intertwingling again
--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "granthutchison" <granthutchison@b...>
wrote:
> > which areas of the world are not included in your survey due to
> their
> > various problems of indeterminacy
> I tried to include everything, broad brush. I've treated codominia
as
> fuzzy borders, in the main. I've flagged the undefined borders in
the
> Caspian and South China seas, and noted what seem to be possible
> borders in the future in the these areas.
ok i can follow all this
& can see then how you may well have rationalized & accounted for
every boundary segment in the world
whether actual or presumptive within present geopolitical reality
& that in itself is an enormous try & an enormous accomplishment
but then within this scheme
what bounds do you reckon & count in the census around about or
amidst my favorite mess the spratly islands
> > is everyones land accounted for in any way
> Everyone's Land is manifest in those border segments
labelled "sea";
> its exclaves are marked "(sea)" with a note saying which exclave is
> involved. So you can immediately pick out those countries that
border
> on Everyone's Land. If you like, you could do a search and replace
> substituting "EVL" for "sea" - I thought about doing this in the
> spreadsheet I mailed to you, but then forgot!
yikes
wish you had nicknamed our motherland eve rather than evl
is there still time to change it
or will we have to relive the past 6006 years again
> One last project I haven't got around to is to make a specific
> ordered description of the border of Everyone's Land, to match the
> border segments listed for every other country - the number of
> bordering countries is too large to fit it easily into the same
> format as the other countries.
>
> > evidently you have treated the condo areas as simple borders
> > tho not the trido area
> > or why do you mention this
> Carelessness. I was checking the maritime entries and it struck me
> that a tripoint that had been effectively legislated out of
existence
> was worth commenting on. But for consistency I guess I ought also
to
> have mentioned DEFRLU, shouldn't I? Any others?
well they dont even always occur at tripoints tho the 2 delu condo
zones do
so you could add bedelu
& then possibly also cnnkru
tho i am not sure of this latter situation
but the 2 esfr condo zones dont abut any tricountry point at all
so consistency may only be achievable here by counting the condo
areas as lines rather than points
yet the truth will be bent either way
> > but which really came first
> > the borders or the multipoints
> Like the egg and the chicken, you can't have one without the other.
now wait
how can you be so sure
for example
since we know dinosaurs & other oviparous creatures predate the
chickens by millions of years
it is clear that the egg really did come first
& that you can indeed have the egg without the chicken
so the question really is how can we continue to mumble all these
eternal platitudes if we are wanting to progress at all towards
punctological truth
for like the chicken in relation to the egg
tripoints are just an afterthought & outgrowth of borders
& that should be pretty clear by now
> (Unless, of course, the borders are all closed loops in some
infinite
> external country - but, like a world in which the chickens never
get
> to meet each other, that would be a pretty dull place to live.)
>
> > (Can I
> > > coin "polypoint", at least for the restricted purposes of this
> > > posting, to mean "tri-point or higher"? I think you've already
> > > used "multipoint" for other duties.)
> > sure you can but there is no difference
> > you may be thinking of the terms megapoint or maxipoint
> I was. Scratch polypoint, keep multipoint.
>
> > > If you're making a border tour
> > ahh now i see the source of your problem
> > linear rather than global thinking
> > for the boundaries dont really move
> > so your tour is already extra stuff
> Ahh, no. Although I'm aware that I'm now entering the realms of
> discussing the specific dance the angels are performing, I have to
> disagree.
thats perfectly ok
i understand
For sure the boundaries don't move - the "border tour" was
> just a way of illustrating the intrinsic vector nature of a border.
> But the vector, the *handedness*, of borders is always there, by
> virtue of having one thing on one side, and another thing on the
> other side. That defines a direction in the same way that a left-
or
> right-threaded screw does, even if it's just lying in the box and
not
> being used to screw the inscrutable.
>
> > you will do your strangest dance tho not at jungholz but at
baarle
> > where the point isnt marked on the ground but can only be
> determined
> > by visual alignments
> > so you will have to stop short & shoot the markers by eye & then
> > pivot & regain your head of steam in what would & could otherwise
> > only be a perfectly fluid cruciform intersection
> > & remember to mark the place or you will have to do it all over
> again
> > on the second pass
> But surely this is a mere practicality? It shocks me to see you put
> practicality in the way of idealistic endeavour.
hahahaha
hahaha
touche
& i will give you the last word
to which i could only add whattt anyway
m
>
> > > as Bill says,
> > > there's a different borders on the other side of the point -
> > thats not what he said
> > nor possibly even what he meant
> Mr Pot apologises to Mr Kettle unreservedly. And to Bill. It's not
> what he said at all. I was thinking of tripoints when I first read
> his posting, and couldn't see what entities were involved in his
> phrase "... in 'traversing' the point singularity, one would leave
> behind one entity for another" unless these entities were the
borders
> themselves.
>
> Grant