Talk:Pisano period

message: Has it been proven that there are always only 1,2,4 zeroes in a sequence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ozone- (talk • contribs) 2 January 2006.
:Yes, I added the reference.--Patrick (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeros 

message: http://code.google.com/p/pisanomatic/
suggests a link to music ...
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musicality ? 

message: The article is missing a history section. Who first proposed Pisano periods?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The MathWorld article and this book suggest that Joseph Louis Lagrange was the first person to note this property of Fibonacci numbers. Would it be OK to put this in the article?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This article is not very easy to read. There is lots of information on Pisano periods and their generalisations available, but this article does not present it in a systematic and helpful manner. There are many tables that are not particularly illuminating, and sections that have no real motivation. What is the point of the sums section? The powers of 10 section is completely unnecessary, and betrays a lack of mathematical sophistication: the fact about the Pisano periods of 10^n is very simple to show. To claim that it was 'proved' by a specific person does not accurately reflect the culture of mathematics.
Is anybody watching this article? I'd like to have a go at rewriting it, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes. On the other hand, I've been thinking a lot about Pisano periods recently, and this article has been of no help at all. I feel strongly that it can be made better.
Robodile (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring? 

message: The article currently states:
"Any prime p providing a counterexample would necessarily be a Wall-Sun-Sun prime, and such primes are also conjectured not to exist."
However in the Wall–Sun–Sun prime article the opposite is stated:
"In number theory, a Wall–Sun–Sun prime or Fibonacci–Wieferich prime is a certain kind of prime number which is conjectured to exist, although none are known."
TraxPlayer (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not contradictory. In fact, from the article Wall–Sun–Sun prime, one may see that that two opposite conjectures have been set, the non-existence, as well as the existence of infinitely many Wall-Sun Sun primes. This means that some mathematicians believe one thing, and some believe the opposite. As a belief is not a proof the two assertions that you have quoted are true and not contradictory. D.Lazard (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall-Sun-Sun primes question 

message: If p is a prime different from 2 and 5,
then the modulo p analogue of Binet's formula implies that (p) is the multiplicative order of the roots of  modulo p.
Above statement must be refined. Taking p=11, the roots are 4 (multiplicative order 5, as shown by the sequence (1,4,5,9,3(,1)) and 8 (multiplicative order 10).
Leen Droogendijk (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refinement required