How many people need to be born every 8 years to sustain population?How to bring water and heat to an isolated and poor mountain village with extremely low costs?What would happen if the advanced species had self-balancing reproductive rates?Historical Human Fecundity info?Would a kingdom allow creation of new settlements?How could names plausibly change over several generations of humans living in a space station on another planet?Reasonable starting population?How poor does Elven fertility need to be in order to keep the ratio of humans to elves constant?How many humans do you need to maintain a population indefinitely?What would population be if 1000 or 10000 people began to repopulate in 400 years?Generation ship: How big exactly?

Identifying "long and narrow" polygons in with PostGIS

How do I prevent inappropriate ads from appearing in my game?

Check if object is null and return null

Personal or impersonal in a technical resume

Sigmoid with a slope but no asymptotes?

Why does the Persian emissary display a string of crowned skulls?

Why is the principal energy of an electron lower for excited electrons in a higher energy state?

What is the smallest number n> 5 so that 5 ^ n ends with "3125"?

What should be the ideal length of sentences in a blog post for ease of reading?

Isometric embedding of a genus g surface

How to get directions in deep space?

How to leave product feedback on macOS?

Why does a 97 / 92 key piano exist by Bösendorfer?

Review your own paper in Mathematics

Telemetry for feature health

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Can I cause damage to electrical appliances by unplugging them when they are turned on?

Animation: customize bounce interpolation

Overlapping circles covering polygon

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

How to write Quadratic equation with negative coefficient

I'm just a whisper. Who am I?

How were servants to the Kaiser of Imperial Germany treated and where may I find more information on them

What does "tick" mean in this sentence?



How many people need to be born every 8 years to sustain population?


How to bring water and heat to an isolated and poor mountain village with extremely low costs?What would happen if the advanced species had self-balancing reproductive rates?Historical Human Fecundity info?Would a kingdom allow creation of new settlements?How could names plausibly change over several generations of humans living in a space station on another planet?Reasonable starting population?How poor does Elven fertility need to be in order to keep the ratio of humans to elves constant?How many humans do you need to maintain a population indefinitely?What would population be if 1000 or 10000 people began to repopulate in 400 years?Generation ship: How big exactly?













6












$begingroup$


So I'm doing some worldbuilding for a small, isolated village on the coast. The winters are harsh, but making sure everybody has enough food generally isn't an issue because they have good trade with an outside source, and they are community-led so they make sure nobody gets left out in the cold (literally or metaphorically). New people will join the town every now and again, but not often enough to really impact the population.



I think the population is small - maybe two hundred people - and the average person reaches about 65-70. So my question is, how many kids have to be born to sustain this in a zero population growth model?



I had the idea that the town tries to synchronise births so that every child has friends their own age to play with and learn from, and I thought every 8 years or so made some sense - the 8-year-olds could start learning a craft, and the 16-year-olds could teach the 8-year-olds, whilst the 24-year-olds start to couple off and have their own babies. How large would each "clutch" of babies have to be?



I did some quick maths and got maybe 20-25, but I'm not sure how accurate this is. My reasoning was 8 (number of years)/70 (average lifespan) * 200 (population) = ~22.



If anybody has a more solid idea I'd love to hear it! And if you think this is a really stupid idea then let me down gently please haha










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
    $endgroup$
    – F1Krazy
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrick Hughes
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
    $endgroup$
    – Demigan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
    $endgroup$
    – SciFiGuy
    2 hours ago















6












$begingroup$


So I'm doing some worldbuilding for a small, isolated village on the coast. The winters are harsh, but making sure everybody has enough food generally isn't an issue because they have good trade with an outside source, and they are community-led so they make sure nobody gets left out in the cold (literally or metaphorically). New people will join the town every now and again, but not often enough to really impact the population.



I think the population is small - maybe two hundred people - and the average person reaches about 65-70. So my question is, how many kids have to be born to sustain this in a zero population growth model?



I had the idea that the town tries to synchronise births so that every child has friends their own age to play with and learn from, and I thought every 8 years or so made some sense - the 8-year-olds could start learning a craft, and the 16-year-olds could teach the 8-year-olds, whilst the 24-year-olds start to couple off and have their own babies. How large would each "clutch" of babies have to be?



