5 ms·
>therefore the population ought to have some kind of exponent attached to it, like particles bouncing against one another in a container. Population squared? T
by heartbeats 7y ago
>therefore the population ought to have some kind of exponent attached to it, like particles bouncing against one another in a container.
Population squared? That gives you the number of potential connections.
- at_a_remove 7y agoThat was my first thought, yes, but then I think area ought to be involved somewhere; if the area is large enough, even a medium population will not have people ("particles") interacting ("colliding") as often. In the rather clumsy taxonomy of crime I created from the UCR, most violent crime -- excepting suicide -- would be collision-based. Some drug crimes like possession would not be collision-based (although it could be argued that possession involves buying which involves another person) while drug sales would be. Crimes against property are interesting -- is that another person by proxy, or should that merely be collision-less?
- c_hawkthorne 7y agoWhat about something like property crimes/100,000 people and violent crimes/100,000 people? Disease rates are often reported in such ways like in the article posted the best map had rates/100,000 and not strictly population or area.
- eru 7y agoAlaska and Washington DC have roughly the same population. But there are many more actual connections between people in DC than in Alaska. Where connections could eg mean: two people come in close enough proximity with each other to spread a virus.