not true though is it. If the population increased by 0.000001% every 1000000 years and the average life expectancy is 50, for example
-
-
-
Matt is is right, Fermat and his library are wrong.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn't that depend on how long we live and the coefficient of the exponential growth?
-
Also the way it's written its impossible, because living humans are a subset of all humans who have ever lived. They presumably mean living vs dead.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
your post it is so wrong mathematically
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As it is often the case with content from this account, the stated "facts" are usually correct but only under several additional assumptions.
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It is true with exponential growth, but we're not there now. It's estimated that over 100 billion members of our species have been born.
-
It's true with certain rates of exponential growth, but only when the logarithmic derivative of the population times the human lifespan is greater than ln(2)pic.twitter.com/norA55nQ9c
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
All I can see is a logical fallacy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
