Fibonacci: How to think recursively

B

Baba

Level: beginner

I would like to know how to approach the following Fibonacci problem:
How may rabbits do i have after n months?

I'm not looking for the code as i could Google that very easily. I'm
looking for a hint to put me on the right track to solve this myself
without looking it up.

my brainstorming so far brought me to a stand still as i can't seem to
imagine a recursive way to code this:

my attempted rough code:

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
result = fibonacci (n-1) + fibonacci (n-2)
OR

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
fibonacci(n+2) - fibonacci(n+1) - n = 0

How to go about this?

Thanks
Baba
 
M

Mel

Baba said:
Level: beginner

I would like to know how to approach the following Fibonacci problem:
How may rabbits do i have after n months?

I'm not looking for the code as i could Google that very easily. I'm
looking for a hint to put me on the right track to solve this myself
without looking it up.

my brainstorming so far brought me to a stand still as i can't seem to
imagine a recursive way to code this:

my attempted rough code:

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
result = fibonacci (n-1) + fibonacci (n-2)

I don't think this is the base case. The base case would be one or more
values of `n` that you already know the fibonacci number for. Your
recursive function can just test for those and return the right answer right
away. The the expression you've coded contains a good way to handle the
non-base cases. There's no such problem as "overlapping recursions".

Mel.
 
M

Matteo Landi

I suggest you to memoize results in order to prevent overlapping recursion.

Regards,
Matteo
 
S

Steven D'Aprano

Level: beginner

I would like to know how to approach the following Fibonacci problem:
How may rabbits do i have after n months?

I'm not looking for the code as i could Google that very easily. I'm
looking for a hint to put me on the right track to solve this myself
without looking it up.

my brainstorming so far brought me to a stand still as i can't seem to
imagine a recursive way to code this:


Perhaps you need to start with a simpler case to get your head around the
ideas. Let's look at factorial first.

fact(n) = n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*...*2*1

Working upwards:

fact(0) = 1 # this is by definition.
fact(1) = 1 # also by definition.
fact(2) = 2*1 = 2*fact(1)
fact(3) = 3*2*1 = 3*fact(2)
....
fact(n) = n*fact(n-1)

So now you have the base case:
if n is 1 or smaller, fact(n) returns 1

and the recursive case:
otherwise fact(n) returns n*fact(n-1)

Now write that as a Python function, and test it to see that it is
correct. Come back once you've got it working satisfactorily.



Now, can you apply the same reasoning to the Fibonacci problem?

What is your base case? You need some way to halt the recursion,
something that *doesn't* make a recursive call.

def fib(n):
if SOME_CONDITION:
return SOME_VALUE
else:
return SOME_RECURSION

is the most basic form you can have. Notice that you must *return*
something. That's basic Python syntax -- if you don't call return, the
function will return the special None object, which is not what you want.

More generally, you could have multiple base cases and multiple recursive
cases, not necessarily one of each. But there must be at least one non-
recursive expression that gets returned, or the recursion can never
terminate.

my attempted rough code:

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
result = fibonacci (n-1) + fibonacci (n-2)

Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with overlapping recursion. It
will work, and Python can handle it easily.

But in practical terms, it can lead to great inefficiency. In this
example, it should be avoided because it is slow. Very slow. To calculate
the nth Fibonacci number using naive recursion requires *many* calls:

fib(4) # first call
=> fib(3) + fib(2) # three calls
=> fib(2) + fib(1) + fib(1) + fib(0) # seven calls
=> fib(1) + fib(0) + 1 + 1 + 0 # nine calls
=> 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 3

So to get fib(4) = 3 requires nine calls to fib().

This growth function doesn't have a name (as far as I know), but it grows
much faster than fib() itself:

n = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 ...
fib(n) = 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 ... 9227465 ...
calls = 1 1 3 5 9 15 25 ... 29860703 ...

As you can see, the number of calls is also calculable by a recursive
expression R:

R(0) = R(1) = 1
R(n) = R(n-1) + R(n-2) + 1

This is very similar to the Fibonacci recursion, only it grows more
quickly. But I digress...


You can make the recursive version more efficient if you give it a
memory. In the call to fib(5), for example, it ends up calling fib(4)
once, fib(3) twice, fib(2) three times, fib(1) four times, and fib(0)
twice. If it could remember each value once it saw it, it could
potentially save nine calls (out of fifteen). That's a less inefficient
use of recursion. Think about ways to give it a short-term memory.

You can make it even more efficient by giving fib() a long-term cache, so
that each call to fib(5) requires one cache lookup rather than six (or
fifteen) recursive calls. Other than the first time, obviously. This is
called memoisation, but again I digress.


There are other techniques, but this will do to get started.
 
M

Mark Tolonen

There are other techniques, but this will do to get started.

Once you realize recursion for Fibonacci numbers is still fairly slow, look
up generator functions :^)

-Mark
 
C

Chris Rebert

Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with overlapping recursion. It
will work, and Python can handle it easily.

