English

Tantalizing properties of subsequences of the Fibonacci sequence modulo 10

Number Theory 2024-03-19 v2 Combinatorics

Abstract

The Fibonacci sequence modulo mm, which we denote (Fm,n)n=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{m,n}\right)_{n=0}^\infty where Fm,n\mathcal{F}_{m,n} is the Fibonacci number FnF_n modulo mm, has been a well-studied object in mathematics since the seminal paper by D.~D.~Wall in 1960 exploring a myriad of properties related to the periods of these sequences. Since the time of Lagrange it has been known that (Fm,n)n=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{m,n}\right)_{n=0}^\infty is periodic for each mm. We examine this sequence when m=10m=10, yielding a sequence of period length 60. In particular, we explore its subsequences composed of every rthr^{\mathrm{th}} term of (F10,n)n=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{10,n}\right)_{n=0}^\infty starting from the term F10,k\mathcal{F}_{10,k} for some 0k590 \leq k \leq 59. More precisely we consider the subsequences (F10,k+rj)j=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{10,k+rj}\right)_{j=0}^\infty, which we show are themselves periodic and whose lengths divide 60. Many intriguing properties reveal themselves as we alter the kk and rr values. For example, for certain rr values the corresponding subsequences surprisingly obey the Fibonacci recurrence relation; that is, any two consecutive subsequence terms sum to the next term modulo 10. Moreover, for all rr values relatively prime to 60, the subsequence (F10,k+rj)j=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{10,k+rj}\right)_{j=0}^\infty coincides exactly with the original parent sequence (F10,n)n=0\left(\mathcal{F}_{10,n}\right)_{n=0}^\infty (or a cyclic shift of it) running either forward or reverse. We demystify this phenomena and explore many other tantalizing properties of these subsequences.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2111.13276,
  title  = {Tantalizing properties of subsequences of the Fibonacci sequence modulo 10},
  author = {Dan Guyer and aBa Mbirika and Miko Scott},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13276},
  year   = {2024}
}

Comments

29 pages, 12 figures. Version 2 is the submitted version. This version added a proof of Lemma 3.2 and improved exposition throughout the paper