Why is the 0th term of the padovan sequence 1 but for fibonacci it is 0?












1














padovan numbers are:



P(0)=1, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=2, P(4)=2, P(5)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



WHERE P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



fibonacci numbers are:



F(0)=0, F(1)=1, F(2)=1, F(3)=2, F(4)=3, F(5)=5, 8, 13, 21, etc



WHERE F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2)



Question



My question is, why not use P(0)=0 as follows:



P(0)=0, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=1, P(4)=2, P(5)=2, P(6)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



Since this satisfies P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



Also, when looking at the Fibonacci squares we see the first visible term of the sequence is F(1)



enter image description here



With the Padovan triangles the first visible term of the sequence is P(0)?



enter image description here



Which seems inconsistent to me. Can anyone give a mathematical explanation as to why P(0)=1 ... many thanks










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    1














    padovan numbers are:



    P(0)=1, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=2, P(4)=2, P(5)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



    WHERE P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



    fibonacci numbers are:



    F(0)=0, F(1)=1, F(2)=1, F(3)=2, F(4)=3, F(5)=5, 8, 13, 21, etc



    WHERE F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2)



    Question



    My question is, why not use P(0)=0 as follows:



    P(0)=0, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=1, P(4)=2, P(5)=2, P(6)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



    Since this satisfies P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



    Also, when looking at the Fibonacci squares we see the first visible term of the sequence is F(1)



    enter image description here



    With the Padovan triangles the first visible term of the sequence is P(0)?



    enter image description here



    Which seems inconsistent to me. Can anyone give a mathematical explanation as to why P(0)=1 ... many thanks










    share|cite|improve this question







    New contributor




    danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      1












      1








      1







      padovan numbers are:



      P(0)=1, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=2, P(4)=2, P(5)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



      WHERE P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



      fibonacci numbers are:



      F(0)=0, F(1)=1, F(2)=1, F(3)=2, F(4)=3, F(5)=5, 8, 13, 21, etc



      WHERE F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2)



      Question



      My question is, why not use P(0)=0 as follows:



      P(0)=0, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=1, P(4)=2, P(5)=2, P(6)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



      Since this satisfies P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



      Also, when looking at the Fibonacci squares we see the first visible term of the sequence is F(1)



      enter image description here



      With the Padovan triangles the first visible term of the sequence is P(0)?



      enter image description here



      Which seems inconsistent to me. Can anyone give a mathematical explanation as to why P(0)=1 ... many thanks










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      padovan numbers are:



      P(0)=1, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=2, P(4)=2, P(5)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



      WHERE P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



      fibonacci numbers are:



      F(0)=0, F(1)=1, F(2)=1, F(3)=2, F(4)=3, F(5)=5, 8, 13, 21, etc



      WHERE F(n) = F(n-1) + F(n-2)



      Question



      My question is, why not use P(0)=0 as follows:



      P(0)=0, P(1)=1, P(2)=1, P(3)=1, P(4)=2, P(5)=2, P(6)=3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16, 21, etc



      Since this satisfies P(n) = P(n-2) + P(n-3)



      Also, when looking at the Fibonacci squares we see the first visible term of the sequence is F(1)



      enter image description here



      With the Padovan triangles the first visible term of the sequence is P(0)?



      enter image description here



      Which seems inconsistent to me. Can anyone give a mathematical explanation as to why P(0)=1 ... many thanks







      sequences-and-series fibonacci-numbers






      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question






      New contributor




      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 1 hour ago









      danday74

      1093




      1093




      New contributor




      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      danday74 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          The OEIS sequence A000931 is "Padovan sequence (or Padovan numbers): a(n) = a(n-2) + a(n-3) with a(0)=1, a(1)=a(2)=0." In contrast, your sequence $P(n) = A000931(n+5) = A134816(n+1).$ The OEIS entry also states




          The following are basically all variants of the same sequence: A000931, A078027, A096231, A124745, A133034, A134816, A164001, A182097, A228361 and probably A020720. However, each one has its own special features and deserves its own entry.




