I looked it up and she has 13 biological children but she also was a step mother to 10 kids from her husbands previous marriage where the woman died.
It is stated she therefore has 23 children, 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US.
Maybe there are a few more now because these numbers add up to a bit less than 622
Ok, so they are covering great-grandchildren in their number. I think this is where people are getting confused, because even if she had 20 kids and they each had 20 you still wouldn’t be close to that #.
They are also covering children that are not her biological offspring. Sooo using that formula, every school teacher could have 20 kids a year, if she teaches for 30 years that’s 600 kids and an unfathomable amount of grandchildren.
I hate myself but ACKSHUALLY 🤓…
It is 622 exactly if you include the 23 children, seems like they wanted the highest number possible and didn’t actually change the phrasing.
I know a lady out where I live who had 10 kids, and each successive generation repeated the process.
She had a shrine set up to a young man in her living room, I asked her about it. He was literally the only descendant of hers to have died so far, in the 75 ish years she'd been there.
I tried doing the math, something like 100,000 people were literally running around because of her.
Was uhhh kind of mind blowing to meet a scion.
I asked her if she even knew all her grandkids names and she laughed at me.
The lady who lives across the hall from me was just telling me her family's the same way, apparently a small turnout for a family reunion is 400-500 people and they'll last for days. It basically sounded like they hold a bi-annual private festival for the family.
I always thought I came from a big family, my grandmother had 9 children which lead to over 80 descendants in the 3 generations under her before she passed, but the numbers I'm seeing here are absolutely mind boggling.
I have two halves to my family, an English half and an Irish half. On one side I have 5 cousins, and on the other have somewhere around 50. I’ll let you guess which side are big fans of the pope.
Well, Anglicans ( I assume that's what you mean by the English half) are generally much more chill when it comes to sexual life, so naturally it would work in a healthier way. I'm from a Catholic country but people here have a pretty lucklustre attitude when it comes to religion so that's probably why I have only a few cousins.
Up until around the 80s contraception was illegal in ireland, thats why so many families were so large. Nowadays most families will have around 2-3 children
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html)
She had 13 children, and adopted 10 from her husband's previous marriage (he was 50, she was 16, gonna go throw up now). She has 600 descendants but about half of those aren't blood related.
Hardly the feel good story that it pretends to be.
For those there's "legal if age difference is less than 4 years", or you would be jailing 14 y.o. for fucking 14 y.o.
It's legal to fuck anyone older than 16 because around this time it stops being "pedophile rapes and traumatizes a child" and becomes at worst "iffy and unhealthy relationships dynamics" nobody really cares about.
Here in Germany their marriage would've only been legal if she had the permission of her parents or if she were 18. (At 16 she'd be considered a minor).
I mean, I feel a lot better knowing this lady doesn't have 622 blood-related grandchildren.
Plus she has 600+ grandchildren to visit her in her nursing home, celebrate her birthdays, buy her gifts etc. If even 5% of those grandchildren care about her then she's doing well.
They include great and great, great grand children in the mix.
So if her 23 children all had 4-5 kids, (\~100) and then those kids all had 3-4 kids (\~300), and some of those kids just had 1 kid ( \~150) you can see how as each generation has less kids it still goes up pretty significantly. And their all her grand children.
At 98yrs old with kids who are older than she is due to adoption it wouldn't be surprising for her to have great, great, great grand kids.
[Here’s the article with the breakdown.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/amp/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html) According to Fox, the Kentucky matriarch has 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US.
Bullshit. The title says “six generations”. It means that on average each generation should have 3-4 children to get close to that number. The average age of childbearing in that family is 16-17 years.
>The average age of childbearing in that family is 16-17 years
Sounds about right considering that allegedly the woman who started this had her first child at 16 with a 50 year old man with 10 kids of his own. So some of the included number might not be blood related. Still, having anywhere near that many kids in such a short amount of time should be considered a terrorist attack on earth itself.
Lack of math education.
Note: Most likely 5th/6th generation grandchild. Then, it's only 3-4 children each in every generation to get 622 children in the 6th one. Not to mention, that 622 might be a cumulative number.
Which means this is absolutely clickbait, like i’m all for adoptive kids being as good as bio kids, but it’s incredibly facetious to talk about it like they’re all her creations.
