| Author |
Message |
 |
|
|
 |
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/05 08:52:44
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego
|
To vanquish a vampire, one generally employs a stake, a cross, a string of garlic, or a combination of all three. But there's one highly effective anti-vampire weapon that few think to use: math.
A surprisingly large number of academic studies—as in, more than one—have applied mathematical modeling to the concept of human-vampire co-existence. Using the depiction of bloodsuckers in various forms of media, from Bram Stoker's Dracula to True Blood, these papers look at whether Earth's vampire population would inevitably annihilate humanity, and, if so, how long it would take.
Mathematically influenced scholarship of vampire-human relations took off in the early '80s courtesy of Richard Hartl and Alexander Mehlmann, Austrian mathematicians with a mutual penchant for the undead. In 1982, their paper, titled "The Transylvanian Problem of Renewable Resources" was published in the operations research journal RAIRO. In it, Hartl and Mehlmann posited "optimal bloodsucking strategies for dynamic continuous vampires."
In doing so, they divided vampires into three categories: the "asymptotically satiated vampire," the "blood maximizing vampire," and the "unsatiable vampire." Regardless of the type of vampire, though, they found that bloodsuckers can't help but face diminishing resources:
"[W]e are facing a typical consumption-resource trade off. The vampire society derives utility from consumption of blood but in sucking the blood of a human being and in turning him to a vampire the resource of human beings is reduced whereas the number of vampires is increased. Both of these effects diminish the resource of humans per vampire curtailing future possibilities of consumption."
Hartl and Mehlmann further explored this vexing conundrum in a paper published in Applied Mathematical Modeling the following year. “The authors are well-aware that belief in vampires seems highly irrational to a scientist," they wrote in "Convex-Concave Utility Function: Optimal Blood-Consumption for Vampires," before launching into a proposed vampire self-sustainability model based on the Lotka-Volterra prey-predator system.
There was a lull in vampiric math papers during the '90s and early aughts, but in 2007, another article analyzed the plausibility of human-vampire co-existence. In “Cinema Fiction vs. Physics Reality: Ghosts, Vampires, and Zombies,” published in Skeptical Inquirer, authors Costas Efthimiou and Sohang Gandhi presented a pessimistic view of humanity's future in the face of thirsty vampires. "The fact of the matter is," they wrote, "if vampires truly feed with even a tiny fraction of the frequency that they are depicted to in movies and folklore, then the human race would have been wiped out quite quickly after the first vampire appeared."
Working with the conservative estimate that vampires only need to feed once a month, Efthimiou and Gandhi looked at population stats and concluded that vampires would eliminate humans within three years. Put simply, they said, "vampires cannot exist, since their existence contradicts the existence of human beings." (They also threw in a bit of sass: "Apparently, whomever devised the vampire legend had failed his college algebra and philosophy courses.")
This simple and stark analysis of vampire-hastened human mortality irked Oxford statistics professor Dino Sejdinović, who refuted Efthimiou and Gandhi in his own paper, "Mathematics of the Human-Vampire Conflict," published in Math Horizons in 2008. Relations between vampires and non-vampires, he wrote, "are much more sophisticated than those presented by Efthimiou and Ghandi." Sejdinović's qualms with their paper included the fact that "vampires are presented exclusively as greedy consumers: a rational strategy of managing their human resources is not considered." He also noted that Efthimiou and Ghandi's model did not account for the death rate of vampires—or, as he put it, "the death-death rate since they are already dead"—courtesy of stake-wielding humans.
One of the most recent, and most comprehensive, mathematical analyses of human-vampire interaction came in the form of “Mathematical Models of Interactions between Species: Peaceful Co-existence of Vampires and Humans Based on the Models Derived from Fiction Literature and Films,” published in Applied Mathematical Sciences in 2013. Drawing on a wide range of pop-cultural depictions, authors Wadim Strielkowski, Evgeny Lisin, and Emily Welkins defined and analyzed three models of vampire-human co-existence.
According to the first scenario, the Stoker-King model—based on vampires as delineated in Bram Stoker’s Dracula and Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot—80 percent of the human population would be exterminated within the first 165 days of initial vampiric activity. "The model analyzed in this scenario is very similar to an epidemic outbreak caused by a deadly virus," said the authors. They also noted that, based on the daily feeding that Stoker and King's vampires appear to require, it would take just two months for the number of global vampires to jump from one to 4,000.
The second scenario, the Rice model, is based on Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles, in which a feeding vampire does not necessarily kill a person, but "can attack a human being, feed on it and leave it to live." Despite the not-necessarily-lethal approach, the model still predicts the total extinction of humanity within 50 years from the first vampire attack.
