Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd
Upload
91 views

Module 1.2 - Fibonacci

This document contains a student's name, course information, and scores for a module 1.2 activity on the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio. The student measured and calculated ratios for different body parts. They noticed the ratios varied depending on how close the measurements were to being half of each other. The closest ratio to the golden ratio of 1.618 was 1.83 for the ratio of neck to navel and head to neck. Human errors in measurement may have impacted the accuracy. None of the student's ratios exactly matched the golden ratio.

Uploaded by

cai8via
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views

Module 1.2 - Fibonacci

This document contains a student's name, course information, and scores for a module 1.2 activity on the Fibonacci sequence and golden ratio. The student measured and calculated ratios for different body parts. They noticed the ratios varied depending on how close the measurements were to being half of each other. The closest ratio to the golden ratio of 1.618 was 1.83 for the ratio of neck to navel and head to neck. Human errors in measurement may have impacted the accuracy. None of the student's ratios exactly matched the golden ratio.

Uploaded by

cai8via
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Name: Allivia Jaazielle P.

Caina Date: Feb 12, 2021


Course: Computer Engineering Score: _____________

Module 1.2 Activity


Fibonacci sequence and Golden Ratio

44 cm 24 98.1 68 1.442 50.1 48 1.043


1.83
cm cm cm cm
cm
9.8 cm 7 cm 1.4 8.5 cm 4.2cm 2.02 18.8 15.3 1.23
cm cm
1. What do you notice?

I noticed that in my Set 1 data, which is the head to neck measurement is almost half of
my neck to navel measurement this leads to a higher value of ratio and even higher than
the golden ratio which is the 1.618.
While in my Set 2 data, my B2 is far from the half of A2, this resulted to a much closer
measurement to the golden ratio which is the 1.618 than the first set of data (Set 1). While
for my Set 3 data, the measurement of A3 is almost close to the measurement of B3, this
resulted to a value that is below the golden ratio (1.6128).
I also noticed that some of my measurements are not that accurate. This may be due to the
human errors where while I am measuring my body using a tape measure, I tend to
overlooked or just estimate values.

2. Does any of this measurement corresponds to the golden ratio? Explain.

I don't have a measurement that is exactly 1.618 or the golden ratio measurement. My
closes to that is the 1.83 which is the ratio of my neck to navel and my head to neck
measurements. The absolute error of this is 0.182. My second to closes measurement is the
ratio of the measurement of my hairline to corner of the nose and the measurement of the
corner of my nose to the bottom of my chin. This ratio is 1.4 which has an absolute error
of 0.218.

You might also like