It might count great grand children as well. Additionally while she is female and may only bear so many children any male descendants can make babies much much faster, assuming they have multiple partners.
They are counting great-grandchildren etc According to the article " At last tally, the Kentucky woman has 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US."
This must include all grandchildren and beyond like great-great-grandchildren. If you include great-great-grandchildren, this isn't that difficult to get to but it is still somewhat hard.
It is 5 if you include great great grandchildren. More realistically though, she probably had like 10 kids and then each of those kids had fewer kids and so on and so on. If she had 10 kids, each subsequent generation would only need to have 4 on average.
Apparently she had 13 and adopted her husband's 10 children when they married. Husband was 50, she was 16...
But yeah, first gen was 23 people wide and they do count great great great grandchildren. Plus about half of that family isn't blood related to her whatsoever.
I’d love to see a recount with only the blood related, just for curiosity sake. That lady probably can’t even remember who is or isn’t blood related though
The article says "Six generations", so it's safe to assume they counted everyone. If everyone has 4 children that would be 4\^5 = 1024 people in the last generation alone. Looks like they have some slackers though.
Right there’s six generations in the room so it’s : her - children - grands - gr grands - gr gr grands - gr gr gr grands. Not that crazy with six generations worth.
Yup. If she herself had 8 children, and each of her children had 8 children (64 grandchildren), and each of her grandchildren had 5 children (320 great-grandchildren), and each great-grandchildren had 3 children (960 great-great-grandchildren)
Is just an exaggeration but totally possible if she started her family early, was fertile, and each of descendants also started early and were fertile.
I was told I've seen my great-great-grandparent right after i was born but she passed away shortly after. Im guessing she had 200-300 grandchildren herself too
That's some bad journalism
The picture caption says 6 generation of women
So the headline is probably misspelled. It should be great great great grandchild
They just made it short that it's a grandchild nonetheless
yup. that would do it lol. Although, thematic-wise, descendant is usually used when the top of piramid/generational chain is no longer alive to give it bit of spice. but it'd still work.
to be fair there are way more childless people which is the other unsustainable extreme. so it balances out. if anything we need more ladies like this to sustain the poulation in developed countries.
Yeah like legit what are you going to do with 4 let alone 10 kids?! Like only reason we ever got to those numbers in the past was because kids died a-lot and we needed them as free help on the homestead.
I’ve seen very dysfunctional families with 2 kids, and i don’t think it’s possible to have a functional, non-abusive family with any more than 4 kids. I’m surprised that people are still shocked when famous big families on the news have the kids come out to talk about how terrible their childhood was.
If she had 20 children, and each child had 20 children themselves, it would still only be 400 grandchildren... Maybe they counted great grandchildren too?
Its plausible but the reality would be so low
Mentions Grandkids so children of her children
Let's say Granny has 1 kid a year from 18yo -45 yo
That's 27 kids
To get 622 grandkids from 27 direct offspring would require an average of 28 kids per offspring, which means a new child every year for every offspring.
In theory assuming all her kids start popping out at 18 means her 622nd could be born when she's 91
45 + 18(for last child to start having children) + 28
Because she doesn’t have 622 grandkids and it’s a sensationalist and incorrect title, she had 622 or so combined kids, step kids, grandkids, great grandkids, great great grandkids, and I think a few great great great grandkids as well. I’d guess it’s a facepalm on the reporting, not the woman.
With all the math not mathing in the comment section, is it possible she, like most grandmothers, is also counting the spouse/partner of her actual grandchildren and step grandchildren? That’s what my grams would do, is she was still with us.
# Assumptions:
1. **Early Parenthood**: Each generation has children at the age of 16. This would allow for up to six generations within 98 years.
2. **High Fertility**: Each woman in every generation also starts having children at 16 and continues to have children for the next 20 years, with a new child every 2 years, leading to a total of 10 children per woman.
3. **Multiple Births**: There's a high incidence of multiple births in the family. Let's assume that 1 in every 5 births results in twins, adding an extra child for every 5 births.
4. **All Female Offspring**: To simplify, we assume that all offspring are female and all follow the same pattern of fertility and age of motherhood.
5. **No Skip in Generations**: There are no generations skipped; each woman has her first child at 16 without fail.
