Simple population growth problem

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The population growth problem of Coyote Gulch, Arizona, initially set at 365, grows by a factor of e each year while experiencing a daily death rate of 1 in 100 citizens. The differential equation governing the population is expressed as \(\frac{dP}{dt} = P - \frac{365}{100}P\), leading to the solution \(P = 365e^{-2.65t}\). For fatalities, the cumulative deaths are derived from \(\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{365}{100}P\), resulting in \(F = 365(1-e^{-2.65t})\). The discussion highlights a critical interpretation issue regarding the inclusion of the original population growth factor in the death rate calculation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential equations
  • Familiarity with exponential growth models
  • Knowledge of calculus, specifically derivatives
  • Basic concepts of population dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of differential equations in population modeling
  • Explore the implications of mortality rates on population dynamics
  • Learn about the mathematical derivation of exponential growth functions
  • Investigate the differences between deterministic and stochastic population models
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those focusing on calculus and differential equations, as well as researchers in population dynamics and ecology.

process91
Messages
105
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


At the beginning of the Gold Rush, the population of Coyote Gulch, Arizona was 365. From then on, the population would have grown by a factor of e each year, except for the high rate of "accidental" death, amounting to one victim per day among every 100 citizens. By solving an appropriate differential equation, determine, as function of time (a) the actual populations of Coyote Gulch t years from the day the Gold Rush began, and (b) the cumulative number of fatalities.

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


I got part (a) as follows:

\frac{dP}{dt} = P - \frac{365}{100}P

P = 365e^{-2.65t}

Where the 365 comes from the initial condition in the problem. This answer agrees with the book.

For part (b), I simply considered (a bit morbidly) the dead people as another population. Let F be the number of dead people at time t. Then

\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{365}{100}P

\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{365^2}{100}e^{-2.65t}

F = \frac{-365^2}{265}e^{-2.65t}+\frac{365^2}{265}

Where the fraction on the right comes from the initial condition that there are no fatalities at t=0.

The book, on the other hand, has that the answer is 365(1-e^{-2.65t}) fatalities in t years, an answer they obviously got by setting \frac{dF}{dt}=\left(\frac{365}{100}-1\right)P. My question is, why? I'm having an interpretation issue here.

In my interpretation, the new population of interest is the dead people. They grow at a rate of 365/100 P per year. They don't "undie", or in any way get removed from the population, so why do you include the growth factor of the original population as your "death" factor here?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
process91 said:

Homework Statement


At the beginning of the Gold Rush, the population of Coyote Gulch, Arizona was 365. From then on, the population would have grown by a factor of e each year, except for the high rate of "accidental" death, amounting to one victim per day among every 100 citizens. By solving an appropriate differential equation, determine, as function of time (a) the actual populations of Coyote Gulch t years from the day the Gold Rush began, and (b) the cumulative number of fatalities.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I got part (a) as follows:

\frac{dP}{dt} = P - \frac{365}{100}P

P = 365e^{-2.65t}

Where the 365 comes from the initial condition in the problem. This answer agrees with the book.

For part (b), I simply considered (a bit morbidly) the dead people as another population. Let F be the number of dead people at time t. Then

\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{365}{100}P

\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{365^2}{100}e^{-2.65t}

F = \frac{-365^2}{265}e^{-2.65t}+\frac{265}{365^2}

Where the fraction on the right comes from the initial condition that there are no fatalities at t=0.
? At t= 0, that becomes
F= -\frac{365^2}{265}+ \frac{265}{365^2}
which is NOT 0.
Did you mean to write
F = \frac{-365^2}{265}e^{-2.65t}+\frac{365^2}{265}


The book, on the other hand, has that the answer is 365(1-e^{-2.65t}) fatalities in t years, an answer they obviously got by setting \frac{dF}{dt}=\left(\frac{365}{100}-1\right)P. My question is, why? I'm having an interpretation issue here.
What I would have done is calculate the population if there were NO deaths. That would be, of course, the solution to dP/dt= P and so would be P(t)= 365e^{t} (of course, the population was "growing by a factor of e each year"). Subtracting the actual population from the population if there had been no deaths gives the total dead.

In my interpretation, the new population of interest is the dead people. They grow at a rate of 365/100 P per year. They don't "undie", or in any way get removed from the population, so why do you include the growth factor of the original population as your "death" factor here?
 
HallsofIvy said:
? At t= 0, that becomes
F= -\frac{365^2}{265}+ \frac{265}{365^2}
which is NOT 0.
Did you mean to write
F = \frac{-365^2}{265}e^{-2.65t}+\frac{365^2}{265}
Yes I did - I fixed it above. Thanks for pointing it out.

HallsofIvy said:
What I would have done is calculate the population if there were NO deaths. That would be, of course, the solution to dP/dt= P and so would be P(t)= 365e^{t} (of course, the population was "growing by a factor of e each year"). Subtracting the actual population from the population if there had been no deaths gives the total dead.

I'm not sure that works (please correct me if I am wrong). I did think about that, but came to the conclusion that the population calculated without deaths minus the population with deaths would be larger than the total number of fatalities. The reason is that the people who died only count as one total death, but their death affects the total population and therefore indirectly decreases the population as well.

Anecdotally, if someone dies they can't have children and therefore calculating the total population without the death and subtracting the total population with the deaths inherently includes the number of "forgone" children along with the total dead.
 
Sorry to do this, but *bump*.
 
I ended up determining that my solution was correct, and the book's was incorrect through inspection of the graphs of all three functions. Just wanted to post that here in case anyone else had been following.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K