But in practical terms, it can lead to great inefficiency. In this
example, it should be avoided because it is slow. Very slow. To calculate
the nth Fibonacci number using naive recursion requires *many* calls:

   fib(4)                                # first call
   => fib(3) + fib(2)                    # three calls
   => fib(2) + fib(1) + fib(1) + fib(0)  # seven calls
   => fib(1) + fib(0) + 1 + 1 + 0        # nine calls
   => 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 3

So to get fib(4) = 3 requires nine calls to fib().

This growth function doesn't have a name (as far as I know),

It's A001595 in OEIS; http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/A001595
"Sometimes called 'Leonardo numbers'"
Also apparently "2-ranks of difference sets constructed from Segre hyperovals."
but it grows
much faster than fib() itself:

n      = 0   1   2   3   4   5   6   ... 35       ...
fib(n) = 0   1   1   2   3   5   8   ... 9227465  ...
calls  = 1   1   3   5   9   15  25  ... 29860703 ...

As you can see, the number of calls is also calculable by a recursive
expression R:

R(0) = R(1) = 1
R(n) = R(n-1) + R(n-2) + 1

This is very similar to the Fibonacci recursion, only it grows more
quickly. But I digress...

Other formulations courtesy OEIS:

R(n) = sum(fib(i) for i in range(1, n+1)) - fib(n-1)

R(n) = 2*fib(n+1) - 1

Cheers,
Chris
 
N

News123

Level: beginner

I would like to know how to approach the following Fibonacci problem:
How may rabbits do i have after n months?

I'm not looking for the code as i could Google that very easily. I'm
looking for a hint to put me on the right track to solve this myself
without looking it up.

my brainstorming so far brought me to a stand still as i can't seem to
imagine a recursive way to code this:

my attempted rough code:

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
result = fibonacci (n-1) + fibonacci (n-2)

OR

def fibonacci(n):
# base case:
fibonacci(n+2) - fibonacci(n+1) - n = 0
Hi Baba,

Let's take another example: factorials:
Trivial, but you 'just have to apply the same techniques FIbonacci


n! = 1 * 2 * 3 . . . * n

Very first thing is to always find a trivial case, or the terminal
condition.
Tjis is, when you reduced the problem to the most trivial case(s), for
which you don't need anymore recursion

for factorials this would be
0! = 1
for Fibonacci you might have multiple trivial cases

and the recursive definition of factorial is\
n! = (n - 1) * n

so the code for factorial looks something like:


def factorial(n):
if n == 0:
# treat the trivial case / cases for which ou know the answer
return 1
else:
# reduce the problem by the recursive definition
return factorial(n-1)*n


Hope this helps.
 
B

Baba

Mathematically, there is nothing wrong with overlapping recursion. It
will work, and Python can handle it easily.

Based on the advice by Steven and Mel i tried my initial 'guess' and
it does seem to work fine. When looking at it using pencil and paper i
thought "well, each recursive call will call 2 new ones and if n is
large i will have a huge overlap, so it probably is the wrong
approach". However it turns out to be fine in principle. It can be
handled, as Steven pointed out.

But in practical terms, it can lead to great inefficiency. In this
example, it should be avoided because it is slow. Very slow. To calculate
the nth Fibonacci number using naive recursion requires *many* calls:

You can make it even more efficient by giving fib() a long-term cache, so
that each call to fib(5) requires one cache lookup rather than six (or
fifteen) recursive calls. Other than the first time, obviously. This is
called memoisation, but again I digress.

I looked memoisation up and decided that for now i will not go near
it. First i will try to build up some bacic skills but thank you very
much for the hint. Memoisation will certainly be on the list of future
exercises.

However, the idea that memoisation is needed to make the computation
more efficient confirms my initial feeling that a 'simple' recursive
approach is somewhat not ideal.


So here's my code. It does still cause me one headache. If i use
f(0)=0
and f(1)=1 as base cases the result will be 144. I was expecting the
result to be the next value in the series (233)...
If i use f(1)=1 and f(2)=2 as base cases them i get my expected
result. I assume this has to do with our understanding/defining the
start of the Fibonacci series?


def r_fib(n):
if n == 1: return 1
elif n == 2: return 2
else: return r_fib(n-2) + r_fib(n-1)

print r_fib(12)


Thanks
Baba
 
A

Alain Ketterlin

Baba said:
Level: beginner

I would like to know how to approach the following Fibonacci problem:
How may rabbits do i have after n months?

I'm not looking for the code as i could Google that very easily. I'm
looking for a hint to put me on the right track to solve this myself
without looking it up.

fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2), so you need the two previous values to
compute the next one (that's the main difference between fibonacci and
factorial). So here is a hint: instead of computing only fib(n), compute
a pair (fib(n),fib(n-1)). It now becomes a problem very similar to
factorial: for instance, what's (fib(7),fib(6)) if you have the values
of (fib(6),fib(5))? Now write a recursive function fib2(n) that returns
the last two values. And a simple wrapper fib(n) that calls fib2(n) and
returns the first element of the pair.

