|
|
#11
03-23-2007, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
[ QUOTE ]
major flaw in their logic is that the population is not goig to go down by one person whole when one person dies. I believe that the global population increases something like three people a second. [/ QUOTE ] How short an attention span do you have? They start talking about human birth rates in, like, the second paragraph. 
|
|
#12
03-23-2007, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
[ QUOTE ]
major flaw in their logic is that the population is not goig to go down by one person whole when one person dies. I believe that the global population increases something like three people a second. [/ QUOTE ] Besides the fact that the article has close to zero interest for reasons already mentioned above (most victims are not turned into vampires, etc.), your counter argument is flawed. An exponential growth will destroy a linear growth (such as 3 people per second) in the long term. The human growth is also somewhat exponential actually, but on a much longer timescale, and can be fairly correctly approximated as linear on a 30-months timescale (or we could just say it's a smaller exponential, which will also get destroyed by the faster vampire one).
|
|
#13
03-23-2007, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
i'm pretty sure i heard this argument circa 5th grade
|
|
#14
03-23-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] major flaw in their logic is that the population is not goig to go down by one person whole when one person dies. I believe that the global population increases something like three people a second. [/ QUOTE ] Besides the fact that the article has close to zero interest for reasons already mentioned above (most victims are not turned into vampires, etc.), your counter argument is flawed. An exponential growth will destroy a linear growth (such as 3 people per second) in the long term. The human growth is also somewhat exponential actually, but on a much longer timescale, and can be fairly correctly approximated as linear on a 30-months timescale (or we could just say it's a smaller exponential, which will also get destroyed by the faster vampire one). [/ QUOTE ] You need to get out more.
|
|
#15
03-23-2007, 04:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But they also note that the "Buffy" universe was possible due to the slayers keeping the vampires in check. No such thing as vampires [/ QUOTE ] What an assanine study, every one knows that a Vampire needs to offer you his or her blood in order to turn you. Fiction is always a step ahead of science. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#16
03-23-2007, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mathmeticians prove vampires don\'t exist
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm not on board with this whole "vampires don't exist" bs. Don't vampires control blood banks (as in Blade), so they don't have to kill to get blood? ScottieK [/ QUOTE ] Maybe AID's wiped them out. [/ QUOTE ] No - decapitation, wooden stake through the heart, direct sunlight. That's it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