I did some quick maths and got maybe 20-25, but I'm not sure how accurate this is. My reasoning was 8 (number of years)/70 (average lifespan) * 200 (population) = ~22.



If anybody has a more solid idea I'd love to hear it! And if you think this is a really stupid idea then let me down gently please haha










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
    $endgroup$
    – F1Krazy
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrick Hughes
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
    $endgroup$
    – Demigan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
    $endgroup$
    – SciFiGuy
    2 hours ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$


So I'm doing some worldbuilding for a small, isolated village on the coast. The winters are harsh, but making sure everybody has enough food generally isn't an issue because they have good trade with an outside source, and they are community-led so they make sure nobody gets left out in the cold (literally or metaphorically). New people will join the town every now and again, but not often enough to really impact the population.



I think the population is small - maybe two hundred people - and the average person reaches about 65-70. So my question is, how many kids have to be born to sustain this in a zero population growth model?



I had the idea that the town tries to synchronise births so that every child has friends their own age to play with and learn from, and I thought every 8 years or so made some sense - the 8-year-olds could start learning a craft, and the 16-year-olds could teach the 8-year-olds, whilst the 24-year-olds start to couple off and have their own babies. How large would each "clutch" of babies have to be?



I did some quick maths and got maybe 20-25, but I'm not sure how accurate this is. My reasoning was 8 (number of years)/70 (average lifespan) * 200 (population) = ~22.



If anybody has a more solid idea I'd love to hear it! And if you think this is a really stupid idea then let me down gently please haha










share|improve this question







New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




So I'm doing some worldbuilding for a small, isolated village on the coast. The winters are harsh, but making sure everybody has enough food generally isn't an issue because they have good trade with an outside source, and they are community-led so they make sure nobody gets left out in the cold (literally or metaphorically). New people will join the town every now and again, but not often enough to really impact the population.



I think the population is small - maybe two hundred people - and the average person reaches about 65-70. So my question is, how many kids have to be born to sustain this in a zero population growth model?



I had the idea that the town tries to synchronise births so that every child has friends their own age to play with and learn from, and I thought every 8 years or so made some sense - the 8-year-olds could start learning a craft, and the 16-year-olds could teach the 8-year-olds, whilst the 24-year-olds start to couple off and have their own babies. How large would each "clutch" of babies have to be?



I did some quick maths and got maybe 20-25, but I'm not sure how accurate this is. My reasoning was 8 (number of years)/70 (average lifespan) * 200 (population) = ~22.



If anybody has a more solid idea I'd love to hear it! And if you think this is a really stupid idea then let me down gently please haha







survival population






share|improve this question







New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 3 hours ago









Kieren DuffyKieren Duffy

311




311




New contributor




Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Kieren Duffy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
    $endgroup$
    – F1Krazy
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrick Hughes
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
    $endgroup$
    – Demigan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
    $endgroup$
    – SciFiGuy
    2 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
    $endgroup$
    – F1Krazy
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
    $endgroup$
    – Patrick Hughes
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    3 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
    $endgroup$
    – Demigan
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
    $endgroup$
    – SciFiGuy
    2 hours ago















$begingroup$
Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
$endgroup$
– F1Krazy
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Welcome to WorldBuilding.SE! This looks like a good question, with a lot of thought put into it. The only detail I think you're missing is exactly how often new people join the town. With such a small population, and so few babies in each clutch, you may eventually start running into issues with in-breeding unless there are enough newcomers in the mix.
$endgroup$
– F1Krazy
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Hughes
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you're going to strive for zero population growth the "raise a cohort of babies every 8 years" would certainly make the village seem a very surreal, communistic place with centralized planning and lack of flexibility allowing drama. Or you could set the stage so that one pregnancy is allowed at each death, which would automatically take care of accidental deaths and the death event could provide a focus for drama.
$endgroup$
– Patrick Hughes
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
$endgroup$
– user535733
3 hours ago





$begingroup$
If your median age-at-death is 72, then you have (roughly) nine same-size cohort-equivalents...and each cohort is indeed about 22 folks. I think you're more likely to get the 16-year-olds pairing off unwisely as they rebel against their seemingly-inflexible parents. Predators tend to love small, isolated, conformist communities - it reduces their risk of being turned in.
$endgroup$
– user535733
3 hours ago













