If the series is made by each number being the sum o the two preceding numbers, why does it start with two? further, how does it – from two – go to one?

Is there a reason why it shouldn't start with two?



Because that's how the sequence is defined. First number is two, second number is one, all further numbers are produced by summing the previous two.

so it's only difference from the Fibonacci sequence is that it starts with (2,1) instead of (0,1)?(which of course leads to a different sequence)

If you did that now it'd be called plagiarism.

i feel like (0,1) makes more sense

Yes.



No, it wouldn't.



To each their own. I, for one, think (0, 0) makes the most sense. Why should the second one be 1? It's ridiculous.

No. No one accuses people who have found Primefree generalisations of the Fibonacci sequence of plagiarism. Lucas sequences have (I believe) uses in things to do with primes.

It isn't like he just picked two numbers and said (without any investigation into the properties of the sequence) "These are Lucas Numbers".

And here was me thinking Lucas numbers went 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3....

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2198#comic