>That other patterns, aside from Fibonacci numbers, are found in nature?
Yes, and that most patterns misidentified as Fibonacci are not Fibonacci actually.
Both of which make the Fibonacci nothing "special", in the sense of its usually touted ("it can be found everywhere in nature" etc.).
The same for the rest of stuff you mentioned. It's written as arguments against things people say about the fibonacci series.
You just enumerating it and dismissing them as "obvious" is missing the point completely.
Of course they are obvious. That's the whole idea: that the fibonacci claims are refuted by such obvious information.
>That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature?
That photoshop exists?
That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only?
That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things?
This is written as if it's supposed to be an indictment of sorts, but after reading it, I'm no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature, or the incredible contributions of a man who brought advanced Indian and Arabic math back home to white people who were still using Roman numerals.
Good for you. I, on the other hand, am.
Your comment seems more like a ill-spirited attack on the article than a valid critique of it, what with enumerating tons of arguments he gave as if they don't mean anything (kind of like saying: "so he says photoshop exists, big deal", "so he says artists use 'rules' as guidelines only, big deal", etc) when those are arguments he makes AGAINST commonly held beliefs about the Fibonacci series.
Yes, and that most patterns misidentified as Fibonacci are not Fibonacci actually.
Both of which make the Fibonacci nothing "special", in the sense of its usually touted ("it can be found everywhere in nature" etc.).
The same for the rest of stuff you mentioned. It's written as arguments against things people say about the fibonacci series.
You just enumerating it and dismissing them as "obvious" is missing the point completely.
Of course they are obvious. That's the whole idea: that the fibonacci claims are refuted by such obvious information.
>That washing machines obey laws of gravity and make spirals similar to some that are found in nature? That photoshop exists? That artists use 'rules' as guidelines only? That greedy people will use really stupid ways to trick people into buying things? This is written as if it's supposed to be an indictment of sorts, but after reading it, I'm no less interested in Fibonacci numbers, their occurrence (alongside other patterns) in nature, or the incredible contributions of a man who brought advanced Indian and Arabic math back home to white people who were still using Roman numerals.
Good for you. I, on the other hand, am.
Your comment seems more like a ill-spirited attack on the article than a valid critique of it, what with enumerating tons of arguments he gave as if they don't mean anything (kind of like saying: "so he says photoshop exists, big deal", "so he says artists use 'rules' as guidelines only, big deal", etc) when those are arguments he makes AGAINST commonly held beliefs about the Fibonacci series.