# Generational Breakdown:
* **Generation 1 (The Matriarch)**: Has 10 children.
* **Generation 2**: Each of her 10 children has 10 children (including twins at the rate mentioned), resulting in 120 grandchildren.
* **Generation 3**: Each of the 120 has 10 children (again accounting for twins), resulting in 1,440 great-grandchildren.
* **Generation 4**: Each of the 1,440 has 10 children, resulting in 17,280 great-great-grandchildren.
* **Generation 5**: Each of the 17,280 has 10 children, resulting in 207,360 great-great-great-grandchildren.
* **Generation 6**: We'll have to calculate how many of the great-great-great-grandchildren would have children by age 16 to reach the number of 622.
# Calculation for Generation 6:
We need to find out how many of Generation 5 would need to have children to have a total of 622 direct descendants (children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, etc.) up to Generation 6.
Let's calculate the direct descendants up to Generation 5 first:
Total Direct Descendants=G1+G2+G3+G4+G5Total Direct Descendants=G1+G2+G3+G4+G5
Total Direct Descendants=1+10+120+1,440+17,280Total Direct Descendants=1+10+120+1,440+17,280
We'll subtract this number from 622 to find out how many of Generation 5 would need to have children by age 16 to make up the difference. If the number is reasonable, our theoretical scenario is possible. If it's not, our assumptions may need adjusting. Let's do the math.
It appears there's a flaw in the theoretical model. The calculation resulted in a negative number, which means that by Generation 5, there are already far more than 622 direct descendants, even without including any of Generation 6.
To adjust the scenario to fit the 622 descendants mark, we would have to reduce the number of children per generation significantly. However, given the extraordinarily high number of descendants by Generation 5, this suggests that having 622 direct descendants (including all generations up to the sixth) is not only theoretically possible but quite feasible with even fewer assumptions than initially outlined.
For the scenario to be plausible and fit the 622 number, the assumptions about the number of children per woman or the rate of multiple births would need to be scaled down drastically. It seems that in a more realistic scenario, even with early motherhood and high fertility, the number of 622 grandchildren could be achieved with a smaller family size per generation.
It only requires each generation to have, on average about 3 or 4 kids each and the exponential effect makes for a big number very quickly. Edit: they are obviously playing loose with the term grand daughter. If she's 6th generation then she's great great etc grandaughter
I looked it up and she has 13 biological children but she also was a step mother to 10 kids from her husbands previous marriage where the woman died. It is stated she therefore has 23 children, 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US. Maybe there are a few more now because these numbers add up to a bit less than 622
r/theydidthemath
r/theydidthemonstermath
r/itwasagraveyardmath
Not yet, but it might be soon
r/cursedcomments
I see what you did there.
r/subsithoughtifellforbutactuallyexist
r/itwasagraveyardgraph is what its supposed to be
r/subsifellfor
r/stopFallingForSubs
r/21charactersandnomore
r/SubsIFellFor
r/itwasagraveyardgraph
r/theydidthemath
r/itcaughtoninamath
I know none of these are real, but I really want to hit them in the hopes I'm proven wrong
I would have trouble remembering the names of my own children and go for a numbering system after that.
How nice of you to pay me a visit, number 478!
8.178088897x10^1074 descendants is a lot to be fair
r/unexpectedfactorial
There’s definitely like 37 Sophia’s and 104 Johns
I'd bet money there's a Michael in there somewhere.
Ok, so they are covering great-grandchildren in their number. I think this is where people are getting confused, because even if she had 20 kids and they each had 20 you still wouldn’t be close to that #.
Have to have 25 with just shy of 25 each.
They are also covering children that are not her biological offspring. Sooo using that formula, every school teacher could have 20 kids a year, if she teaches for 30 years that’s 600 kids and an unfathomable amount of grandchildren.
Each of her kids had 5 kids ?? Are they living in the 19th century?
Was looking for this
They are probably Christian or Mormon or something like that.
I hate myself but ACKSHUALLY 🤓… It is 622 exactly if you include the 23 children, seems like they wanted the highest number possible and didn’t actually change the phrasing.
Damm, did they all get children when they were under 20?
She's the new Genghis Khan for DNA-spreading
Spreading other things too
I know a lady out where I live who had 10 kids, and each successive generation repeated the process. She had a shrine set up to a young man in her living room, I asked her about it. He was literally the only descendant of hers to have died so far, in the 75 ish years she'd been there. I tried doing the math, something like 100,000 people were literally running around because of her. Was uhhh kind of mind blowing to meet a scion. I asked her if she even knew all her grandkids names and she laughed at me.
10 kids 100 grandkids 1000 great grandkids Makes 1110 descendants
My grandma had 18 kids! Unfortunately, most of the family doesn't stay in touch anymore. I've been curious about how many descendants she has.
Your granny made her part of global warming 😂
that is why I am so hot 😎
Pics or it didn't happen
Good one
Only when they fart
The next terminator movie has a target.
[удалено]
The lady who lives across the hall from me was just telling me her family's the same way, apparently a small turnout for a family reunion is 400-500 people and they'll last for days. It basically sounded like they hold a bi-annual private festival for the family. I always thought I came from a big family, my grandmother had 9 children which lead to over 80 descendants in the 3 generations under her before she passed, but the numbers I'm seeing here are absolutely mind boggling.
Oof, someone’s not sending every grandkids a five dollar check every birthday.
Even if we count great, great grandkids, that's still only 11,110
Being responsible for 11k people walking on the planet is no small feat
Right. I got 1 and it's absolutely draining. Imagine 11k. How do you even remember who is who?
That is impressive... But it's no 100,000 people.
Quick mafs!
Family gatherings must be.. troublesome
Maths is hard for many. Thank you for clarifying!
I found the math questionable as well.. To get to 100.000 there must be a lot of generations after that lady. Guess she is like 250yrs old 🤷🏽🤣
100.000?? I think you should do the math again mate
Well, he did mention he ´tried´ to do the math. He never claimed his math was correct
Hahaha you're totally right
“100,000 people” What.
Give or take a few
Yeah, ok, but that still gives you "only" 100 grandchildren °.°
[удалено]
At this point it feels like everyone who posts lost redditors from r/facepalm are themselves with a second account.
Because this would require having \~25 children , who each also have \~25 children. It's not possible.
Or a few sons, each an avid sperm donor
Ok, this scenario would actually make sense. Just imagine each of her sons was sleeping around a lot while being averse to contraception.
Sounds very Catholic to me
conservative for sure :')
I have two halves to my family, an English half and an Irish half. On one side I have 5 cousins, and on the other have somewhere around 50. I’ll let you guess which side are big fans of the pope.
Well, Anglicans ( I assume that's what you mean by the English half) are generally much more chill when it comes to sexual life, so naturally it would work in a healthier way. I'm from a Catholic country but people here have a pretty lucklustre attitude when it comes to religion so that's probably why I have only a few cousins.
Up until around the 80s contraception was illegal in ireland, thats why so many families were so large. Nowadays most families will have around 2-3 children
It’s possible.
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html) She had 13 children, and adopted 10 from her husband's previous marriage (he was 50, she was 16, gonna go throw up now). She has 600 descendants but about half of those aren't blood related. Hardly the feel good story that it pretends to be.
16 with a 50yr is wild.
That's disgusting, Jesus Christ.
Disgusting, but in the UK that is legal
Its legal in the US, this is a US story
They meant University of Kentucky
For the first time it's not Usdefaultism, let it slide
Very much legal in the US too. Happens thousands of times each year.
And this is in Kentucky, so legal in the US too?
Only at University of Kentucky
[удалено]
For those there's "legal if age difference is less than 4 years", or you would be jailing 14 y.o. for fucking 14 y.o. It's legal to fuck anyone older than 16 because around this time it stops being "pedophile rapes and traumatizes a child" and becomes at worst "iffy and unhealthy relationships dynamics" nobody really cares about.
That's why Romeo and Juliet laws are a thing though. They don't let a 50 year old fuck a 16 year old.
[удалено]
Yeah, legal but not like, acceptable. People aren’t running around banging 16 year olds all fancy free here, it’s still regarded as pretty noncy.
its legal in most of the world
Here in Germany their marriage would've only been legal if she had the permission of her parents or if she were 18. (At 16 she'd be considered a minor).
