3 ms·
Your "mathematically sound" statement seems obviously false, which probably means I'm misunderstanding it. Perhaps you should state it more formally.
by bloak 9y ago
Your "mathematically sound" statement seems obviously false, which probably means I'm misunderstanding it. Perhaps you should state it more formally.
- lacker 9y agoClaim: In order for the overall population to hit a maximum number of children, every subgroup within it must also hit a maximum number of children. Proof: Assume the opposite, that there is a subgroup S that never hits a maximum amount of children, but the overall population has a maximum amount of children X. Since S does not hit a maximum amount of children, S at some point has more than X children. This contradicts the initial assumption. QED
- bloak 9y agoOh, that's boring. It's almost as boring as saying that the number of any countable physical thing must reach a maximum because it is bounded by the mass of the universe divided by the mass of an electron, or something equally tedious. I don't think we're gaining any insight here.