User talk:Marvin Marmalade

March 2017
Hello, I'm McGeddon. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Alan Turing seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you objected to my opinion: "If the general interest in Fibonacci numbers achieved anything, it caused Turing to make an important discovery." If I can think of a better replacement I will put it here for your approval. Otherwise I will forget it.  I just feel that we need to throw a sop to the general opinion that Fibonacci numbers are for fools only. Marvin Marmalade (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if I mentioned another example: Matiyasevich used Fibonacci numbers to solve Hilbert's 10th problem. But then I am going perhaps too far off the subject. Marvin Marmalade (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Patterns in nature mentions Turing, and Fibonacci number mentions Matiyasevich, so maybe ... Marvin Marmalade (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Turing's work didn't shed much light on Phyllotaxis, but it had a big impact on the mathematics of animal morphogenesis." Marvin Marmalade (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Saying that Turing's interest in Fibonacci numbers led to something is fine; the aside that other people's interests didn't amount to anything seems like a subjective opinion, and unnecessary. --McGeddon (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the objection. However I was actually referring to the commonly held belief that Fibonacci numbers weren't important--a belief that I don't necessarily share. Marvin Marmalade (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)