of course you are right
& a spectacular catch it is
tho any such perturbations as you describe in that particular area
would be immediately sensed & noted by our local equipoise lab
at ekalaka lake
what i should have said tho is
the multipoints presumptively continue to exist indefinitely
so long as all their constituent
state lines
continue to exist
for in the topology i am thinking of & trying to express
it is not the states that really matter
so much as it is the state lines
aha
& this realization only underscores the importance of our recent
discovery
that true multipointing is really nothing less than sexipointing
& again you will probably understand the maths better than i
but the impression i have is
no state line can be subtracted if the tristate is to survive intact
&
only if a new state line were added to the convergence would the
identity of the multipoint change
for it would then become an octapoint
is that correct
like imagine az & nm used to be one parcel
& then split apart so cleanly as to produce azconmut
which btw is pretty much what actually happened
allowing for anachronism
but anyway
as i see it now
only something as extraordinary as that would now bust this
scheme
as duly modified with your help
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Kaufman
<mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> Ok this makes sense about maybeclaves. But about the
> tripoints - you're saying a multipoint can move around
> but presumtively still exist as long as the
> constituent states still exist. There is of course at
> least a possibility that sometimes they will no longer
> exist even if the constituent states do. Using
> several states (U.S., secondary level) as an example,
> Wyoming hypothetically could gain territory
> northwards, enough so in order to eliminate the MTNDSD
> tripoint. (Instead there would be a newly created
> NDSDWY tripoint.) MT, ND, and SD would of course
> still exist.
>
> --- aletheiak <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
>
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > ok mike
> > > this feels much better to me yet again
> > >
> > > thank you
> > >
> > >
> > > & wouldnt you know i actually had to cut off the
> > bottom of your
> > > message again just now in order to add this
> > comment on top
> > >
> > > i swear it
> > >
> > > so you have cosmically outstacked me now for the
> > 3rd time
> > > & i celebrate this attainment with you of your
> > stacking hat trick &
> > > authentic multiple prowess
> > >
> > > just as i celebrate & appreciate your
> > acknowledgements of my
> > > own extremities & enormities here below too
> > >
> > >
> > > & i would answer your excellent new question as
> > follows
> > >
> > > to avoid confusion as well as contention
> > > i would simply qualify all claves & maybeclaves
> > alike
> > > by the year in which they were last heard from or
> > reported
> > >
> > > thus amaz karki 2004
> > >
> > > & amaz tatlis 1978 or whatever
> > >
> > > etc
> > >
> > > so by 2005
> > > if neither are heard from or reported again
> > > say by the cia or the local schoolmaster
> > > or anyone else remotely credible
> > > karki becomes a maybeclave
> > > but far less of a maybeclave than the tatlis now
> > are
> > >
> > > & to indicate confirmed discontinuation
> > > which is a different matter
> > > we could give dates fore & aft
> > >
> > > but i have run out of
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Michael
> > Kaufman
> > > <mikekaufman79@y...> wrote:
> > > > Where would you write? Still needs more
> > specificity
> > > > in terms of addressing. Call it a postal
> > expedition
> > > > perhaps. There may be a real expedtion there in
> > a
> > > > couple of years.
> > > > If anyone can outstack or outmessagecite it
> > would be
> > > > you. You have cited more messages than anyone
> > else,
> > > > along with creating more messages than anyone
> > else,
> > > > along with replying to your own messages more
> > than
> > > > anyone else.
> > > > "i will simply offer & endeavor to answer
> > frankly your
> > > > any fair & simple question"
> > > > Ok. By your reasoning, anyone could say that
> > the
> > > > other
> > > > 4 exclaves are "maybeclaves" since they haven't
> > > > been "heard from" since the date of the last map
> > > > showing them. Would you call them maybeclaves
> > as
> > > > well? That is a fair and simple question.
> >
> > yes it is & please excuse the unavoidable
> > interruption above
> >
> > & i have cut off the entire bottom of the message
> > now
> > so we have plenty of room to grow it again
> >
> > but first to return to your upper question
> > which is also right on
> > of where specifically i would write
> >
> > i dont know what the seat of government of tatli is
> > but i do know azerbaijan uses rayons
> > & i still need to check this
> > but if tatli is in the vicinity of kazakh
> > as i tentatively believe it is
> > then the name of the rayon is most probably qazax
> > & its rayon seat is most probably kazakh too
> >
> > but i will keep digging on this
> > & on whether rayons have governors or whatever
> > for it might be better to write to a known
> > responsible individual
> > rather than to some unknown office or generic place
> > i completely agree
> > if that is what you were getting at
> >
> >
> > & back to the maybeclaves answer
> >
> > i wouldnt & dont put too fine a point on any of this
> >
> > of course a clave heard from much more recently is
> > far more
> > likely to still exist than a clave heard from much
> > less recently
> >
> >
> > interestingly
> > this isnt quite the same situation as with
> > multipoints
> > which
> > tho they may move about or get remonumented etc
> > nevertheless they presumptively continue to exist
> > indefinitely
> > or at least as long as their constituent states
> > continue to exist
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com