$begingroup$
I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
$endgroup$
– Demigan
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think 22 per 8 years sounds about right. And with a certain culture this would be manageable similar to how the polynesians for example dont overpopulate.
$endgroup$
– Demigan
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
$endgroup$
– SciFiGuy
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
One thing to keep in mind here is the male to female ratio. If this were to "get out of wack" it could radically change the math.
$endgroup$
– SciFiGuy
2 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

Your calculation is correct assuming that all children born live to be 70. But that is not the case even with the most modern health care. So you may want to up the number of babies a bit, to account (1) for infant mortality, (2) for the tendency of young males to do stupid things which get them killed, and (3) for the general premature mortality due to diseases and accidents.



Here are two tables grouping the population by age cohorts; first assuming that all babies born live to 70, and then assuming a more natural population pyramid.



Age cohort
----------
0 to 7 22 32
8 to 15 22 27
16 to 23 22 22
24 to 31 22 20
32 to 39 22 20
40 to 47 22 20
48 to 55 22 20
56 to 63 22 19
64 to 71 22 18
---------- ---- ----
Total 198 198


A random isolated village of 200 people surviving long term would be a clear sign of divine favor.




  • Unless the initial population was chosen extremely carefully by in-depth genetic screening there will be severe inbreeding effects after a handful of generations, raising the mortality. (Note that there are only about 40 to 44 women aged 16 to 47 at any given time.)



    For example, in (the pre-modern principalities which would eventually coalesce into) Romania, a significant fraction of the women (and a smaller fraction of the men) married into neighbouring villages, so that there was some exhange of genetic material. This had also the positive effect of creating wider social networks.




  • With such a small population the village is prone to demographic shocks. One good sized war, or one Tartar raid, or one epidemic and the population pyramid may be skewed irretrievably.



    Consider for example what happens if the Tartars come and abduct half of your 20 women aged 16 to 31. Or consider what happens if the Thirty Years' War comes and kills two thirds of your men aged 16 to 47.



Grouping births into clutches every eighth year has the massive drawback that almost all women of reproductive age suddenly find themselves busy with babies at the same time.



  • In a real village of about 200 people, with 4 births per year, you have about 8 to 10 women out of the workforce at any given moment, for a total non-working population of about 40 souls (8 to 10 women and 30 to 32 small children), or 20%.


  • With this grouping, every eighth year a whopping 32 women go out of the workforce for two or three years, for a total non-working population of about 60 souls, or 30%. True, in non-fertile years the non-working population drops to around 15%, but this is a village, they cannot accumulate surpluses to be consumed later.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
    $endgroup$
    – Justin Thyme the Second
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
    $endgroup$
    – Tim B II
    1 hour ago










  • $begingroup$
    @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    56 mins ago



















0












$begingroup$

22 is right. At 22 you do not have much cushion for downside risk, like people dying young. But that might be OK. Maybe there is not much downside risk of that sort.



I would be interested to read a story set in this world. I feel like it must be set in the future - infant and child mortality is nil, life expectancy is reliably long, women start having babies late in their reproductive life, and they have control over pregnancy such that they can time births all together. That last one is why it is in the future because most societies still cannot reliably pull that pregnancy control piece off.



Also "community led" sounds interesting to me. Maybe that is the secret. Good luck with your story.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    As others have said, mathematically 22 is right, but fails to account for early deaths.



    But there is a much simpler answer. Every 8 years the number of babies you produce is the number of people needed to raise the current population to 200 (or some similar suitable number). This will be approximately the same as the number of people that have died since the previous birth time.



    If things haven't been going well, you need a larger number than 22, and if people have been healthy, a smaller number will be fine.



    And again, as others have pointed out, it would be good to occasionally add some fresh genetic material to the gene pool (which would also reduce the number of babies required at the next birth time).






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$




















      0












      $begingroup$

      I am trying to get my head around ALL the math.



      Assuming this is a pair-bonded society, for a stable population, each female has to give birth to two children - one to replace her, and the second to replace her mate.



      That means the female gets pregnant twice - once when she is 15, and once when she is 23 (or 23 and 31).



      So 11 fifteen year olds get pregnant from 11 fifteen year old boys, and 11 twenty three year old females get pregnant from 11 twenty three year old boys.



      And no one gets pregnant in between.



      So either every male and every female have sexual intercourse on only two occasions, or this community has very good and enforced birth control or enforced abortion, neither of which you mention. That puts it in a very modern context.



      Alternatively, there was a society that pretty much matched this one - Sparta.



      One thing that is seldom mentioned about Sparta, was that it was intensely homosexual in nature, and the only sex between male and female was for reproduction that was strictly proscribed.



      It was a very interesting society.



      Having sex only twice in your life?



      Be very careful of that which you wish, as the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences can sometimes be very brutal.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$












        Your Answer





        StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
        return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
        StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
        StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
        );
        );
        , "mathjax-editing");

        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "579"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );






        Kieren Duffy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141986%2fhow-many-people-need-to-be-born-every-8-years-to-sustain-population%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes








        4 Answers
        4






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        4












        $begingroup$

        Your calculation is correct assuming that all children born live to be 70. But that is not the case even with the most modern health care. So you may want to up the number of babies a bit, to account (1) for infant mortality, (2) for the tendency of young males to do stupid things which get them killed, and (3) for the general premature mortality due to diseases and accidents.



        Here are two tables grouping the population by age cohorts; first assuming that all babies born live to 70, and then assuming a more natural population pyramid.



        Age cohort
        ----------
        0 to 7 22 32
        8 to 15 22 27
        16 to 23 22 22
        24 to 31 22 20
        32 to 39 22 20
        40 to 47 22 20
        48 to 55 22 20
        56 to 63 22 19
        64 to 71 22 18
        ---------- ---- ----
        Total 198 198


        A random isolated village of 200 people surviving long term would be a clear sign of divine favor.




        • Unless the initial population was chosen extremely carefully by in-depth genetic screening there will be severe inbreeding effects after a handful of generations, raising the mortality. (Note that there are only about 40 to 44 women aged 16 to 47 at any given time.)



          For example, in (the pre-modern principalities which would eventually coalesce into) Romania, a significant fraction of the women (and a smaller fraction of the men) married into neighbouring villages, so that there was some exhange of genetic material. This had also the positive effect of creating wider social networks.




        • With such a small population the village is prone to demographic shocks. One good sized war, or one Tartar raid, or one epidemic and the population pyramid may be skewed irretrievably.



          Consider for example what happens if the Tartars come and abduct half of your 20 women aged 16 to 31. Or consider what happens if the Thirty Years' War comes and kills two thirds of your men aged 16 to 47.



        Grouping births into clutches every eighth year has the massive drawback that almost all women of reproductive age suddenly find themselves busy with babies at the same time.



        • In a real village of about 200 people, with 4 births per year, you have about 8 to 10 women out of the workforce at any given moment, for a total non-working population of about 40 souls (8 to 10 women and 30 to 32 small children), or 20%.


        • With this grouping, every eighth year a whopping 32 women go out of the workforce for two or three years, for a total non-working population of about 60 souls, or 30%. True, in non-fertile years the non-working population drops to around 15%, but this is a village, they cannot accumulate surpluses to be consumed later.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
          $endgroup$
          – Justin Thyme the Second
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B II
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
          $endgroup$
          – AlexP
          56 mins ago
















        4












        $begingroup$

        Your calculation is correct assuming that all children born live to be 70. But that is not the case even with the most modern health care. So you may want to up the number of babies a bit, to account (1) for infant mortality, (2) for the tendency of young males to do stupid things which get them killed, and (3) for the general premature mortality due to diseases and accidents.



        Here are two tables grouping the population by age cohorts; first assuming that all babies born live to 70, and then assuming a more natural population pyramid.



        Age cohort
        ----------
        0 to 7 22 32
        8 to 15 22 27
        16 to 23 22 22
        24 to 31 22 20
        32 to 39 22 20
        40 to 47 22 20
        48 to 55 22 20
        56 to 63 22 19
        64 to 71 22 18
        ---------- ---- ----
        Total 198 198


        A random isolated village of 200 people surviving long term would be a clear sign of divine favor.




