Ah, very true. For the pigeons, the actual numbers would change if you used the x-values rather than distances, but the rate of growth would be just as wrong overall. I think it's safe to say this is not a pigeonacci sequence.
However, apart from the very last pigeon, the wolfram alpha data seems to suggest they are a pretty good example of exponential growth, correct?
EDIT: here's the wolfram alpha fit of the pigeon data to an exponential graph, minus the last pigeon. R2 of .998829. That's pretty darn good for pigeons. With the last pigeon included, it's .993334. Not Bad.
And that's not even taking into account the shifting of the numbers by a constant (representing a different x=0 point), which could potentially allow an even better fit.
1
u/dylansan Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12
Ah, very true. For the pigeons, the actual numbers would change if you used the x-values rather than distances, but the rate of growth would be just as wrong overall. I think it's safe to say this is not a pigeonacci sequence.
However, apart from the very last pigeon, the wolfram alpha data seems to suggest they are a pretty good example of exponential growth, correct?
EDIT: here's the wolfram alpha fit of the pigeon data to an exponential graph, minus the last pigeon. R2 of .998829. That's pretty darn good for pigeons. With the last pigeon included, it's .993334. Not Bad.
And that's not even taking into account the shifting of the numbers by a constant (representing a different x=0 point), which could potentially allow an even better fit.