-- Alain.
 
N

News123

Hi Baba,
So here's my code. It does still cause me one headache. If i use
f(0)=0
and f(1)=1 as base cases the result will be 144. I was expecting the
result to be the next value in the series (233)...
If i use f(1)=1 and f(2)=2 as base cases them i get my expected
result. I assume this has to do with our understanding/defining the
start of the Fibonacci series?


def r_fib(n):
if n == 1: return 1
elif n == 2: return 2
else: return r_fib(n-2) + r_fib(n-1)

print r_fib(12)

Let's calculate the first 12 Fobonacci numbers first manually:

0: 0 # as of its definition
1: 1 @ as of its definition
2: 0 + 1 = 1
3: 1 + 1 = 2
4: 1 + 2 = 3
5: 2 + 3 = 5
6: 3 + 5 = 8
7: 5 + 8 = 13
8: 8 + 13 = 21
9: 13 + 21 = 34
10: 21 + 34 = 55
11: 34 + 55 = 89
12: 55 + 89 = 144

So if you use f(0) = 0 and f(1) = 1 you seem to get the coorec result,
right?


Now the question is why you get the wrong result with your code:

def r_fib(n):
if n == 1: return 1
elif n == 2: return 2
else: return r_fib(n-2) + r_fib(n-1)


The answer is very simple your result n=2 is wrong.
You wrote, that it is 2, but it should be 1
 
S

Steven D'Aprano

So here's my code. It does still cause me one headache. If i use f(0)=0
and f(1)=1 as base cases the result will be 144. I was expecting the
result to be the next value in the series (233)...

That's because you're not generating the Fibonacci series, but a similar
unnamed(?) series with the same recurrence but different starting
conditions. The Fibinacci series starts with f(0)=1, f(1)=1.

If i use f(1)=1 and
f(2)=2 as base cases them i get my expected result.

Which implies that f(0) must be 1, not 0.
 
A

Albert van der Horst

I don't think this is the base case. The base case would be one or more
values of `n` that you already know the fibonacci number for. Your
recursive function can just test for those and return the right answer right
away. The the expression you've coded contains a good way to handle the
non-base cases. There's no such problem as "overlapping recursions".

[Didn't you mean: I don't understand what you mean by overlapping
recursions? You're right about the base case, so clearly the OP
uses some confusing terminology.]

I see a problem with overlapping recursions. Unless automatic memoizing
is one, they are unduely inefficient, as each call splits into two
calls.

If one insists on recursion (untested code, just for the idea.).

def fib2( n ):
' return #rabbits last year, #rabbits before last '
if n ==1 :
return (1,1)
else
penult, ult = fib2( n-1 )
return ( ult, ult+penult)

def fub( n ):
return fib2(n)[1]


Try fib and fub for largish numbers (>1000) and you'll feel the
problem.

Groetjes Albert
 
N

Neil Cerutti

[Didn't you mean: I don't understand what you mean by
overlapping recursions? You're right about the base case, so
clearly the OP uses some confusing terminology.]

I see a problem with overlapping recursions. Unless automatic
memoizing is one, they are unduely inefficient, as each call
splits into two calls.

If one insists on recursion (untested code, just for the idea.).

def fib2( n ):
' return #rabbits last year, #rabbits before last '
if n ==1 :
return (1,1)
else
penult, ult = fib2( n-1 )
return ( ult, ult+penult)

def fub( n ):
return fib2(n)[1]

Try fib and fub for largish numbers (>1000) and you'll feel the
problem.

There are standard tricks for converting a recursive iteration
into a tail-recursive one. It's usually done by adding the
necessary parameters, e.g.:

def fibr(n):
def fib_helper(fibminus2, fibminus1, i, n):
if i == n:
return fibminus2 + fibminus1
else:
return fib_helper(fibminus1, fibminus1 + fibminus2, i+1, n)
if n < 2:
return 1
else:
return fib_helper(1, 1, 2, n)

Once you've got a tail-recursive solution, you can usually
convert it to loop iteration for languages like Python that favor
them. The need for a temporary messed me up.

def fibi(n):
if n < 2:
return 1
else:
fibminus2 = 1
fibminus1 = 1
i = 2
while i < n:
fibminus2, fibminus1 = fibminus1, fibminus2 + fibminus1
i += 1
return fibminus2 + fibminus1

It's interesting that the loop iterative solution is, for me,
harder to think up without doing the tail-recursive one first.
 
M

Mike

The most straightforward method would be to apply the formula
directly.
Loop on j computing Fj along the way
if n<=1 : return n

Fold=0
Fnew=1
for j in range(2,n) :
Fold, Fnew = Fnew, Fold+Fnew
return Fnew

Even simpler:
return round(((1+sqrt(5.))/2)**n/sqrt(5.))
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,577
Members
45,054
Latest member
LucyCarper

Latest Threads

Top