http://www.mathstat.uottawa.ca/~rsmith/Zombies.pdf
Have a feeling that this will appeal to a couple of you.
Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth
Goddamned slippery mage.
Goddamned slippery mage.
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
For those of you who were wondering and didn't want to download the PDF, this is a discussion of slow zombies. So it's obviously flawed from the start for not considering fast zombies such as those recently popularized by 28 Days Later. It further simplifies the discussion by preventing the infection from also targeting non-human animals, leaving out packs of undead dogs and the like, shown in such films as Resident Evil.
Although the standard method of destroying the brain or removing the head does kill the zombies theorized in their model, I further object to the stated mathematical "proof" that human-zombie coexistence is impossible. As shown in the movie Fido, equilibrium states can be reached assuming other methods of human dominance such as direct physical control of the zombies, fortresses, zombie corrals, etc. The quarantine methods described in the paper are presented as inadequate from a specious claim that there would be "infrastructure limitations."
The "treatment" model is also flawed since rotting and decayed zombies do not "get better" nor can you bring a zombie "back from the dead" after information-theoretic death. Although standard portrayals of zombies ala Romero do indeed show remnants of brain activity, full recovery would be highly dubious. More likely, attempts at recovering the zombified would result in severely brain damaged humans or complete convalescence due to the lack of major organs or other physical damage, as shown in the Australian film Undead.
Having presented my arguments against their methods, the discussion at the end of the paper seems mostly correct as a conclusion, but I doubt they based it purely on their math, instead following from their previous uses of simplified assumptions, flaws included.
For a better presentation of zombie strategy which considers a broader range of possibilities, I would suggest the popular novel World War Z (although it too is flawed) or this short instructional video (part 2, part 3).
Although the standard method of destroying the brain or removing the head does kill the zombies theorized in their model, I further object to the stated mathematical "proof" that human-zombie coexistence is impossible. As shown in the movie Fido, equilibrium states can be reached assuming other methods of human dominance such as direct physical control of the zombies, fortresses, zombie corrals, etc. The quarantine methods described in the paper are presented as inadequate from a specious claim that there would be "infrastructure limitations."
The "treatment" model is also flawed since rotting and decayed zombies do not "get better" nor can you bring a zombie "back from the dead" after information-theoretic death. Although standard portrayals of zombies ala Romero do indeed show remnants of brain activity, full recovery would be highly dubious. More likely, attempts at recovering the zombified would result in severely brain damaged humans or complete convalescence due to the lack of major organs or other physical damage, as shown in the Australian film Undead.
Having presented my arguments against their methods, the discussion at the end of the paper seems mostly correct as a conclusion, but I doubt they based it purely on their math, instead following from their previous uses of simplified assumptions, flaws included.
For a better presentation of zombie strategy which considers a broader range of possibilities, I would suggest the popular novel World War Z (although it too is flawed) or this short instructional video (part 2, part 3).
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
So why did you quit mudding?
It will be fixed in Toril 2.0.
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Aremat group-says 'tanks i highly suggest investing 20 silver in training weapons from cm to cut down on the losing scales to shield'
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Dalar wrote:So why did you quit mudding?
Apparently to prepare for a zombie outbreak.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
I am Legend has an interesting take on it. Zombies take over and build a society. Humans are just a relic from the past.
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Those were not zombies. They were more like vampires than zombies. Read the book. They could even talk instead of having their heads/jaws grow to 200x their normal size when they screamed.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
-
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
oh yea, they were vampires.
I really want to read the book, the movie was such a let down compared how the story is really supposed to go according to the reviews I read.
I really want to read the book, the movie was such a let down compared how the story is really supposed to go according to the reviews I read.
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Yeah, they completely flipped the entire point of the story around. As much as I loved Smith's acting in that movie, for the most part, they really killed the story and the CGI made it almost embarrassing to watch.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.
Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'
Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
I LOVE UNDEAD SO I MUST JUMP IN NOW
"Love" in a subjective sort of way, in that I study EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE for all lore of all types of undead and quasi-undead. As such, I get kind of picky with sci-fi/thriller/horror/any other genre any medium that uses undead. (Yes, I have, in real life, a level 20 ranger's favored enemy bonus against all types of undead, demons, devils, aberrations, etc.)
Magically raised or formed undead (or other forces such as negative material, ethereal, astral, etc) can do anything you want to write them to do - they're magic! Yes, it's preferable that when you use common established types of undead, you give them roughly the same abilities and weaknesses as previous lore, but almost anything can have exceptions explained. My only problem here are movies that use common undead types in a "real world" setting, especially if it's modern times or in the future, and they don't make a semi-4th-wall-breaking reference to why vampires suddenly must drink blood only of victims who have recently consumed silver ions or garlic or holy water, or have recently used tanning booths or use a tanning booth themselves before drinking...
Chemical/biological undead have to make sense. Romero type undead are correct - something that simply animates flesh and creates a minimal biological urge to ingest whatever is necessary to maintain unlife (usually brains for plot reasons, but anything is acceptable.) I give slack to the addition of sapience where implied theology or biology somehow attaches part or all of the original soul back to the body, or might even activate the undecayed portions of the brain (pretend the brain is like flash RAM, when it senses a loss of power, it saves its data in quark states in protein molecules for conversion back to impulses after reactivation.) Dawn of the Dead (Ving Rhames one) annoys me because the infected zombies seem to lose normal bodily functions, which implies an onset of rigor mortis eventually, but they end up faster and stronger than normal humans. In that sense, I'm fine with the heightened abilities in 28 Days Later, but then I take issue with the fact that the infected, implied to attack out of a rage instinct due to the infection, only attack uninfected people and not each other. If you're going to use biological undead, you have to explain it on at least as good a level as an episode of House, M.D. Never read the novel for I Am Legend, I'm hoping that one was better in this aspect than the movie.
Edit - Most well done chemical undead movie to date is Night of the Living Dead, and they don't even go into great biological detail. Varied mobility and strength and sapience based on level of decay before undeath, lightly touches on theology and metaphysical topics, then drops a nuke on everything. I haven't seen a magical undead movie that doesn't involve vampires of great note - many mummy movies do a pretty good job, but barring a total slaughter of the plot, the new Green Lantern movie, if based on the Black Hand storyline, will take this spot. For the record, I am 99.9% sure Jason Voorhees is a revenant, even though the movies never reference this.
"Love" in a subjective sort of way, in that I study EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE for all lore of all types of undead and quasi-undead. As such, I get kind of picky with sci-fi/thriller/horror/any other genre any medium that uses undead. (Yes, I have, in real life, a level 20 ranger's favored enemy bonus against all types of undead, demons, devils, aberrations, etc.)
Magically raised or formed undead (or other forces such as negative material, ethereal, astral, etc) can do anything you want to write them to do - they're magic! Yes, it's preferable that when you use common established types of undead, you give them roughly the same abilities and weaknesses as previous lore, but almost anything can have exceptions explained. My only problem here are movies that use common undead types in a "real world" setting, especially if it's modern times or in the future, and they don't make a semi-4th-wall-breaking reference to why vampires suddenly must drink blood only of victims who have recently consumed silver ions or garlic or holy water, or have recently used tanning booths or use a tanning booth themselves before drinking...
Chemical/biological undead have to make sense. Romero type undead are correct - something that simply animates flesh and creates a minimal biological urge to ingest whatever is necessary to maintain unlife (usually brains for plot reasons, but anything is acceptable.) I give slack to the addition of sapience where implied theology or biology somehow attaches part or all of the original soul back to the body, or might even activate the undecayed portions of the brain (pretend the brain is like flash RAM, when it senses a loss of power, it saves its data in quark states in protein molecules for conversion back to impulses after reactivation.) Dawn of the Dead (Ving Rhames one) annoys me because the infected zombies seem to lose normal bodily functions, which implies an onset of rigor mortis eventually, but they end up faster and stronger than normal humans. In that sense, I'm fine with the heightened abilities in 28 Days Later, but then I take issue with the fact that the infected, implied to attack out of a rage instinct due to the infection, only attack uninfected people and not each other. If you're going to use biological undead, you have to explain it on at least as good a level as an episode of House, M.D. Never read the novel for I Am Legend, I'm hoping that one was better in this aspect than the movie.
Edit - Most well done chemical undead movie to date is Night of the Living Dead, and they don't even go into great biological detail. Varied mobility and strength and sapience based on level of decay before undeath, lightly touches on theology and metaphysical topics, then drops a nuke on everything. I haven't seen a magical undead movie that doesn't involve vampires of great note - many mummy movies do a pretty good job, but barring a total slaughter of the plot, the new Green Lantern movie, if based on the Black Hand storyline, will take this spot. For the record, I am 99.9% sure Jason Voorhees is a revenant, even though the movies never reference this.
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Todrael wrote:For those of you who were wondering and didn't want to download the PDF, this is a discussion of slow zombies. So it's obviously flawed from the start for not considering fast zombies such as those recently popularized by 28 Days Later. It further simplifies the discussion by preventing the infection from also targeting non-human animals, leaving out packs of undead dogs and the like, shown in such films as Resident Evil.
Although the standard method of destroying the brain or removing the head does kill the zombies theorized in their model, I further object to the stated mathematical "proof" that human-zombie coexistence is impossible. As shown in the movie Fido, equilibrium states can be reached assuming other methods of human dominance such as direct physical control of the zombies, fortresses, zombie corrals, etc. The quarantine methods described in the paper are presented as inadequate from a specious claim that there would be "infrastructure limitations."
The "treatment" model is also flawed since rotting and decayed zombies do not "get better" nor can you bring a zombie "back from the dead" after information-theoretic death. Although standard portrayals of zombies ala Romero do indeed show remnants of brain activity, full recovery would be highly dubious. More likely, attempts at recovering the zombified would result in severely brain damaged humans or complete convalescence due to the lack of major organs or other physical damage, as shown in the Australian film Undead.
Having presented my arguments against their methods, the discussion at the end of the paper seems mostly correct as a conclusion, but I doubt they based it purely on their math, instead following from their previous uses of simplified assumptions, flaws included.
For a better presentation of zombie strategy which considers a broader range of possibilities, I would suggest the popular novel World War Z (although it too is flawed) or this short instructional video (part 2, part 3).
Yay! Another Zombie fan! =)
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Todrael wrote:For a better presentation of zombie strategy which considers a broader range of possibilities, I would suggest the popular novel World War Z (although it too is flawed)
How so? What flaws did you find in World War Z? Additional, did you find any foreseeable problems with the Zombie Killer Guide he wrote previously?
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Most of the plot and the characters were cliche to the point of seeming like it might be satire. In general, I thought it a juvenile work, but certainly moving zombie fiction in the right direction: toward a consistent world. I truly enjoy consistency when it comes to fiction.
I didn't read the Zombie Survival Guide, but I did purchase it for my brother. He objected to many of the strategies from what I recall, not limited to the weapons and armor used.
Also, none of his works (that I'm aware of) postulate alternative outbreak scenarios such as fast zombies, animal zombies, airborne infection zombies (no bite needed), etc.
I didn't read the Zombie Survival Guide, but I did purchase it for my brother. He objected to many of the strategies from what I recall, not limited to the weapons and armor used.
Also, none of his works (that I'm aware of) postulate alternative outbreak scenarios such as fast zombies, animal zombies, airborne infection zombies (no bite needed), etc.
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Todrael wrote:I didn't read the Zombie Survival Guide, but I did purchase it for my brother. He objected to many of the strategies from what I recall, not limited to the weapons and armor used.
Also, none of his works (that I'm aware of) postulate alternative outbreak scenarios such as fast zombies, animal zombies, airborne infection zombies (no bite needed), etc.
I own both novels and have read them a number of times. There wasn't anything in the survival guide I felt objection to in terms of tactics against the undead. For the type of zombies he describes the tactics are what I would clearly consider sound.
There is a fundamental difference between his zombies and Romero's. Romero's have a fundamental fear of fire, his do not. To me this is a significant difference between the two.
And I too noticed he omitted covering other types of infection as well. His zombies, and plague of infection, are very specific and do not encompass nor explain the dynamics of numerous other forms of fiction. Instead he gave a blanket response that the plague that causes the spread, simply kills all other life forms and they therefor avoid infected subjects on a fundamental level, like animals/creatures do with fire.
There's that word again, fire.
From his explanations, all living organisms avoid infected specimens, even on a cellular level, which is what results in their extremely slow rate of decomposition.
So on one angle he says, all living organisms avoid the infected in all levels, yet the infected fear nothing not even fire - aka direct destruction. Kind of a double standard if you ask me. I believe this is one of his mistakes, as I feel fundamental coding in creatures would persist in infected organisms on a cellular level, even his magical 'brain mutation' organism he uses as rationale for controlling infected hosts.
An organism that can control a host to spread itself like a plague capable of complex actions and congnitive reasoning would in fact be unable to overcome the biological coding within cellular DNA, that is to fear fire.
In laymen's terms: If my brain is going to mutate into an autonomous organism capable of manipulating my appendages thru complex actions, enough to control me to climb a building via stair wells, to reach the roof to eat prey, it will have enough damn 'sense' (using that word loosely) to not walk into a bonfire and destroy itself.
Edit: Additionally, his zombies communicate, altho on a limited scale, but enough to recognize each other, and to close in on prey. In my opinion this further substantiates a form of cognitive reasoning within the infected, or else they would A) ignore other infected or B) devour other infected, as they are not 'living' and therefore to not suffer the living's fundamental cellular coding to avoid the infected, or eat infected flesh.
Hey, they don't fear fire, why would they fear eating each other? Am I right?
Re: Mathematical Modelling of a Zombie Outbreak
Desirsar wrote: For the record, I am 99.9% sure Jason Voorhees is a revenant, even though the movies never reference this.
I used to think this too, but there are too many indications of why he is not. For one, despite the hype by fans and the studio, Jason is not undead, nor zombie. He breathes. Undead don't breathe. Nor does Jason consume living flesh, rot, or infect others with a life-taking disease.
His spiritual connection and ability to regenerate make him similar to a mummy, but again, he's not that either.
I believe the actions of his mother in the first film, culminating with her death, cemented the anchor/doorway for Jason to be given license to enact vengeance upon this world. If you notice, unless his family is involved, or you have trespassed upon his 'sacred' land of Camp Crystal Lake in some way, Jason doesn't wander out across the country seeking victims. Additionally, his victims are typically those guilty of committing biblical sins.
I believe he is a demonic spirit given corrupted human form (hence why he's always mutated and misshapen as he is as grotesque in appearance as sins are to the soul) and license to enact unholy punishment upon the guilty of sin and guilty of defiling his 'resting' place.
In summary, unless you or your actions overlap with his 'sphere of influence', Jason doesn't bother you. This is even reflected in the recent remake, where the old woman with the dog who lives nearby is not subjected to Jason's influence in any form whatsoever, while the hick who farms weed from Crystal Lake is. In fact, Jason steels from him, like he steels from his land, and it isn't until we whiteness the hick being guilty of biblical sins, that Jason comes calling.
Edit: You'll note in every single Jason/Friday movie, no one ever genuinely asks for forgiveness for their sins. Instead they beg and plead to be spared, or simply run not wanting to face punishment. I often wonder what would happen if they genuinely asked Jason for forgiveness and sincerely apologized for their sins to god in front of him, would he let them go? Would he disappear when they opened their eyes? Or would he just kill them anyway?
Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests