[dawn53]

Hey this is the kid posting. Thanks for the help.

The first time I did the problem I got 12 as well but then I thought about it more, confused myself, then came back to that answer.

I figured that because there were 5 births every 10 years per individual, the population was replaced every 2 years. I then took the 24000 multiplied it by 500 (1000/2). Then divided by 1000000 to get the final answer.

Thanks again for the help.

[spunkets]

"I figured that because there were 5 births every 10 years per individual, the population was replaced every 2 years. I then took the 24000 multiplied it by 500 (1000/2). Then divided by 1000000 to get the final answer. "

There you go. Keep up the good work.

[Right Wing Professor]

I figured that because there were 5 births every 10 years per individual, the population was replaced every 2 years. I then took the 24000 multiplied it by 500 (1000/2). Then divided by 1000000 to get the final answer.

It's as good as any other answer, but supercat is right. You can't have 5 births per individual every 10 years, a life span of 10 years, and a stable population.

[AmishDude]

I suspect said problem was hastily put together so as to make all of the arithmetic uncomplicated. You are right, the answer they are looking for is 12. Others on the thread are right, it makes no sense, unless 4 out of 5 of the births are lethal and the one out of a million estimate includes both lethal and non-lethal births.

Of course, if you remove the stable population restriction the problem can be made to make sense, but that would involve...gasp...variables.

And, this seems to model asexual reproduction. Kinda like the Fibonacci rabbits.