Rabbit Population
Submitted 7 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/cd9c8025-005c-4cf0-bd23-01e67886abee.jpeg
Comments
Rubisco@slrpnk.net 7 months ago
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s going well
thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Is this indicating the triple point of a rabbit?
turnipjs@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
more like the triple point of two rabbits
Binette@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
And the best part in this is that it all aligns with the Mandelbrot set, for some reason
fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 months ago
Life is just fractals tbh
shneancy@lemmy.world 7 months ago
funny how you can come to the same conclusions if you’re - a) doing science b) doing Buddhism c) doing drugs
bsolos@lemm.ee 7 months ago
It doesn’t, the one that aligns is the bifurcation diagram of the Mandelbrot function (the one used to make the set, f(z)=z^2+c), which is different from the rabbit one (the logistic map, f(x)=rx(1-x)).
Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 7 months ago
They easily map to each other via linear transformation.
Binette@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
Oh I never knew that!
match@pawb.social 7 months ago
that’s meaningless because every bifurcation map looks the same
SwordInStone@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Thorry84@feddit.nl 7 months ago
As so often with anything related to maths, pi pops out at the most unexpected places.
criitz@reddthat.com 7 months ago
If you look hard enough, everything has a circle in it somewhere
Chuymatt@beehaw.org 7 months ago
Nah. 4.669
Hupf@feddit.org 7 months ago
Yes.
shasta@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Yeah, “what” is right. Wtf is this?
njaard@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It’s making reference to logistic curves and how rabbit populations, which can grow exponentially, will oscillate between a low and high population size.
In short, it explains why some years there are a shit ton of rabbits, and other years, very few.
Eheran@lemmy.world 7 months ago
But there is no oscillation visible here, just aliasing of the lines that make it appear as if there are suddenly none. Note the “none” instead of few. Also it would still not make sense since 1 can not split into 2? And why should the generational succession get faster and faster? 9 woman get 1 child every month kind of math or what?