--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, Brian J. Butler
<bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 May 2003 02:07 am, you wrote:
> I seriously doubt that anyone has attempted to measure the
length of the
> Ellis Island boundary. Why would they? Estimating and
marking its position
> has value but determining its length is purely academic.
right brian but that is precisely my try
& how about academic & esthetic value too
for at stake here is nothing less than the possibly definitive
answer to craigs possible question
which may have been
most simply & elegantly
whats the shortest state line in the usa
we know west kytn is about 3 miles long & totally geodetic
so the question & procedure are simply
can we measure this new geodetic njny here too
so as to compare their lengths
& finally decide the possible question
we have just learned of a finite number of gis points on new njny
60 or 180 of them or something
so basically it seems
if we can just get hold of these geodata & hotwire them to a great
circle arc calculator
we already have a very doable deal
yet we would really only have to do a very few calculations before
getting a clear sense of which of these 2 shortest state line
candidates is in fact the shorter
i mean we wouldnt have to be quite so academic as to calculate
the entire job before retiring
or maybe we could answer the question purely theoretically
even before beginning the academic work
by somehow comparing the relative scales of 3 miles & 3 acres
for perhaps we have a nonstarter here due to incomparability of
scale alone
but more below
> Your analogy to the "angels on a pin" argument made me
realize that your
> devotion to the "definite length theory for fractal boundaries" is
a matter
> of faith for you, and is therefore impervious to logic. Would you
agree?
>
> > Please let's not have the "how many angels can dance on
the head of htis
> > pin" discussion again. We can and do measure natural
borders, and we don't
> > need an electron microscope to do it.
kevin i myself really cant & really dont measure natural borders
but i concede maybe you can & do
at least to your own satisfaction & many others too
& that is fine with me
also
what satisfies me most about boundarypoint is our express
focus here on the actual boundary points themselves
rather than merely on the boundary lines or the areas they
enclose
& maybe we should have a place called boundaryline too
&or boundaryplace &or anyplace less punctilious etc
where we really could please you by ignoring our angels
but i think as long as we are try pointing
just as a matter of fun if not also of faith
we cant & dont & wont ignore the points nor the truth we are
trying for