Difference between revisions of "Aybars-project page"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Project Summary''' | '''Project Summary''' | ||
| − | At this point we have a segregation simulator. The slight bias among the types of people forms segregated islands of people. Now what I am thinking is that we can extend this racial segregation simulator to a | + | At this point we have a segregation simulator. The slight bias among the types of people forms segregated islands of people. Now what I am thinking is that we can extend this racial segregation simulator to a racial-linguistic segregation simulator in the first hand. |
| + | |||
| + | If we add the race and language factors at the same time, then we will have three different populations speaking two different languages. Greens and Blues are equally common (initial probability of 5/11 each) and Reds are a minority (initial probability of 1/11). Greens and Blues speak only Greenish and Bluish respectively, whereas, Reds are bilingual in both languages, but do not have a language of their own (but they do have a race of their own). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Both Greens and Blues have a tendency towards Reds linguistically, but not racially, as Reds can speak their language but are not of their race. Reds, similarly, do not have a tendency towards anyone linguistically, but they prefer the red minority racially. | ||
| − | |||
The thesis hypothesis is: The more types of fractionalization there are (racial, linguistic, religious), the more seperate the populations become. However, there is also the probability that, as a result of too many fractionalizations, the population might end up being more homogeneous (that is the case when the hypothesis is proven to be false). | The thesis hypothesis is: The more types of fractionalization there are (racial, linguistic, religious), the more seperate the populations become. However, there is also the probability that, as a result of too many fractionalizations, the population might end up being more homogeneous (that is the case when the hypothesis is proven to be false). | ||
| + | |||
| + | To prove or disprove the hypothesis, we will compare the results of all three versions of the simulator (racial only, racial-linguistic, racial-linguistic-religious). | ||
Revision as of 23:58, 31 October 2007
Project Summary
At this point we have a segregation simulator. The slight bias among the types of people forms segregated islands of people. Now what I am thinking is that we can extend this racial segregation simulator to a racial-linguistic segregation simulator in the first hand.
If we add the race and language factors at the same time, then we will have three different populations speaking two different languages. Greens and Blues are equally common (initial probability of 5/11 each) and Reds are a minority (initial probability of 1/11). Greens and Blues speak only Greenish and Bluish respectively, whereas, Reds are bilingual in both languages, but do not have a language of their own (but they do have a race of their own).
Both Greens and Blues have a tendency towards Reds linguistically, but not racially, as Reds can speak their language but are not of their race. Reds, similarly, do not have a tendency towards anyone linguistically, but they prefer the red minority racially.
The thesis hypothesis is: The more types of fractionalization there are (racial, linguistic, religious), the more seperate the populations become. However, there is also the probability that, as a result of too many fractionalizations, the population might end up being more homogeneous (that is the case when the hypothesis is proven to be false).
To prove or disprove the hypothesis, we will compare the results of all three versions of the simulator (racial only, racial-linguistic, racial-linguistic-religious).
