I really have not misunderstood any of the points made in opposition to
measuring a physical boundary... I have only said that it can be done, and
it is done. I don't agree with the notion that there is infinite length in a
river that flkoiws only, say, 10 miles. That's an absurd notion. A highway
might be measured by its length along a centerline in the median, while the
distance along its outside shoulders may be different... still, the distance
is not infinite! We can prove that by arriving at our destination.

Once a high water mark is established, if that is the boundary, then it can
be measured. I didn't say it was easy to go 1,000 miles along the banks of
the Red River (I believe the OK-TX boundary is the center of the channel,
which would be much less difficult to measure), but it can be done.

At a human scale, the water line does not have to be measured around
molecules, or grains of sand, to be called accurate. As with my highway
example.

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J. Butler [mailto:bjbutler@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 4:18 PM
To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] OKTX --finally! figures

On Thursday 17 April 2003 05:04 pm, you wrote:
Let me trry one more time, and then if you still don't get it, I will give
up. Suppose a boundary is defined as the high water mark along a river
bank.
Further suppose the river bank is irregular, which should not be much of a
stretch if you have ever looked at a river bank. The irregularities exist
at
many scales, from broad bends measured in miles, to smaller meanders
measured
in hundreds of feet, to smaller gouges measured in tens of feet, to rocks
meausured in feet, to pebbles measured in inches, to small pebbles, ... etc.

Clearly if you consider smaller and smaller irregularities, the length of
the
river bank increases without bound, as illustrated by the two measurements
given for the OK-TX boundary. Since you think the length is bounded, it
implies that you stop measuring around features below some size threshold.
My
question to you is: At what scale do you stop measuring, and why? Please
actually think about the question.
BJB

> It would really not go on like that. If the boundary is defined, one
> follows that definition. If OK-TX has been defined as a certain location
in
> the channel of the Red River, one would follow that and measure it as s/he
> goes. If the menaderings are part of the definition, that would be
> followed.
>
> The hard number really is out there. It is not infinite.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian J. Butler [mailto:bjbutler@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:55 PM
> To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] OKTX --finally! figures
>
>
> On Thursday 17 April 2003 12:13 pm, you wrote:
> And following really small meanders
>
> Red River - -1234 miles
> East Panhandle line -- 133.6 miles
> North Panhandle line -- 167 miles (minus 2.2 miles TXNM)
>
> Total -- 1532.4 miles
>
>
> And following really small meanders and medium sizes irregularities:
>
> Red River -- 2816 miles
> East Panhandle line -- 133.6 miles
> North Panhandle line -- 167 miles (minus 2.2 miles TXNM)
>
> Total -- 3114.4 miles
>
> Etc.
>
> > Including only larger river bends:
> >
> > Red River -- 480.0 miles
> > East Panhandle line -- 133.6 miles
> > North Panhandle line -- 167 miles (minus 2.2 miles TXNM)
> >
> > Total -- 778.4 miles
> >
> > Following the smaller meanderings of the rivers:
> >
> > Red River -- 726 miles
> > East Panhandle line -- 133.6 miles
> > North Panhandle line -- 167 miles (minus 2.2 miles TXNM)
> >
> > Total -- 1024.4 miles
> >
> > Source: Texas Almanac
> >
> > --Joe
> >
> > (Will post some pics of my visit to Copperhill TN/McCaysville GA soon.
> > The border runs through a grocery store and a church)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

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