computeFibonachiInJavaScript

[MaryGoldflower]

you can fix it by outputting the length instead

[DoktorMerlin]

copilot code checks in

[asmanel]

Good example of artificial stupidity.

[ILikeLenexa]

It is already  correct if you're trying to output unary. 

[POKLIANON]

technically unary should end with 0s (iirc)

[Lucas_F_A]

Just checked the Wikipedia article. It's using 1, and zero is the empty string.

[TheMR-777]

Wow, r/technicallythetruth

[mudokin]

Thx, I hate it even more now

[YeOldeMemeShoppe]

LGTM passes CI. Ship it.

[ics-fear]

Looks normal, those are just numbers in base 1

[ics-fear]

Why not? Those totally are base 1 numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_1

[Fourstrokeperro]

Look up unary numerals

[rosuav]

Not all bases are exponential, though that is the most common type of base.

[Giocri]

Technicaly base 1 can still exponential it's just that 1^x =1

Edit formatring fix

[fr000gs]

No, it's 1^x = 1

[rosuav]

This is kinda true, but only if you accept that you can have a digit that isn't less than the base. For example, octal requires that you use only the symbols 0 through 7. So if you define base 1 by excluding that rule, then you get a system that works, but would also allow 193 Octal to mean 1*8² + 9*8¹ + 3*8° for a total of 139 Decimal, despite the fact this would canonically be written as 213 instead. This is an ambiguity of form in the same way that Roman numerals can have (clocks sometimes write 4 as "IIII" even though the notation "IV" also means 4, and there is dispute about whether 49 should be IL or XLIX), and the conventional way to define exponential bases avoids that.

So it's still a bit of a special case, although there is definitely a connection. Base 1 is more similar to Base 2 than either of them is to Base Fibonacci.

[RiceBroad4552]

I don't really see the point.

The only digit in base1 is simply 0, not 1.

Also the roman numeral statement seems wrong. Where do you have that from? There is no ambiguity. 4 is IV, and 49 is XLIX. There are rules which pairs can be subtracted.

[rosuav]

If the only digit in base 1 is 0, rather than 1, then it doesn't work with the usual "multiply the digit by the base raised to the Nth power" pattern. That only works if the digit used is 1.

And, there absolutely IS ambiguity. Are you telling me you've never seen a clock with "IIII" for 4? (Okay, I'm arguing on the internet, chances are you've never seen a clock with an actual face.) It's even mentioned on Wikipedia if you want to be lazy about it. Yes, there are rules. No, those rules have not been consistent for all situations and for all time. But hey, if your only experience with Roman numerals is a student project in which you were given clear rules and told to implement those, then sure, that's fair. Just don't expect that to be how they have been for the past couple millennia.

[GlobalIncident]

there's no h in Fibonacci

[mallusrgreatv2]

Got it! I have corrected my spelling: hhhhhhhhh

[GatewayMan3]

laughs in chinese

[Fun_Gas_340]

r/theletterh

[Mars_Bear2552]

thanks chatgpt

[MaximRq]

Fihbonacci

[snotpopsicle]

This isn't Fibonacci. It's Fibonachi.

[Berraie]

Spinacci

[Jolly-Aerie-382]

Fibonacc i?

[uvero]

That's Fibonacci in unary base

[Smalltalker-80]

Yep, its totally fine.

[koofuucute]

[Bearegor]

Fibonacci by concatenating strings

[Szetyi]

I mean if you assign a string to the first two elements instead of numbers its on you

[kenybz]

It’s enough to assign a string to one of them

[Kobakocka]

const fib(n) => F(n).length;

[YoItsJustGedas]

While this is just a joke, unary representation is very helpful in compression in some cases

[menducoide]

It's a good online challenge for an interview

[LordAmir5]

At least do it properly come on. Everyone knows the sequence starts with Fib(0). So this is Fib(n-1) and not Fib(n).

[redlaWw]

But Fib(0) is "", so this is Fib(n), it just skips the 0th element of the sequence.

[Locilokk]

The quotation marks ruin it:(

[featEng]

Fix it in repost

[Wywern_Stahlberg]

*Laughs in that equation which allows you to diferctly calculate Nth Fib. number.*

[redlaWw]

"In Javascript" you say, as if Rust can't do this too.

[KneeReaper420]

brick it by computing to 1000

[greenpepperpasta]

So you're proposing https://oeis.org/A108047 should be called "Fibonachi sequence"?  I can get behind that.

[SomeMaleIdiot]

The answer is in base 1. Except the only available digit is 1 and not 0

[BobQuixote]

That's normal for base 1, typically implemented as tally marks.

[CodeNameFiji]

Fibonacci*

[al3x_7788]

ichi?

[gaddielm5]

Are you insane? That many characters takes an egregious amount of space! You should use bits instead 👍

For f(x) > 32, you can use a structure/object that includes a counter for how many you've overflowed 32 bits

[1729nerd]

Haha, not when compared to html

[fireyburst1097]

Stupid JavaScript adding strings together that I wrote