Click here to Skip to main content
Click here to Skip to main content

Fibonacci Without Loops or Recursion

, 17 Dec 2012
Rate this:
Please Sign up or sign in to vote.
A method for calculating a Fibonacci number without using loops or recursion.

Introduction

While reading one of our Insider News posts which linked to Evan Miller's site,  he mentioned a mathematical means of producing a Fibonacci number without using loops or recursion.   I decided to post the C# version of it here, but in no way do I claim credit to creating this.   I thought it was interesting enough to share for those who might not read the Insider News articles.  

You can read more about this closed-form solution on wiki.

The Code

public static long Fibonacci(long n)
{
    return (long)Math.Round(0.44721359549995682d * Math.Pow(1.6180339887498949d, n));
}   

NOTE: Due to limits of precision, the preceding formula is only accurate up to n = 77. 

UPDATE

Based on YvesDaoust's recommendation, I've updated the formula to use a simpler version of the closed form solution (also found on Wiki), as it proves to be faster and more compact.

Furthermore, I've adjusted the constants slightly to improve the function's accuracy.

License

This article, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

About the Author

Andrew Rissing
Software Developer (Senior)
United States United States
Since I've begun my profession as a software developer, I've learned one important fact - change is inevitable. Requirements change, code changes, and life changes.
 
So..If you're not moving forward, you're moving backwards.

Comments and Discussions

 
GeneralThoughts PinprofessionalPIEBALDconsult8-Sep-13 13:55 
GeneralRe: Thoughts PinmemberAndrew Rissing10-Sep-13 5:08 
Questionformula's missing part PinmemberMember 33856988-Sep-13 11:30 
AnswerRe: formula's missing part PinmemberAndrew Rissing10-Sep-13 5:06 
GeneralRe: formula's missing part PinmemberYuksel YILDIRIM14-Oct-13 15:56 
GeneralMy vote of 2 PinmemberYvesDaoust17-Dec-12 1:57 
QuestionCan do better PinmemberYvesDaoust17-Dec-12 1:51 
AnswerRe: Can do better PinmemberAndrew Rissing17-Dec-12 4:48 
AnswerRe: Can do better PinmemberAndrew Rissing17-Dec-12 5:04 
GeneralRe: Can do better [modified] PinmemberYvesDaoust17-Dec-12 5:32 
GeneralRe: Can do better PinmemberAndrew Rissing17-Dec-12 12:04 
GeneralRe: Can do better PinmemberYvesDaoust17-Dec-12 20:34 
GeneralRe: Can do better PinmemberAndrew Rissing18-Dec-12 4:24 
GeneralMy vote of 5 PinmemberManish Choudhary .NET expert14-Dec-12 18:50 
BugThis is correct only for n up to 70 PinmemberMatt T Heffron13-Dec-12 12:12 
GeneralRe: This is correct only for n up to 70 PinmemberAndrew Rissing13-Dec-12 12:45 
GeneralRe: This is correct only for n up to 70 PinmemberAndrew Rissing17-Dec-12 12:05 
Btw, with the recent changes, I've improved the accuracy (up to n = 77) and the performance a bit. Feel free to try it out.

General General    News News    Suggestion Suggestion    Question Question    Bug Bug    Answer Answer    Joke Joke    Rant Rant    Admin Admin   

Use Ctrl+Left/Right to switch messages, Ctrl+Up/Down to switch threads, Ctrl+Shift+Left/Right to switch pages.

| Advertise | Privacy | Mobile
Web01 | 2.8.140721.1 | Last Updated 17 Dec 2012
Article Copyright 2012 by Andrew Rissing
Everything else Copyright © CodeProject, 1999-2014
Terms of Service
Layout: fixed | fluid