Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

How many active DC member are there? 150? (Dunbar number)

<< < (9/10) > >>

CodeTRUCKER:
Shouldn't Fibonacci go up to 109 or even 174? I know nothing about the sequence but it looks like 65 and 44 should be added together to get to the next number...

Anyway, interesting idea but I haven't got a clue how to respond as I have never given these types of sequences much (any) though before!
-Darwin (February 23, 2008, 02:34 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, Fibonacci (or any other) sequence/iteration could go on ad infinitum, but I only presented the sequence until the "total" was as close to 150 as the sequence would allow to correlate with this thread.  I have often been impressed how much order as opposed to chaos exists.  Think about this... there is no way in mathematics to create chaos.  Even in Poson's(sp?) Therory of Random Distribution there is an order and not a chaos.  I was attempting to explore the application of the mathematical "orders" to human interactions.

tinjaw:
urlwolf, you're backwards. You are asking how many people are in DC, not anybody's specific network. The size of a network is not limited to 150. It is the number of outbound links from a single node. So there could be 15,000 active members and Dunbar would say that you only have relationships with on 150 out of those 15K.

CodeTRUCKER:
Darwin, here's the sequence: (from wikipedia)
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393
-jgpaiva (February 23, 2008, 02:47 PM)
--- End quote ---

Oops! you left out a few GoogolGoogol numerals.  :P 

FYI - 10l to the Googol power is the quantity monikered as "Googolplex."  Try to imagine how vast Googol to the Googol power really is?   Then go do something a lot less useless!  <vbg>  (Read:  a lot more useful than trying to imagine the incomprehensible)

tinjaw:
It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis on the raw database of this forum. We could look to see how many members have posted in at least one other thread with a different member. We would remove the introduction thread and such. Then if I have 900 threads, see how many members have participated in those threads. That wouldn't show my dunbar number, but just how many people I have directly interacted with.

And I know you know all this urlwolf, I'm just thinking out loud for the others in this thread.

J-Mac:
…Then if I have 900 threads, see how many members have participated in those threads. That wouldn't show my dunbar number, but just how many people I have directly interacted with...
-tinjaw (February 23, 2008, 07:09 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yes, but some threads have very large numbers of posts/replies; are you really interacting with all of them?  Or are you only interacting verifiably with those to whom you are directly replying, or who are directly replying to you?

Hard to say how the forum data corresponds to number sequences.  Are there any set protocols for such studies? We are probably getting way off the track statistically.  Any statisticians here?

Jim

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page