These two scenarios paint a grim picture, but hope arrives in the form of the Harris-Meyer-Kostova model, based on a combination of Charlaine
Harris’s series of Sookie Stackhouse novels, Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga, and Elizabeth Kostova’s 2005 bloodsucker book, The Historian—all of which take place in a world in which vampires peacefully co-exist with humans. The initial conditions of the Harris-Meyer-Kostova model involve five million vampires, 6.16 billion people, and organized groups of "drainers"—humans who attack vampires to drain their blood and leave them for dead. Within this setup, "there are system parameters ... that would stabilize the populations of humans and vampires in time"—meaning that humans could stand a chance.
The resulting human-vampire ecosystem, however, would be precarious:
"Under certain conditions, the Harris-Meyer-Kostova model seems plausible and allows for the existence of vampires in our world. Peaceful co-existence of two species is a reality. However, this symbiosis is very fragile and whenever the growth rate of human population slows down, the blood thirst of vampires accelerates, or vampire drainers become too greedy, the whole system lies in ruins with just one population remaining."
http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/heres-how-long-it-would-take-for-vampires-to-annihilate-humanity/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=atlas-page
The original links has links to some of the studies :
http://www.eos.tuwien.ac.at/OR/Mehlmann/Andis/publ/Seminar105124/transylvanian.pdf
http://server.eos.tuwien.ac.at/OR/Mehlmann/Andis/publ/Seminar105124/convex_concave.pdf
http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~sejdinov/publications/pdf/Horizons.pdf
astonishing eh ?
Plus side, for us anyway, that's half the battle, or something.
|
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king, |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/05 09:06:14
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
And that's the first time anything to do with Twilight has been connected with a best case scenario!
Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 17:00:07
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Couldn't the vampires just kill their victims before they turn? This keeps the number of vampires low and the few there are can continuously feed without much problem.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 17:03:44
Subject: Re:Bloody maths.
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
What if there's no humans left? What do the vampires do then?
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 17:58:08
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
I'm not sure I follow. First, to turn someone into a vampire, you not only have to bite them, but most fiction have it that the victim must drink the blood of the vampire to fully turn. Otherwise, they remain half-breed of some sort.
Second, to get around this, couldn't the vampires do with humans like the Wendigo do or like in the Matrix? I.E. keep humans around, feed just enough to sustain themselves, but not enough to kill right away or pen them in and just raise them like cattle?
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/06 18:18:03
Subject: Re:Bloody maths.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
Get bored early one morning, and watch the sunrise.
After having starved into skeletons.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/07 00:40:47
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
The Conquerer
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
|
I'm pretty sure most vampire mechanics have required a specific type of feeding in order for a human to turn into a vampire. Thus vampires can self-regulate their proliferation. And they don't tend to need to feed constantly.
The simplest method is that surviving a bite turns you into a vampire, but a real feeding results in death. The vampire has to deliberately leave you alive.
Other methods involve a ceremony of some kind to turn into a vampire. Again, self regulated.
These papers basically don't use the typical vampire behavior. They pretty much assume they are stupid and never kill their victims.
|
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/07 02:18:55
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
They showed this in Daybreakers. That was a pretty solid vampire film that never got enough play.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/07 09:29:52
Subject: Re:Bloody maths.
|
 |
Most Glorious Grey Seer
|
Already looked at in Daybreakers
Edit: Ninja'd by Bromsy, but I got pics.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/07 09:30:33
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/10 01:30:55
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison
|
Gwaihirsbrother wrote:Couldn't the vampires just kill their victims before they turn? This keeps the number of vampires low and the few there are can continuously feed without much problem. When talking about the Stoker vampire, turning into a vampire happens one of two ways. The first is when you die as a direct result of the vampire feeding upon you (i.e they drain you to the point that you physically cannot survive). This is what happens to Lucy, over several nights, as Dracula feeds upon her. If you can hold the vampire off and prevent it from feeding to the point of no return, the victim can recover and not turn. The second is by making you drink some of their blood. This will eventually kill you and cause you to turn upon death, no matter what the cause of death is (so you can't suicide to avoid turning or anything like that). The only way to prevent turning in this case is to kill the vampire whose blood the person drank. This is what happens to Mina Harker. So a Stoker vampire killing its victim could actually accelerate the turning process, rather than halt it.
|
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/01/10 13:51:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me. |
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/01/10 12:16:30
Subject: Bloody maths.
|
 |
The Last Chancer Who Survived
|
You could solve the issue by cutting their head off when drained though. Or get a bunch of people on some form of bleeder-machine that keeps the blood flowing when you need it, but does not kill them. ...Yuck.
|
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/10 12:17:13
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|