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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It's not, but I love the idea that it could be. You just know some of those megalomaniac dictators would be piling up fake Hills to make their country bigger. Turkmenistan would have giant Towers of dirt everywhere.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    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/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Do you think the holes left by digging the dirt would also count as increased area? Because it feels like it'd be a 2 for one deal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments