Rabbit Population
Submitted 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s going well
Binette@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
And the best part in this is that it all aligns with the Mandelbrot set, for some reason
fossilesque@mander.xyz 3 weeks ago
Life is just fractals tbh
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago
They easily map to each other via linear transformation.
Binette@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Oh I never knew that!
match@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
that’s meaningless because every bifurcation map looks the same
thesporkeffect@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Is this indicating the triple point of a rabbit?
turnipjs@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
more like the triple point of two rabbits
SwordInStone@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Thorry84@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
As so often with anything related to maths, pi pops out at the most unexpected places.
criitz@reddthat.com 3 weeks ago
If you look hard enough, everything has a circle in it somewhere
Chuymatt@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Nah. 4.669
Hupf@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Yes.
shasta@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
Yeah, “what” is right. Wtf is this?
njaard@lemmy.world 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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?