Subject: RE: [BoundaryPoint] Re: American State Boundaries
Date: Apr 16, 2003 @ 21:58
Author: Flynn, Kevin ("Flynn, Kevin" <flynnk@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


I disagree completely. There is no measuring around an infinite number of
grains of sand or molecules involved in measure the OK-TX boundary. If it is
the center of the Red River, there is a definite, not indeterminate, length
to that. It is legitimate to continue along that course around every oxbow
and bend for that is the true boundary.

It is illegitimate to say a river boundary that might go on for 15 miles is
to be regarded as equally as long as a 1,000-mile river boundary. These are
not distinctions that are difficult to make.

By any real-world standard, the CA-NV boundary is shorter than OK-TX

-----Original Message-----
From: acroorca2002 [mailto:orc@...]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:33 PM
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: American State Boundaries



however for longest interstate boundary
the best available truth appears to be that the fractal principle
would actually make all river boundaries stretch into the same
condition of indeterminacy as we have observed for oktx

so all such river boundaries must be considered equally long
all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding
with their supposed or apparent length depending only on how
carefully they are measured

if all are measured with equal & consistent care
a fair proviso under the circumstances
then all bulges bends oxbows etc of the same size would be
measured equally or equally disregarded on all boundaries

right down to the molecular level i suppose

& in practical reality
such conscientious measuring
besides being impossible
would quickly lead to the realization that canv cant be surpassed
in length without somehow stretching or bending the truth

i grant that one may be a bit harder to be satisfied with tho

--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Craig" <trehala@y...>
wrote:
> Thank-you for your answer, Brian, however I am looking for a
state
> border that does not meet at a point. Think of Turkey-Azerbaijan
or
> Western Sahara-Algeria: tiny tiny borders but on a state level.
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brian J. Butler
<bjbutler@b...>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 April 2003 09:50 am, you wrote:
> > The shortest is easy - at AZ-CO-NM-UT there are two pairs of
states
> that meet
> > at a point.
> > BJB





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/