        • Unless the initial population was chosen extremely carefully by in-depth genetic screening there will be severe inbreeding effects after a handful of generations, raising the mortality. (Note that there are only about 40 to 44 women aged 16 to 47 at any given time.)



          For example, in (the pre-modern principalities which would eventually coalesce into) Romania, a significant fraction of the women (and a smaller fraction of the men) married into neighbouring villages, so that there was some exhange of genetic material. This had also the positive effect of creating wider social networks.




        • With such a small population the village is prone to demographic shocks. One good sized war, or one Tartar raid, or one epidemic and the population pyramid may be skewed irretrievably.



          Consider for example what happens if the Tartars come and abduct half of your 20 women aged 16 to 31. Or consider what happens if the Thirty Years' War comes and kills two thirds of your men aged 16 to 47.



        Grouping births into clutches every eighth year has the massive drawback that almost all women of reproductive age suddenly find themselves busy with babies at the same time.



        • In a real village of about 200 people, with 4 births per year, you have about 8 to 10 women out of the workforce at any given moment, for a total non-working population of about 40 souls (8 to 10 women and 30 to 32 small children), or 20%.


        • With this grouping, every eighth year a whopping 32 women go out of the workforce for two or three years, for a total non-working population of about 60 souls, or 30%. True, in non-fertile years the non-working population drops to around 15%, but this is a village, they cannot accumulate surpluses to be consumed later.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$












        • $begingroup$
          'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
          $endgroup$
          – Justin Thyme the Second
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B II
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
          $endgroup$
          – AlexP
          56 mins ago














        4












        4








        4





        $begingroup$

        Your calculation is correct assuming that all children born live to be 70. But that is not the case even with the most modern health care. So you may want to up the number of babies a bit, to account (1) for infant mortality, (2) for the tendency of young males to do stupid things which get them killed, and (3) for the general premature mortality due to diseases and accidents.



        Here are two tables grouping the population by age cohorts; first assuming that all babies born live to 70, and then assuming a more natural population pyramid.



        Age cohort
        ----------
        0 to 7 22 32
        8 to 15 22 27
        16 to 23 22 22
        24 to 31 22 20
        32 to 39 22 20
        40 to 47 22 20
        48 to 55 22 20
        56 to 63 22 19
        64 to 71 22 18
        ---------- ---- ----
        Total 198 198


        A random isolated village of 200 people surviving long term would be a clear sign of divine favor.




        • Unless the initial population was chosen extremely carefully by in-depth genetic screening there will be severe inbreeding effects after a handful of generations, raising the mortality. (Note that there are only about 40 to 44 women aged 16 to 47 at any given time.)



          For example, in (the pre-modern principalities which would eventually coalesce into) Romania, a significant fraction of the women (and a smaller fraction of the men) married into neighbouring villages, so that there was some exhange of genetic material. This had also the positive effect of creating wider social networks.




        • With such a small population the village is prone to demographic shocks. One good sized war, or one Tartar raid, or one epidemic and the population pyramid may be skewed irretrievably.



          Consider for example what happens if the Tartars come and abduct half of your 20 women aged 16 to 31. Or consider what happens if the Thirty Years' War comes and kills two thirds of your men aged 16 to 47.



        Grouping births into clutches every eighth year has the massive drawback that almost all women of reproductive age suddenly find themselves busy with babies at the same time.



        • In a real village of about 200 people, with 4 births per year, you have about 8 to 10 women out of the workforce at any given moment, for a total non-working population of about 40 souls (8 to 10 women and 30 to 32 small children), or 20%.


        • With this grouping, every eighth year a whopping 32 women go out of the workforce for two or three years, for a total non-working population of about 60 souls, or 30%. True, in non-fertile years the non-working population drops to around 15%, but this is a village, they cannot accumulate surpluses to be consumed later.






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Your calculation is correct assuming that all children born live to be 70. But that is not the case even with the most modern health care. So you may want to up the number of babies a bit, to account (1) for infant mortality, (2) for the tendency of young males to do stupid things which get them killed, and (3) for the general premature mortality due to diseases and accidents.



        Here are two tables grouping the population by age cohorts; first assuming that all babies born live to 70, and then assuming a more natural population pyramid.



