For example on wikipedia for Switzerland it says the country has an area of 41,285 km². Does this take into account that a lot of that area is actually angled at a steep inclination, thus the actual surface area is in effect larger than what you would expect when looking onto a map in satellite view?

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Due to the fractal nature of geometery, all they would have to do is use more fine-grained measurements. :)

    • Faresh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      That would work for the perimeter, but not for the area.

      • Deestan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It works exactly the same!

        edit: With the assumption that we now measure inclines of course. If measuring area of the flattened overhead projection (the current normal way) we don’t get fractal effect.

        If I go over our parking lot with a 1m^2 granularity, I get 100m^2. If I go with 1cm^2 granularity, I get 110m^2 because I catch the sides of the curbs, potholes, etc.

        https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/3DSnowflakeFractals/

        • Faresh@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          With the assumption that we now measure inclines of course

          I interpreted your reply to njm1314 as meaning “we don’t need to measure inclination to cheat, we can do that by simply increasing our precision”

        • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Fractals are self-replicating while surface area or coastline of a country are inherently finite. You could very accurately measure the surface area, but there’s no reason to do that.

    • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Lets now measure all coastlines with the minimum increment possible, the planck length.