          The point is that it is a matter of convenience and choice of where to start the sequence and what index to use. The same holds for the Fibonacci numbers. Some people choose $F(0)=F(1)=1$. About your specific choice of $P(0)=P(1)=P(2)=1,$ that is exactly A134816 except offset differs by 1. You are welcome to submit your different offset sequence to the OEIS, but unlikely to succeed.






          share|cite|improve this answer































            2














            Recurrence relations like those allow for going backwards; for instance we can define $F(-1)$ by $F(1)=F(0)+F(-1)$, so
            $$
            F(-1)=F(1)-F(0)=1
            $$

            Similarly, $F(-2)=F(0)-F(-1)=-1$ and so on. If we translate indices, we get a new Fibonacci-like sequence
            $$
            F'(0)=1,quad F'(1)=0,quad F'(n+2)=F'(n+1)+F'(n)
            $$

            and another one if we start from $-2$ and translate indices by $2$:
            $$
            F''(0)=-1,quad F'(1)=1,quad F''(n+2)=F''(n+1)+F''(n)
            $$



            If we apply the same idea to the Padovan sequence, we need $P(2)=P(0)+P(-1)$, so $P(-1)=P(2)-P(0)=0$ and we could define
            $$
            P'(0)=0,quad P'(1)=1,quad P'(2)=1,quad P'(n+3)=P'(n+1)+P'(n)
            $$

            Nothing different and no real mathematical explanation. Just history.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });






              danday74 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058979%2fwhy-is-the-0th-term-of-the-padovan-sequence-1-but-for-fibonacci-it-is-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3














              The OEIS sequence A000931 is "Padovan sequence (or Padovan numbers): a(n) = a(n-2) + a(n-3) with a(0)=1, a(1)=a(2)=0." In contrast, your sequence $P(n) = A000931(n+5) = A134816(n+1).$ The OEIS entry also states




              The following are basically all variants of the same sequence: A000931, A078027, A096231, A124745, A133034, A134816, A164001, A182097, A228361 and probably A020720. However, each one has its own special features and deserves its own entry.




              The point is that it is a matter of convenience and choice of where to start the sequence and what index to use. The same holds for the Fibonacci numbers. Some people choose $F(0)=F(1)=1$. About your specific choice of $P(0)=P(1)=P(2)=1,$ that is exactly A134816 except offset differs by 1. You are welcome to submit your different offset sequence to the OEIS, but unlikely to succeed.






              share|cite|improve this answer




























                3














                The OEIS sequence A000931 is "Padovan sequence (or Padovan numbers): a(n) = a(n-2) + a(n-3) with a(0)=1, a(1)=a(2)=0." In contrast, your sequence $P(n) = A000931(n+5) = A134816(n+1).$ The OEIS entry also states




                The following are basically all variants of the same sequence: A000931, A078027, A096231, A124745, A133034, A134816, A164001, A182097, A228361 and probably A020720. However, each one has its own special features and deserves its own entry.




                The point is that it is a matter of convenience and choice of where to start the sequence and what index to use. The same holds for the Fibonacci numbers. Some people choose $F(0)=F(1)=1$. About your specific choice of $P(0)=P(1)=P(2)=1,$ that is exactly A134816 except offset differs by 1. You are welcome to submit your different offset sequence to the OEIS, but unlikely to succeed.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  3












                  3








                  3






                  The OEIS sequence A000931 is "Padovan sequence (or Padovan numbers): a(n) = a(n-2) + a(n-3) with a(0)=1, a(1)=a(2)=0." In contrast, your sequence $P(n) = A000931(n+5) = A134816(n+1).$ The OEIS entry also states




                  The following are basically all variants of the same sequence: A000931, A078027, A096231, A124745, A133034, A134816, A164001, A182097, A228361 and probably A020720. However, each one has its own special features and deserves its own entry.




                  The point is that it is a matter of convenience and choice of where to start the sequence and what index to use. The same holds for the Fibonacci numbers. Some people choose $F(0)=F(1)=1$. About your specific choice of $P(0)=P(1)=P(2)=1,$ that is exactly A134816 except offset differs by 1. You are welcome to submit your different offset sequence to the OEIS, but unlikely to succeed.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  The OEIS sequence A000931 is "Padovan sequence (or Padovan numbers): a(n) = a(n-2) + a(n-3) with a(0)=1, a(1)=a(2)=0." In contrast, your sequence $P(n) = A000931(n+5) = A134816(n+1).$ The OEIS entry also states




                  The following are basically all variants of the same sequence: A000931, A078027, A096231, A124745, A133034, A134816, A164001, A182097, A228361 and probably A020720. However, each one has its own special features and deserves its own entry.