        Age cohort
        ----------
        0 to 7 22 32
        8 to 15 22 27
        16 to 23 22 22
        24 to 31 22 20
        32 to 39 22 20
        40 to 47 22 20
        48 to 55 22 20
        56 to 63 22 19
        64 to 71 22 18
        ---------- ---- ----
        Total 198 198


        A random isolated village of 200 people surviving long term would be a clear sign of divine favor.




        • Unless the initial population was chosen extremely carefully by in-depth genetic screening there will be severe inbreeding effects after a handful of generations, raising the mortality. (Note that there are only about 40 to 44 women aged 16 to 47 at any given time.)



          For example, in (the pre-modern principalities which would eventually coalesce into) Romania, a significant fraction of the women (and a smaller fraction of the men) married into neighbouring villages, so that there was some exhange of genetic material. This had also the positive effect of creating wider social networks.




        • With such a small population the village is prone to demographic shocks. One good sized war, or one Tartar raid, or one epidemic and the population pyramid may be skewed irretrievably.



          Consider for example what happens if the Tartars come and abduct half of your 20 women aged 16 to 31. Or consider what happens if the Thirty Years' War comes and kills two thirds of your men aged 16 to 47.



        Grouping births into clutches every eighth year has the massive drawback that almost all women of reproductive age suddenly find themselves busy with babies at the same time.



        • In a real village of about 200 people, with 4 births per year, you have about 8 to 10 women out of the workforce at any given moment, for a total non-working population of about 40 souls (8 to 10 women and 30 to 32 small children), or 20%.


        • With this grouping, every eighth year a whopping 32 women go out of the workforce for two or three years, for a total non-working population of about 60 souls, or 30%. True, in non-fertile years the non-working population drops to around 15%, but this is a village, they cannot accumulate surpluses to be consumed later.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 hours ago

























        answered 2 hours ago









        AlexPAlexP

        40k791158




        40k791158











        • $begingroup$
          'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
          $endgroup$
          – Justin Thyme the Second
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B II
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
          $endgroup$
          – AlexP
          56 mins ago

















        • $begingroup$
          'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
          $endgroup$
          – Justin Thyme the Second
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
          $endgroup$
          – Tim B II
          1 hour ago










        • $begingroup$
          @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
          $endgroup$
          – AlexP
          56 mins ago
















        $begingroup$
        'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
        $endgroup$
        – Justin Thyme the Second
        1 hour ago




        $begingroup$
        'They can not accumulate surpluses to be consumed later'. For a brief moment I had visions of a cannibalistic society, since you were talking about fertile women and children.
        $endgroup$
        – Justin Thyme the Second
        1 hour ago












        $begingroup$
        I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
        $endgroup$
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago




        $begingroup$
        I was going to write my own answer but this pretty much covers all I was going to say, bar one point. The figures you quote here also assume that all women of child bearing age actually get pregnant, let alone even want to. Based on these numbers and assuming a fertile period between 16 and 40, women are only going to get between 3 and 4 turns through the windows which means that they pretty much ALL have to get pregnant during EVERY window to counteract the mortality rates you describe. Any infertile men or women further add to that burden. Your villagers had really better like being parents.
        $endgroup$
        – Tim B II
        1 hour ago












        $begingroup$
        @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        56 mins ago





        $begingroup$
        @TimBII: They will have a window of one year to try and get pregnant every cycle, so they can make quite a few attempts... I actually thought about including some considerations about the difficulty of getting just about all fertile women pregnant in a specified year.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        56 mins ago












        0












        $begingroup$

        22 is right. At 22 you do not have much cushion for downside risk, like people dying young. But that might be OK. Maybe there is not much downside risk of that sort.



        I would be interested to read a story set in this world. I feel like it must be set in the future - infant and child mortality is nil, life expectancy is reliably long, women start having babies late in their reproductive life, and they have control over pregnancy such that they can time births all together. That last one is why it is in the future because most societies still cannot reliably pull that pregnancy control piece off.



        Also "community led" sounds interesting to me. Maybe that is the secret. Good luck with your story.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$

















          0












          $begingroup$

          22 is right. At 22 you do not have much cushion for downside risk, like people dying young. But that might be OK. Maybe there is not much downside risk of that sort.



          I would be interested to read a story set in this world. I feel like it must be set in the future - infant and child mortality is nil, life expectancy is reliably long, women start having babies late in their reproductive life, and they have control over pregnancy such that they can time births all together. That last one is why it is in the future because most societies still cannot reliably pull that pregnancy control piece off.



          Also "community led" sounds interesting to me. Maybe that is the secret. Good luck with your story.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$















            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            22 is right. At 22 you do not have much cushion for downside risk, like people dying young. But that might be OK. Maybe there is not much downside risk of that sort.



            I would be interested to read a story set in this world. I feel like it must be set in the future - infant and child mortality is nil, life expectancy is reliably long, women start having babies late in their reproductive life, and they have control over pregnancy such that they can time births all together. That last one is why it is in the future because most societies still cannot reliably pull that pregnancy control piece off.



            Also "community led" sounds interesting to me. Maybe that is the secret. Good luck with your story.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            22 is right. At 22 you do not have much cushion for downside risk, like people dying young. But that might be OK. Maybe there is not much downside risk of that sort.



            I would be interested to read a story set in this world. I feel like it must be set in the future - infant and child mortality is nil, life expectancy is reliably long, women start having babies late in their reproductive life, and they have control over pregnancy such that they can time births all together. That last one is why it is in the future because most societies still cannot reliably pull that pregnancy control piece off.



            Also "community led" sounds interesting to me. Maybe that is the secret. Good luck with your story.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 1 hour ago









            WillkWillk

            113k27212476




            113k27212476





















                0












                $begingroup$

                As others have said, mathematically 22 is right, but fails to account for early deaths.



                But there is a much simpler answer. Every 8 years the number of babies you produce is the number of people needed to raise the current population to 200 (or some similar suitable number). This will be approximately the same as the number of people that have died since the previous birth time.



                If things haven't been going well, you need a larger number than 22, and if people have been healthy, a smaller number will be fine.



                And again, as others have pointed out, it would be good to occasionally add some fresh genetic material to the gene pool (which would also reduce the number of babies required at the next birth time).






                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$

















                  0












                  $begingroup$

                  As others have said, mathematically 22 is right, but fails to account for early deaths.



                  But there is a much simpler answer. Every 8 years the number of babies you produce is the number of people needed to raise the current population to 200 (or some similar suitable number). This will be approximately the same as the number of people that have died since the previous birth time.



                  If things haven't been going well, you need a larger number than 22, and if people have been healthy, a smaller number will be fine.



                  And again, as others have pointed out, it would be good to occasionally add some fresh genetic material to the gene pool (which would also reduce the number of babies required at the next birth time).






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$















                    0












                    0








                    0





                    $begingroup$

                    As others have said, mathematically 22 is right, but fails to account for early deaths.



                    But there is a much simpler answer. Every 8 years the number of babies you produce is the number of people needed to raise the current population to 200 (or some similar suitable number). This will be approximately the same as the number of people that have died since the previous birth time.



                    If things haven't been going well, you need a larger number than 22, and if people have been healthy, a smaller number will be fine.



                    And again, as others have pointed out, it would be good to occasionally add some fresh genetic material to the gene pool (which would also reduce the number of babies required at the next birth time).






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    As others have said, mathematically 22 is right, but fails to account for early deaths.



                    But there is a much simpler answer. Every 8 years the number of babies you produce is the number of people needed to raise the current population to 200 (or some similar suitable number). This will be approximately the same as the number of people that have died since the previous birth time.



                    If things haven't been going well, you need a larger number than 22, and if people have been healthy, a smaller number will be fine.



                    And again, as others have pointed out, it would be good to occasionally add some fresh genetic material to the gene pool (which would also reduce the number of babies required at the next birth time).







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 46 mins ago









                    Ray ButterworthRay Butterworth

                    68129




                    68129





















                        0












                        $begingroup$

                        I am trying to get my head around ALL the math.



                        Assuming this is a pair-bonded society, for a stable population, each female has to give birth to two children - one to replace her, and the second to replace her mate.



                        That means the female gets pregnant twice - once when she is 15, and once when she is 23 (or 23 and 31).



                        So 11 fifteen year olds get pregnant from 11 fifteen year old boys, and 11 twenty three year old females get pregnant from 11 twenty three year old boys.



                        And no one gets pregnant in between.



                        So either every male and every female have sexual intercourse on only two occasions, or this community has very good and enforced birth control or enforced abortion, neither of which you mention. That puts it in a very modern context.



                        Alternatively, there was a society that pretty much matched this one - Sparta.



                        One thing that is seldom mentioned about Sparta, was that it was intensely homosexual in nature, and the only sex between male and female was for reproduction that was strictly proscribed.



                        It was a very interesting society.



                        Having sex only twice in your life?



                        Be very careful of that which you wish, as the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences can sometimes be very brutal.






                        share|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$

















                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          I am trying to get my head around ALL the math.



                          Assuming this is a pair-bonded society, for a stable population, each female has to give birth to two children - one to replace her, and the second to replace her mate.



                          That means the female gets pregnant twice - once when she is 15, and once when she is 23 (or 23 and 31).



                          So 11 fifteen year olds get pregnant from 11 fifteen year old boys, and 11 twenty three year old females get pregnant from 11 twenty three year old boys.



                          And no one gets pregnant in between.



                          So either every male and every female have sexual intercourse on only two occasions, or this community has very good and enforced birth control or enforced abortion, neither of which you mention. That puts it in a very modern context.



                          Alternatively, there was a society that pretty much matched this one - Sparta.



                          One thing that is seldom mentioned about Sparta, was that it was intensely homosexual in nature, and the only sex between male and female was for reproduction that was strictly proscribed.



                          It was a very interesting society.



                          Having sex only twice in your life?



                          Be very careful of that which you wish, as the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences can sometimes be very brutal.






                          share|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$















                            0












                            0








                            0





                            $begingroup$

                            I am trying to get my head around ALL the math.



                            Assuming this is a pair-bonded society, for a stable population, each female has to give birth to two children - one to replace her, and the second to replace her mate.



                            That means the female gets pregnant twice - once when she is 15, and once when she is 23 (or 23 and 31).



                            So 11 fifteen year olds get pregnant from 11 fifteen year old boys, and 11 twenty three year old females get pregnant from 11 twenty three year old boys.



                            And no one gets pregnant in between.



                            So either every male and every female have sexual intercourse on only two occasions, or this community has very good and enforced birth control or enforced abortion, neither of which you mention. That puts it in a very modern context.



                            Alternatively, there was a society that pretty much matched this one - Sparta.



                            One thing that is seldom mentioned about Sparta, was that it was intensely homosexual in nature, and the only sex between male and female was for reproduction that was strictly proscribed.



                            It was a very interesting society.



                            Having sex only twice in your life?



                            Be very careful of that which you wish, as the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences can sometimes be very brutal.






                            share|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            I am trying to get my head around ALL the math.



                            Assuming this is a pair-bonded society, for a stable population, each female has to give birth to two children - one to replace her, and the second to replace her mate.



                            That means the female gets pregnant twice - once when she is 15, and once when she is 23 (or 23 and 31).



                            So 11 fifteen year olds get pregnant from 11 fifteen year old boys, and 11 twenty three year old females get pregnant from 11 twenty three year old boys.



                            And no one gets pregnant in between.



                            So either every male and every female have sexual intercourse on only two occasions, or this community has very good and enforced birth control or enforced abortion, neither of which you mention. That puts it in a very modern context.



                            Alternatively, there was a society that pretty much matched this one - Sparta.



                            One thing that is seldom mentioned about Sparta, was that it was intensely homosexual in nature, and the only sex between male and female was for reproduction that was strictly proscribed.



                            It was a very interesting society.



                            Having sex only twice in your life?



                            Be very careful of that which you wish, as the Law of Unintended and Unforeseen Consequences can sometimes be very brutal.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 41 mins ago









                            Justin Thyme the SecondJustin Thyme the Second

                            8057




                            8057




















                                Kieren Duffy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                                draft saved

                                draft discarded


















                                Kieren Duffy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                Kieren Duffy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                                Kieren Duffy is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f141986%2fhow-many-people-need-to-be-born-every-8-years-to-sustain-population%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

                                Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

                                Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar