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?

  • geogle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    4 months ago

    No. It’s a flat approximation. The short answer is that once you take account for topography, your answer will always grow with surface resolution, and thus the actual surface area of rough topography is undefined.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s the same problem with defining coastlines. You can keep increasing the resolution and the coastline length will increase indefinitely.

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I would imagine that the area increases significantly, a type of example of what they say about fractal coastlines theoretically being able to have a perimeter of infinite length.

      EDIT: it just occurred to me that theoretically, if measuring area with a different scale, a country like Bhutan could claim to have as much surface area as… say Australia.

      Or both are infinite, but since one fits inside the other, I’m getting into that weird mathematical study of infinities within infinities.

        • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Never heard of it before, that’s another mind melter. How does the volume of the horn end up to neatly be pi ?? YouTube link I found.

      • jvw@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Congratulations! You just uncovered the premise of Cantor’s diagonal argument , which demonstrates this very thing: that there are an infinite number of infinite sets, each of a different size.

        Also for some reason I can’t ever wrap my head around, this idea bothers some religious faith leaders enough to want the teaching of it banned in public schools. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

    • angrystego@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      And what about navigation, does it count the slopes in? Is the route actually longer than it says if you travel up and down mountains?

      • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        It’s probably aware of them, but generally no. Most slopes for driving on are smooth enough to be pretty negligible unless you’re going hundreds of miles or more, in which case fives of miles won’t make much difference either.

        But if you’re traveling by bike those small slopes may make some parts of the ride significantly more difficult or easier, and for cars may impact fuel efficiency in a way much more significant than just counting the extra distance traveled. So many navigation systems will still account for slope, even if they don’t necessarily acknowledge the length of your path as precisely as you may have hoped