                  The point is that it is a matter of convenience and choice of where to start the sequence and what index to use. The same holds for the Fibonacci numbers. Some people choose $F(0)=F(1)=1$. About your specific choice of $P(0)=P(1)=P(2)=1,$ that is exactly A134816 except offset differs by 1. You are welcome to submit your different offset sequence to the OEIS, but unlikely to succeed.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 22 mins ago

























                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Somos

                  12.9k11034




                  12.9k11034























                      2














                      Recurrence relations like those allow for going backwards; for instance we can define $F(-1)$ by $F(1)=F(0)+F(-1)$, so
                      $$
                      F(-1)=F(1)-F(0)=1
                      $$

                      Similarly, $F(-2)=F(0)-F(-1)=-1$ and so on. If we translate indices, we get a new Fibonacci-like sequence
                      $$
                      F'(0)=1,quad F'(1)=0,quad F'(n+2)=F'(n+1)+F'(n)
                      $$

                      and another one if we start from $-2$ and translate indices by $2$:
                      $$
                      F''(0)=-1,quad F'(1)=1,quad F''(n+2)=F''(n+1)+F''(n)
                      $$



                      If we apply the same idea to the Padovan sequence, we need $P(2)=P(0)+P(-1)$, so $P(-1)=P(2)-P(0)=0$ and we could define
                      $$
                      P'(0)=0,quad P'(1)=1,quad P'(2)=1,quad P'(n+3)=P'(n+1)+P'(n)
                      $$

                      Nothing different and no real mathematical explanation. Just history.






                      share|cite|improve this answer


























                        2














                        Recurrence relations like those allow for going backwards; for instance we can define $F(-1)$ by $F(1)=F(0)+F(-1)$, so
                        $$
                        F(-1)=F(1)-F(0)=1
                        $$

                        Similarly, $F(-2)=F(0)-F(-1)=-1$ and so on. If we translate indices, we get a new Fibonacci-like sequence
                        $$
                        F'(0)=1,quad F'(1)=0,quad F'(n+2)=F'(n+1)+F'(n)
                        $$

                        and another one if we start from $-2$ and translate indices by $2$:
                        $$
                        F''(0)=-1,quad F'(1)=1,quad F''(n+2)=F''(n+1)+F''(n)
                        $$



                        If we apply the same idea to the Padovan sequence, we need $P(2)=P(0)+P(-1)$, so $P(-1)=P(2)-P(0)=0$ and we could define
                        $$
                        P'(0)=0,quad P'(1)=1,quad P'(2)=1,quad P'(n+3)=P'(n+1)+P'(n)
                        $$

                        Nothing different and no real mathematical explanation. Just history.






                        share|cite|improve this answer
























                          2












                          2








                          2






                          Recurrence relations like those allow for going backwards; for instance we can define $F(-1)$ by $F(1)=F(0)+F(-1)$, so
                          $$
                          F(-1)=F(1)-F(0)=1
                          $$

                          Similarly, $F(-2)=F(0)-F(-1)=-1$ and so on. If we translate indices, we get a new Fibonacci-like sequence
                          $$
                          F'(0)=1,quad F'(1)=0,quad F'(n+2)=F'(n+1)+F'(n)
                          $$

                          and another one if we start from $-2$ and translate indices by $2$:
                          $$
                          F''(0)=-1,quad F'(1)=1,quad F''(n+2)=F''(n+1)+F''(n)
                          $$



                          If we apply the same idea to the Padovan sequence, we need $P(2)=P(0)+P(-1)$, so $P(-1)=P(2)-P(0)=0$ and we could define
                          $$
                          P'(0)=0,quad P'(1)=1,quad P'(2)=1,quad P'(n+3)=P'(n+1)+P'(n)
                          $$

                          Nothing different and no real mathematical explanation. Just history.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          Recurrence relations like those allow for going backwards; for instance we can define $F(-1)$ by $F(1)=F(0)+F(-1)$, so
                          $$
                          F(-1)=F(1)-F(0)=1
                          $$

                          Similarly, $F(-2)=F(0)-F(-1)=-1$ and so on. If we translate indices, we get a new Fibonacci-like sequence
                          $$
                          F'(0)=1,quad F'(1)=0,quad F'(n+2)=F'(n+1)+F'(n)
                          $$

                          and another one if we start from $-2$ and translate indices by $2$:
                          $$
                          F''(0)=-1,quad F'(1)=1,quad F''(n+2)=F''(n+1)+F''(n)
                          $$



                          If we apply the same idea to the Padovan sequence, we need $P(2)=P(0)+P(-1)$, so $P(-1)=P(2)-P(0)=0$ and we could define
                          $$
                          P'(0)=0,quad P'(1)=1,quad P'(2)=1,quad P'(n+3)=P'(n+1)+P'(n)
                          $$

                          Nothing different and no real mathematical explanation. Just history.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 1 hour ago









                          egreg

                          178k1484201




                          178k1484201






















                              danday74 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                              draft saved

                              draft discarded


















                              danday74 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                              danday74 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              danday74 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                              Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                              Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058979%2fwhy-is-the-0th-term-of-the-padovan-sequence-1-but-for-fibonacci-it-is-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

                              Ross-on-Wye

                              Eastern Orthodox Church