Talk:Doubling time

Distinction

Does anyone find it slightly stupid that generation time redirects to doubling time, but doubling time then makes the distinction between the two at the bottom of the page? Surely they deserve to be distinguished better than that, move to separate the two?... Or perhaps, if, as it says, they are largely interchangeable, move to properly distinguished at the top Geno-Supremo (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a different use of "generation time" than the one I'm familliar with from demography and population biology. They are not equivalent: generation time in population biology is the average age of parents, whereas doubling time refers to growth of the population. Generation time needs its own page.Trashbird1240 (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the text of the distinction, which claims that "at any given point more cells have recently divided than are about to divide," is incorrect. In an exponentially growing population, the rate of addition of new individuals is constantly increasing. Therefore, it should always be the case that more cells are about to divide than have recently divided. Nico KG (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Style Cleanup - Doubling formula

Good Wiki-Math-Text Editor, Please clarify and clean up (cases, formatting, style):

"Simple doubling time formula N(t) = C(2)^t/d

n(t) = the number of objects at time t d = doubling period (time it takes for object to double in number) c= initial number of objects t = time "

Thanks. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by HalFonts (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

play- playing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.109.193 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Natural logarithm of 2 is ln(2), not log(2)

The introduction refers to the "natural logarithm of 2", while the examination section shows "log(2). which is the nomenclature for the common logarithm of 2. Nomenclature for natural logarithm of two is ln(2). Or at least it was when I was in school, which I'll admit was some years ago. --Catrachos (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

note

Reference 6 is controversial.

See:- https://www.statnews.com/2018/10/14/harvard-brigham-retractions-stem-cell/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/health/piero-anversa-fraud-retractions.html

was placed in article instead of here--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

03409181207 203.101.190.175 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)