I'll get a hang of this replying thing one of these days.
-------- Original Message --------
From: Lloyd Hugh Allen <vze2f978@mail.verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Tutor] Need more precise digits
To: dman <dsh8290@rit.edu>
dman wrote:
>*
*>* On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 04:57:49AM -0500, Tim Peters wrote:
*>* | [Kirby Urner]
*>* | > ...
*>* | > By the way, another application of the generator feature
*>* | > came up for me on another list recently. I was chatting
*>* | > with a community college prof about continued fractions,
*>* | > which have the standard form:
*>* ...
*>* | Note that the numerators and denominators of the convergents to this are the
*>* | Fibonacci numbers; that is, this:
*>*
*>* Interesting stuff here :-). I've never seen continued fractions
*>* before (SE majors don't need any math beyond Calc 3, Discrete 2,
*>* Prob & Stat 1, and Diff. Eq.). I've also never seen the Fibonacci
*>* numbers except in CS examples. This is the first time I've seen them
*>* applied somewhere.
*
That's ironic, that you hadn't seen continued fractions: as a mathie, I
had them in "Combinatorial Number Theory", which was described as
Computer Science without Computers (except that by the time that I took
it, comfort with Mathematica, and weekly meditation with Mathematica,
were requisite). (I still remember when the Academic Computing people
got really mad at our section the weekend that we were supposed to sieve
for all of the primes <= 10**6, and brought one of the servers to a
screeching halt with our poor algorithms--I think mine did a bunch of
comparisons of two or three lists with 10**5 or 10**6 elements to start
with, but then got more efficient).