--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal"
<lnadybal@c...> wrote:
> This thread has been fun to watch. We've got two poles at work
-
> theorists and practicalists.
glad you are liking it len
but i think the 2 poles in this case are the same 2 poles we have
been enjoying here from day 1
the pointers & the fluffers
for at bp both our theory & our practice are centripetal
inward
focal
toward pointing rather than not toward pointing
& this is done on purpose & on principle
as it is our express raison detre
while on the other hand our fluffing
in not pointing toward pointing
is centrifugal
& i think it is fun because we are understanding that it is a
natural & fairly exciting tension in & of itself
as tensions go
> Maybe this will work to help the practicalists understand the
theorists:
>
> How wide is the border line we're discussing?
being a line it has no width
> As an example, let's
> say it runs generally east to west. Do you count the length
along
> the north edge of the line or the south edge to get the true
length?
an example of what
the north edge of the line
is
the south edge of the line
because the line has no edge
other than itself
> However thick or thin it is will change the length, unless it has
no
> curves or bends.
at zero thickness there is no change regardless of curvature
> And, speaking of pebbles, can you measure the length
> of the California-Int'l Waters border and hope for exactness?
not sure who was speaking of what pebbles
but i gather you mean here the caus 3mile limit
since ca itself doesnt abut international waters
but i believe all such marine limits as this are generally mapped
as a series of geometric curves centered at the capes & other
extremities of the coasts being shadowed by them at whatever
the pertinent distance
usually as geopositioned at mean low tide
so as a series of geometric curves all based on such discrete
geopositions
i would guess their composite lengths are indeed calculable to a
considerable degree of exactitude
but calculable isnt quite the same as measurable
actually i dont see how any curve is strictly measurable
unless you happen to have a measuring stick of the same
curvature to hold up to it
> Maybe this will work to help the theorists understand the
practicalists:
>
> Walk the line, count your steps and then multiply the result by
the
> length of your shoes, and you've got it! (It might be more
accurate
> if you do it barefoot.)
here you are measuring only your own thought form of oktx
not the legally specified thought form of oktx
which in fact embraces neither shoes nor feet
but i think it may help the fluffers understand the pointers
the pointers are already understanding the fluffers
> BTW: What did the Texas state results show - is California's
> basically straight line border longer?
the only definite length that can be attributed to the red river
sector of oktx is the minimum length
or in other words the great circle distance from aroktx to oksw
its fractal length is infinite
& all supposedly intermediate lengths are purely fantastic
so i would say canv is demonstrably longer than oktx
unless infinity is considered to be longer than finity
but that would be like comparing apples & chewing gum
Can we do Asian countries'
> borders next?
>
> LN
hahahahahaha
hahaha
well yes you can if you feel empowered by this
tho i think ibru has already done them