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?

  • Faresh
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • Deestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month 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
        1 month 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.