http://tinyurl.com/3a2prr
See the above thread. I'm writing this as a programming exercise, not
commercially.
Genealogy program under development of interest: calculates
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John
Re: Genealogy program under development of interest: calcula
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:44:22 -0700, raylopez99 <raylopez99@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Don't forget that a "typical" family depends on time and place; before
mechanization, families needed more hands to do their work (especilly
on farms) and tended to have more children.
Some cultures correlate a man's virility with the number of children
he has (sometimes boys only, sometimes the total count). Some
religions do/did encourage large families (directly or indirectly).
Some of that outlook carried over into other times and places. My
city-bred step-father was one of 11 boys - and they had their own
baseball team.
John
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3a2prr
See the above thread. I'm writing this as a programming exercise, not
commercially.
Don't forget that a "typical" family depends on time and place; before
mechanization, families needed more hands to do their work (especilly
on farms) and tended to have more children.
Some cultures correlate a man's virility with the number of children
he has (sometimes boys only, sometimes the total count). Some
religions do/did encourage large families (directly or indirectly).
Some of that outlook carried over into other times and places. My
city-bred step-father was one of 11 boys - and they had their own
baseball team.
John
-
raylopez99
Re: Genealogy program under development of interest: calcula
On Sep 14, 1:45 pm, John <l...@sig.net> wrote:
Yes, this goes to the issue of the "Lamda" (the Poisson mean) to use:
right now, based on historical data (see the other thread), I am using
an Lamda of 1.15. But if historically Lamda was higher, it will
affect the survival rate. Any suggestions of what the lamba was (or,
less technically, if the number of children have fallen over the
years) is welcome. I think having lots of boys all at once increases
the odds of surname survival somewhat (I'm working on finding out how,
since in the next version of the program I will be able to
artificially input any number of boys as the first generation).
Yes I know of half-dozen and dozen boy families--but even in my
simulations, lots of times these "large boy" family surnames [i.e., up
to four boys in my first version of the program--it wasn't designed
for more than 4 boys at one time] die out I've noticed (when I walk
through the tree generated by the computer***)...it depends on the
reproduction rate (Lamda) of the survivors. If they don't want to
'breed like rabbits' (pardon my analogy) then the surname will, over
many generations, die out.
***BTW--I recently ran a simulation--I'll start collecting these stats
automatically in my next version--where the family surname died out
after 107 generations (with 4 boys max per generation). That's an all
time (to date) record--most of the time they die out before 12
generations (see the Wikipedia graph in the other thread for a
suggestion about how this works--note the leveling off, on average,
after 50 generations)--and one of the most common ones is no boys in
the first generation--that's why I'm working on the second version
which will see if demanding lots of boys (say 3 to 5) in the first
generation will dramatically increase the surname survival rate.
RL
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:44:22 -0700, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com
wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3a2prr
Don't forget that a "typical" family depends on time and place; before
mechanization, families needed more hands to do their work (especilly
on farms) and tended to have more children.
Yes, this goes to the issue of the "Lamda" (the Poisson mean) to use:
right now, based on historical data (see the other thread), I am using
an Lamda of 1.15. But if historically Lamda was higher, it will
affect the survival rate. Any suggestions of what the lamba was (or,
less technically, if the number of children have fallen over the
years) is welcome. I think having lots of boys all at once increases
the odds of surname survival somewhat (I'm working on finding out how,
since in the next version of the program I will be able to
artificially input any number of boys as the first generation).
Some cultures correlate a man's virility with the number of children
he has (sometimes boys only, sometimes the total count). Some
religions do/did encourage large families (directly or indirectly).
Some of that outlook carried over into other times and places. My
city-bred step-father was one of 11 boys - and they had their own
baseball team.
Yes I know of half-dozen and dozen boy families--but even in my
simulations, lots of times these "large boy" family surnames [i.e., up
to four boys in my first version of the program--it wasn't designed
for more than 4 boys at one time] die out I've noticed (when I walk
through the tree generated by the computer***)...it depends on the
reproduction rate (Lamda) of the survivors. If they don't want to
'breed like rabbits' (pardon my analogy) then the surname will, over
many generations, die out.
***BTW--I recently ran a simulation--I'll start collecting these stats
automatically in my next version--where the family surname died out
after 107 generations (with 4 boys max per generation). That's an all
time (to date) record--most of the time they die out before 12
generations (see the Wikipedia graph in the other thread for a
suggestion about how this works--note the leveling off, on average,
after 50 generations)--and one of the most common ones is no boys in
the first generation--that's why I'm working on the second version
which will see if demanding lots of boys (say 3 to 5) in the first
generation will dramatically increase the surname survival rate.
RL
-
raylopez99
Re: Genealogy program under development of interest: calcula
Repost here from the other thread, just for future reference.
On Sep 13, 4:11 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just ran about 1000 simulations, Lambda at 1.15, and preliminary
calculations show that increasing the Poisson sequence to include six
boys increases the survival rate from 21% to about 27%, which is
closer to what looks like passing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton-Watson_process.
The longest generation that ultimately went extinct was 77 generations
(in other simulations I've had over 150 generations before going
extinct, but most surnames will go extinct--if at all--before 25
generations or so.
Also at Lambda = 1.05, after 1000 simulations the survival rate is
11%, which is close to the Wikipedia graph of 10%. This shows the
program is working properly once larger families are included
(incidentally, the longest surname generation that went extinct was 97
generations in this run).
All in all, it shows the program works that a critical parameter for
surname survival is large families of boys on occasion--this is true
even if the Poisson mean (lambda) stays the same.
What this means is that the next step in the program, having an intial
"surge" of boys the first generation, should increase the odds of
survival dramatically. I'll see and post here for future reference
what this increase is.
If anybody reading this thread wants to see my source code, in C#,
drop me a line.
RL
On Sep 15, 4:05 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:11 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I will increase the number of boys to include families with five and
six boys, and see if this increases the survival rate, as it should.
Just ran about 1000 simulations, Lambda at 1.15, and preliminary
calculations show that increasing the Poisson sequence to include six
boys increases the survival rate from 21% to about 27%, which is
closer to what looks like passing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton-Watson_process.
The longest generation that ultimately went extinct was 77 generations
(in other simulations I've had over 150 generations before going
extinct, but most surnames will go extinct--if at all--before 25
generations or so.
Also at Lambda = 1.05, after 1000 simulations the survival rate is
11%, which is close to the Wikipedia graph of 10%. This shows the
program is working properly once larger families are included
(incidentally, the longest surname generation that went extinct was 97
generations in this run).
All in all, it shows the program works that a critical parameter for
surname survival is large families of boys on occasion--this is true
even if the Poisson mean (lambda) stays the same.
What this means is that the next step in the program, having an intial
"surge" of boys the first generation, should increase the odds of
survival dramatically. I'll see and post here for future reference
what this increase is.
If anybody reading this thread wants to see my source code, in C#,
drop me a line.
RL
On Sep 15, 4:05 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@yahoo.com> wrote:
-
jj206
Re: Genealogy program under development of interest: calcula
raylopez99 wrote:
Are you taking into account hyphenated last names or people
changing their last name to something else or men who take
women's last names or gay marriage ?
Jonathan
http://tinyurl.com/3a2prr
See the above thread. I'm writing this as a programming exercise, not
commercially.
Are you taking into account hyphenated last names or people
changing their last name to something else or men who take
women's last names or gay marriage ?
Jonathan