(Warning! Scary vampire photo from Alabama included!)
Science at work.


Finally I can walk down dark alleys at midnight without fear of vampiric reprisal, thanks to mathematic probability! Huzzah!

But that's assuming a vampire CREATES a vampire with his eating habit? What if they die when he eats them, and the amount of people we have now are those that haven't been eaten?

AND who knows if the original vampire was born then? That's a stupid assumption. What if there were always vampires, and thus, the population has always been taken as a percentage of people who aren't bitten?

While it's mostly solid, the theory doesn't take into account that vampires CAN die. Certainly they're not all as bad as Dracula -- some might get caught in the sunlight or eat something with garlic or get stabbed in the heart by a group of vampire hunters. If we're to give them some credit, they probably know about the problem with food as well, and take the necessary steps not to eat their whole food supply. Also, not everyone a vampire feeds on turns into a vampire too.

The likelyhood is still pretty slim, for the basic numerical premise made, but the proof is not good enough to debunk flat-out. This proof would work better with zombies, who turn everyone they eat into a zombie as well. They are easier to kill, making it possible that they exist in only small outbreaks, but they're also non-intelligent, requiring cover-ups and the like if such outbreaks exist, which seems unlikely.

Other notable events in 1600 (assuming AD, article didn't specify that either):

• Sumo wrestling becomes a professional sport in Japan.
• "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is performed for the first time.
• The Spanish galleon "San Diego" is sunk off the Philippines.

How are these events related?

Vampirism, Shakespeare, Sumo, and... the Spanish too! The sum of the angles of that rectangle is too monstrous to contemplate!

Of course if the doubling period was much slower - say, 20 years (maybe the vampires hibernate for 20 years after biting someone; who knows), then the vampire population today would be a much more manageable 2,000,000 or so. And as long as Wesley Snipes is around, that could probably remain approximately constant.

Or perhaps vampires are Oblivion-style and can feed on people without creating new vampires.

What about vampire hunters? Wouldn't they take a chunk out of the population here and there?

Vampires have to want to make you a vampire for you to turn into one. If they're only chowing down you becase they're hungry then you're screwed.

In the modern world with all manner crime investigations, they might even be cautious and not kill the victims, but instead only drink a nice gulp, and then use hypnosis, or whatever vampiric mind control powers they possess, to make the victim forget she/he was bitten. And who would believe such a person anyway...

I find that people use Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicals as a pretty definitive resource, and according to those books, a vampire needs to feed every couple of days, but their prey does not automatically become a vampire.
In fact, they rarely turn a victim.

So if the researcher was really a vampire-know it all, he would realize his proof is wrong.

360?

...

*Head Explodes*

I'm a vampiric rabbit. I eat people every day. There is still population. This thing proves nothing. Oh and I'm also dynamite.

Can't vampires go long periods of time without feeding? All I know about vampires is from reading Dracula... and I guess Oblivion, but that is just a silly game.

Or, since they're all fictional, any silly vampiric reference source is as good as another.

Wow, yet another sad example of how some idiot attempts to use a concept (math) to prove (or disprove in this case) something that's real (or may not be real at all).

Like most illogical "proofs" this is no different. They make stark assumptions to fit their criteria without first conducting the simplist investigation to educate themselves on even the most basic details at play.

Incorrect Assumptions:
1. As many have already stated, they incorrectly assume that "biting" a victim converts them to a vampire. This assumption is quickly debunked as the lore often dictates in great detail that there is a specific procedure for 'converting' a victim into a vampire.

2. Any basic investigation into vampire lore would also show that the use of 'substitute' blood sources are also widely used (such as pig blood). The lore also presents us with the idea that as markets changed and began carrying pig or other mamal type blood sources for meat preservation and flavor reasons, that vampires began purchasing the blood directly (again, as a substitute for the prefered fresh human blood). This debunks the second assumption of the rate at which the proposed that vampire attacks on the human population occured (considering the substitutes available).

I could go on, but it's not worth it. Theoriest need to study this before presenting a "proof" (most of which stem from the "Misinformation" such as False Cause and others).

Of course, my rant applies to politics too...

Vampires have to make a human drink vampire blood for them to turn into a vampire. (According to some lore), plus, a vampire can go into hibernation for thousands of years, which isn't taken into account.

i guess Dinosaurs can't be real either!

I mean, look how long they've had to breed!

(please don't hurt me) I adapted that quote from the old campy Batman movie, the commisioner says a line similar to that. The movie makes so many illogical, irrational statements, I love it. Thought it fit well with the theme of abusing logic/math pretty well here.

Stargate fun fact: Wraith are based off of vampire lore.