On Wednesday 16 April 2003 05:58 pm, you wrote:
Actually, it is illigitimate to say that a river goes on for 15 miles, or
that a river goes on for 1000 miles. The center of a river is of
indeterminate length because it is a fractal object, not a smooth curve. The
same goes for a ridge line. Of course, you can choose to estimate its length
by ignoring an arbitrary amount of detail. This can give you a reasonable
lower bound for the length, which, in the case of the OK-TX boundary, may be
sufficient to show that it is longer than the straight-line CA-NV boundary.
But you cannot really measure the upper limit of the length of OK-TX or of,
say, VA-WV. So how can you say that one of these is longer than the other?
And you certainly cannot put a fixed number on either one.

BJB

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

--
Brian J. Butler
BJB Software, Inc.
508-429-1441
bjbutler@...
http://www.bjbsoftware.com