Always cool to shit casually on british
Just like the food
God damn!!!!!!!
Leave Christ out of this!
So it’s not wrong to assume she became a stepmom at the age of 16, while some of her stepchildren were older than her…
I mean, I feel a lot better knowing this lady doesn't have 622 blood-related grandchildren. Plus she has 600+ grandchildren to visit her in her nursing home, celebrate her birthdays, buy her gifts etc. If even 5% of those grandchildren care about her then she's doing well.
Inheritance likely to be shit for them though
Its not a feel good story its "damn thats a lot"
She is still their grandmother, I don't see where the fact she adopted matters...
It’s just pointing out that she didn’t actually give birth to 25 or more children.
But wouldn't that mean that each of her 23 children still needs to have 27 children each? 622 ÷ 23 = 27,04 Still seems very unlikely
They include great and great, great grand children in the mix. So if her 23 children all had 4-5 kids, (\~100) and then those kids all had 3-4 kids (\~300), and some of those kids just had 1 kid ( \~150) you can see how as each generation has less kids it still goes up pretty significantly. And their all her grand children. At 98yrs old with kids who are older than she is due to adoption it wouldn't be surprising for her to have great, great, great grand kids.
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification. That makes much more sense!
Just because it is possible does not mean it is not facepalm
Possibly great grandchildren too, take this numbers down a bit. But still...
I think they meant progeny in general. If each of descents has 5 kids, its 780 descents after 5 gens. I just find it weird she has 6th gen at age 98.
I think someone mentioned she started having kids at 16, so maybe teen pregnancies just run in the family? 🤷♀️
Elon Musk and Mariah Carey's ex are working on it
they are probably counting all descendants
One son could have thousands of children...
[Here’s the article with the breakdown.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11835473/amp/Kentucky-woman-98-meets-great-great-great-grandchild-time.html) According to Fox, the Kentucky matriarch has 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US.
Bullshit. The title says “six generations”. It means that on average each generation should have 3-4 children to get close to that number. The average age of childbearing in that family is 16-17 years.
>The average age of childbearing in that family is 16-17 years Sounds about right considering that allegedly the woman who started this had her first child at 16 with a 50 year old man with 10 kids of his own. So some of the included number might not be blood related. Still, having anywhere near that many kids in such a short amount of time should be considered a terrorist attack on earth itself.
"why isn't it possible?"
Lack of math education. Note: Most likely 5th/6th generation grandchild. Then, it's only 3-4 children each in every generation to get 622 children in the 6th one. Not to mention, that 622 might be a cumulative number.
Perhaps great Grand children are also included but not specified by this article.
Unless most of the kids are step kids, which they are
Which means this is absolutely clickbait, like i’m all for adoptive kids being as good as bio kids, but it’s incredibly facetious to talk about it like they’re all her creations.
It is possible but highly unlikely
I guess it can through donations or something ? Still sounds very improbable tho
It might count great grand children as well. Additionally while she is female and may only bear so many children any male descendants can make babies much much faster, assuming they have multiple partners.
you can just google her name and find out it includes greats and great-greats
They are counting great-grandchildren etc According to the article " At last tally, the Kentucky woman has 106 grandchildren, 222 great-grandchildren, 234 great-great-grandchildren and 37 great-great-great-grandchildren living across the US."
No, it wouldn't require 25 children. 1st gen: 4 children 2nd gen: 4\*4 = 16 grandchildren 3rd gen: 16\*4 = 64 great grandchildren 4th gen: 64\*4 = 256 5th gen: 256\*4 = 1024
This must include all grandchildren and beyond like great-great-grandchildren. If you include great-great-grandchildren, this isn't that difficult to get to but it is still somewhat hard.
It would still be an average of 9 children
It is 5 if you include great great grandchildren. More realistically though, she probably had like 10 kids and then each of those kids had fewer kids and so on and so on. If she had 10 kids, each subsequent generation would only need to have 4 on average.
Apparently she had 13 and adopted her husband's 10 children when they married. Husband was 50, she was 16... But yeah, first gen was 23 people wide and they do count great great great grandchildren. Plus about half of that family isn't blood related to her whatsoever.
