• @stupidcasey
    link
    English
    02 months ago

    But if everyone killed killers then the relative number of killers go up and you only succeed when everyone is dead.

    • @Feathercrown
      link
      English
      52 months ago

      Wait, is that true?

      k = killers, i = innocents, p = total population, r = killer ratio

      p = k+i

      r = k/(k+i) = k/p

      If an innocent kills a killer: (+1 killer, -1 innocent) from becoming a killer; -1 killer from killing a killer; -1 innocent net change, so r goes up (bad)

      Now that you’re a killer, any time you kill another killer, it’s just -1 killer. r goes down (because the numerator gets smaller faster than the denominator) (good).

      This means that the first time you kill someone is always bad, but it gets better if you kill more people. You can offset the net cost of the first kill this way; if r <= 0.5, killing two people will do it. So you’re right that if everyone kills one person, the world will be full of killers. But this also suggests that the best course of action is for one person to go around and kill every killer, and then themselves, leaving the world temporarily killer-free!

      • @stupidcasey
        link
        English
        12 months ago

        Let me simplify your math a bit

        Currently there are people who are not killers.

        If everyone kills then everyone would be a killer

        Some < All

        • @Feathercrown
          link
          English
          22 months ago

          I just wanted to do some stats tbh I was getting rusty