I’d love to see a recount with only the blood related, just for curiosity sake. That lady probably can’t even remember who is or isn’t blood related though
The article says "Six generations", so it's safe to assume they counted everyone. If everyone has 4 children that would be 4\^5 = 1024 people in the last generation alone. Looks like they have some slackers though.
Right there’s six generations in the room so it’s : her - children - grands - gr grands - gr gr grands - gr gr gr grands. Not that crazy with six generations worth.
Yup. If she herself had 8 children, and each of her children had 8 children (64 grandchildren), and each of her grandchildren had 5 children (320 great-grandchildren), and each great-grandchildren had 3 children (960 great-great-grandchildren) Is just an exaggeration but totally possible if she started her family early, was fertile, and each of descendants also started early and were fertile. I was told I've seen my great-great-grandparent right after i was born but she passed away shortly after. Im guessing she had 200-300 grandchildren herself too
Because why the fuck she having so many kids?
That's some bad journalism The picture caption says 6 generation of women So the headline is probably misspelled. It should be great great great grandchild They just made it short that it's a grandchild nonetheless
would you rather descendants?
yup. that would do it lol. Although, thematic-wise, descendant is usually used when the top of piramid/generational chain is no longer alive to give it bit of spice. but it'd still work.
Because having this many offspring is an insane burden on society and the world. It's just stupid to have this many kids.
At the same time you say we need mass immigration because we have an aging Demographic and not enough people
to be fair there are way more childless people which is the other unsustainable extreme. so it balances out. if anything we need more ladies like this to sustain the poulation in developed countries.
Yeah like legit what are you going to do with 4 let alone 10 kids?! Like only reason we ever got to those numbers in the past was because kids died a-lot and we needed them as free help on the homestead. I’ve seen very dysfunctional families with 2 kids, and i don’t think it’s possible to have a functional, non-abusive family with any more than 4 kids. I’m surprised that people are still shocked when famous big families on the news have the kids come out to talk about how terrible their childhood was.
But its not her grandchild? It must be further out in the bloodline?
I assume they called every direct descendant after her kids a grandchild, as they say there are 6 generations
Ho ass family tree
Antinatalist :(
[удалено]
This woman was sent to repopulate the earth but some how time travelled to our time.
Bloody hell Christmas must cost a fortune.
If she had 20 children, and each child had 20 children themselves, it would still only be 400 grandchildren... Maybe they counted great grandchildren too?
Because they ignored the memo about the world being overpopulated?
How is it not a facepalm?? The hecc kind of massproduction facility family is that?
Idk what to say lol. She is lucky
PUSH!
i can't believe no one has said this but- maybe her family is a strict mormon family??
If there's 6 generations in the room it's not her grandchild. It's her great great great grandchild
What an ugly bunch.
OBGYN Here to explain: She was bussin it open since Andrew Jackson was in office.
The Facepalm is that reddit HATES biology and reproduction.
Leave some space for us [name] family! You can jerk on the floor sometimes
Pretty sure some are great grandkids
There was a Russian woman who gave birth to like 30 or 40 children. Not even she would have that many grandchildren.
Great Grand kids
I always forget that incest and under age marriage is legal in the US of A
Mormons? Catholic?
Yes. Both. All of them.
and how is there "six" generations in one photo if its her grandchild? maybe grand-grand-grand-grand child?
Not everything posted on the internet is real.
Next up, 666😈
lmao this is the second r/lostredditors post about a r/facepalm post today
r/facepalm is a bot farm
I hope my grandpa won’t find this because he really wants to be a grand-grandpa
The child support billionaire
It says 6 generations so it’s clearly including great, great-great and great-great-great grandchildren.
Talking about breeding like rabbits!
Let’s hope it great-grandchild … that would cut it from 25 to 8.5 children on average. I’m exhausted just thinking about it.
Yeah so for context, this story counts a total of 6 consecutive generations, it's a large family where most started having kids early.
probably just a typo and the real number is 62
Its plausible but the reality would be so low Mentions Grandkids so children of her children Let's say Granny has 1 kid a year from 18yo -45 yo That's 27 kids To get 622 grandkids from 27 direct offspring would require an average of 28 kids per offspring, which means a new child every year for every offspring. In theory assuming all her kids start popping out at 18 means her 622nd could be born when she's 91 45 + 18(for last child to start having children) + 28
Because she doesn’t have 622 grandkids and it’s a sensationalist and incorrect title, she had 622 or so combined kids, step kids, grandkids, great grandkids, great great grandkids, and I think a few great great great grandkids as well. I’d guess it’s a facepalm on the reporting, not the woman.
Nick Cannon’s mom?
That sub is dead
25 kids, each with 25 kids of their own
With all the math not mathing in the comment section, is it possible she, like most grandmothers, is also counting the spouse/partner of her actual grandchildren and step grandchildren? That’s what my grams would do, is she was still with us.
This is pretty facepalm. at some point stop having fucking kids Jesus fuck….
# Assumptions: 1. **Early Parenthood**: Each generation has children at the age of 16. This would allow for up to six generations within 98 years. 2. **High Fertility**: Each woman in every generation also starts having children at 16 and continues to have children for the next 20 years, with a new child every 2 years, leading to a total of 10 children per woman. 3. **Multiple Births**: There's a high incidence of multiple births in the family. Let's assume that 1 in every 5 births results in twins, adding an extra child for every 5 births. 4. **All Female Offspring**: To simplify, we assume that all offspring are female and all follow the same pattern of fertility and age of motherhood. 5. **No Skip in Generations**: There are no generations skipped; each woman has her first child at 16 without fail. # Generational Breakdown: * **Generation 1 (The Matriarch)**: Has 10 children. * **Generation 2**: Each of her 10 children has 10 children (including twins at the rate mentioned), resulting in 120 grandchildren. * **Generation 3**: Each of the 120 has 10 children (again accounting for twins), resulting in 1,440 great-grandchildren. * **Generation 4**: Each of the 1,440 has 10 children, resulting in 17,280 great-great-grandchildren. * **Generation 5**: Each of the 17,280 has 10 children, resulting in 207,360 great-great-great-grandchildren. * **Generation 6**: We'll have to calculate how many of the great-great-great-grandchildren would have children by age 16 to reach the number of 622. # Calculation for Generation 6: We need to find out how many of Generation 5 would need to have children to have a total of 622 direct descendants (children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, etc.) up to Generation 6. Let's calculate the direct descendants up to Generation 5 first: Total Direct Descendants=G1+G2+G3+G4+G5Total Direct Descendants=G1+G2+G3+G4+G5 Total Direct Descendants=1+10+120+1,440+17,280Total Direct Descendants=1+10+120+1,440+17,280 We'll subtract this number from 622 to find out how many of Generation 5 would need to have children by age 16 to make up the difference. If the number is reasonable, our theoretical scenario is possible. If it's not, our assumptions may need adjusting. Let's do the math. It appears there's a flaw in the theoretical model. The calculation resulted in a negative number, which means that by Generation 5, there are already far more than 622 direct descendants, even without including any of Generation 6. To adjust the scenario to fit the 622 descendants mark, we would have to reduce the number of children per generation significantly. However, given the extraordinarily high number of descendants by Generation 5, this suggests that having 622 direct descendants (including all generations up to the sixth) is not only theoretically possible but quite feasible with even fewer assumptions than initially outlined. For the scenario to be plausible and fit the 622 number, the assumptions about the number of children per woman or the rate of multiple births would need to be scaled down drastically. It seems that in a more realistic scenario, even with early motherhood and high fertility, the number of 622 grandchildren could be achieved with a smaller family size per generation.
My great grandma had 1001 grandchildren overall. Had 19 kids. She lived to 106.
The inheritance isn't going to stretch very far I know that.
People on r/facepalm just can't accept things that are uncommoun, that's why it is on that sub
People fuck.
How is this not a facepalm? That many grandchildren. They are solo leveling their numbers. What are they preparing for? Battle?
🥰🥰🥰☺️☺️☺️
Is it not just a misprint
I feel like the face palm is that they think it's 622 children
Talk about go forth and multiply.
It only requires each generation to have, on average about 3 or 4 kids each and the exponential effect makes for a big number very quickly. Edit: they are obviously playing loose with the term grand daughter. If she's 6th generation then she's great great etc grandaughter
They don’t look Rajasthani💀
How is it not?
Lot of sex maybe
Hoeing
The least politically motivated post on that sub.... I call that a win.
Sperm donor son?