The Coastline Paradox Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 мар 2018
- The first 755 people to sign up for Brilliant will get 20% off their premium subscription: brilliant.org/RealLifeLore/
Get the RealLifeLore book here: amzn.to/2ieJLyN
Please Subscribe: bit.ly/2dB7VTO
Music is by Brandon Maahs. Check out his website and music by clicking this link: www.brandonmaahs.com/audio-reel
Animations courtesy of Josh Sherrington of Heliosphere: / heliosphere
Facebook: / reallifelore
Twitter: / reallifelore1
Reddit: / reallifelore
Subreddit is moderated by Oliver Bourdouxhe
Special thanks to my Patrons: Danny Clemens, Adam Kelly, Sarah Hughes, Greg Parham, Owen, Donna
Videos explaining things. Mostly over topics like history, geography, economics and science.
We believe that the world is a wonderfully fascinating place, and you can find wonder anywhere you look. That is what our videos attempt to convey.
Currently, I try my best to release one video every week. Bear with me :)
Sources and further reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastli...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkows...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast#C...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierpi%...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Lon...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_sn...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
If only we had some unit of measurement between 1km to molecule sizes
100 m
7 centimeters
32 molecules
1 inch
@Scotty Peake it's a joke
U.S.A.: we don't really know the size of our coast, how do you do it?
The Netherlands: simple, it's the size we want it to be.
Underrated comment
Actually true lol
🤣🤣🤣
True, 100%
*British noises intensify*
Instead of approaching infinity, wouldn't the coastline perimeter form a sort of exponential curve towards a definite amount as the unit got smaller and more precise?
*Exactly my thoughts* Increasing the resolution DOESN'T mean the total measurement climbs to infinity. It just approaches a single number... with precision of that final atom of length, going on forever. But that doesn't make the total perimeter go to infinity. It merely makes the decimal places after it, go on forever. *So what?*
It wouldn't form an exponential curve, it would form a curve with a horizontal asymptote (a line a curve gets infinitely close to but never touches. An example would be the graph of 1/x which has a horizontal asymptote of 0. You can graph that on desmos if you want to see.). That asymptote would happen at a finite value, and that finite value is the true length of the coast. In theory, we would run into the infinity problem this video talks about if we thought the universe was continuous, but we believe** we live in a quantum world. Which means that there is a shortest length. Which means there is a finite amount of times you can use a finite length to measure a finite distance. The big problem is that he knows we live in a finite world because he talked about counting atoms in the video, so he has no excuse for saying the answer would approach infinity.
Yeah, I was sitting here thinking the same thing. Like if you use smaller measurements, it shouldn't go on longer unless like you are really bad at counting
Very good question. And the answer is not trivial. It depends on the geometrym if it converge or not. The problem is very similar to series. Adding up 1/n leads to infinity, while adding up 1/2^n leads to a finite number.
My understanding is that while an asymptote theoretically exists, you can't really quantify precision because different parts of the coastlines aren't underestimated by the same degree. If we can't standardize an x-value, we wouldn't even begin to know how far we actually are from the true asymptote.
It may resemble fractals. However, "real" fractals are infinite in nature while coastlines are not, so the only problem is the scale of measurement (as mentioned in the videos and a few others). You can find the exact length of the coastline by measure the distance between each molecule, which is not practice and of little good. You must decide the scale by determining your need, defining how long is "meaningful".
For example, if NATO wants to measure the coastline to know how many fleets the Russians can have at their harbour, 10m is a reasonable number. OTOH, the Malaysians wants to know how much land they can use for harvesting sea salt, 20-30m probably makes more sense.
This is the best comment describing this phenomenon tbh
The idea/concept of fractals might be infinite, but any "real world example" like a snow flake has at the end of the day the same "constraint" of e.g molecules.
Beside of that, why stop at molecules. Let's get on quantum level (theoretically). Maybe at some point we "find" something smaller than that.
So while it is ofc not per se "Infinity", it kinda grows quite in this direction, the closer you look.
So I still find it an appropriate comparison/figure to get the kind of idea
@@boldimor84 I agree. Like you said, the "direction" where things were going is the point of bringing up fractals. I just wanted to point out that the lower-constraint was what distinguish the theoretical and the physical one.
Beside, don't you think the surface of the table is fractals-ish? Since the closer you look the rougher it would be, albeit much less obvious than snowflake of course. That way you can just magnify anything and shit'd go weird anyway.
I'm no scientist so I'm not sure how things look like below the Planck length, but I'm sure it would not be as straightforward as mathematician has in their system.
@@vanminhle850 yes, absolutely. the whole world seems kinda "fractal-ish". who knows how many "smaller parts" we might find at some points below quarks and stuff xD. Everywhere there seems to be more and more details, the more you look :D.
All of course anyways under the premise of or current physical models. because at the end, all of those things are anyways quite below what a normal human mind can see and comprehend. But i'm getting too far off the actual topic xD
Why doesn’t somebody just walk around Britain with a trundle wheel
Ethanos because North and South hate eachother
Jackson it’s a joke
Even then, there is a question of whether you go straight, or closely follow along every single rock jutting into the waves.
All terrain trundle wheel
Genius. This one gets it.
"Let's move over to a smaller Country."
UK starts sobbing... "not that long ago..."
@Coke Kebab123 he was referring to the British empire, which, until it was dismantled after WW2, was the largest country ever.
@Coke Kebab123 Yes, unfortunately, you don't seem to be doing very much with all that space...
Also OP was referring to the British Empire, which at its height in 1920 covered around 1/4 of the Earths land area and a good amount of its population. It was the largest political entity to ever exist.
Britain: I used to rule the world
@@michaeljing7744 :( distant wimmering.
@Coke Kebab123 yeah... you didn't get the joke
This “paradox” also applies to the surface area of your lungs. That’s why we can never agree on how many football fields your lungs can cover.
Also, nobody pronounces it the “cotch” snowflake. It’s always either “coke” or that other way that could be flagged by profanity filters.
just pronounce it german...
@@Name-ej8mt If burgers knew the "ch" sound...
@@nathanhiggers4606 yes...
Can it be pronounced like with an H? I mean like the J in spanish or Х in russian
@@joaquinlaroca2886 Х in russian, j in spanish, ch in polish and so on
2:08 If you add an infinite number of numbers that are getting smaller and smaller, you don't get infinity, per se. Pi or the Eulerian number is also an infinite series of numbers added, but its value converges to a specific number. So the coast of England would do the same thing. The exact extent of a coastline depends more on the definition of the edge and not on the chosen resolution.
You are wrong you can add up numbers that get infinitely smaller that go to infinity just look up the harmonic series.
IT'S GREAT BRITAIN!!! wake up dumbarse
smart boi right here
Yes but this goes one step further, it’s an interesting problem because it would seem like we can make smaller and smaller measurements like with most shapes, but as we do that the answer doesn’t approach a definite value, although it may not be infinite it is useless. This is actually true for most things in nature, but man made things are usually neat enough for calculus to work.
**Normal people** : Desperately try to measure Norway's coastline.
**Me, with a lot of IQ points** : measure swiss coastline.
What if there's a salt lake?
@@charliekahn4205 Well in that case I'd be fucked, but first : there is no salt lake in Swiss, and second : then I could see the glorious swiss navy.
@@leobaratin128 Aaah yes indeed, our famous aircraft carriers and battlecruisers stored within the core of the Alps, patiently waiting for their hour of glory when the oceans rise will become out of control...
@@LokiMono *Evil swiss laughter*
There is indeed a swiss navy on the lake of Konstanz (very small Navy but a Navy)
"Let's move on to a smaller country"
Great Britain: I used to rule the world
It is lol
Umos huh, i didnt know that, thanks, i play too much hoi4 lol
@Umos you are correct, Great Britain is the Larges island in the British isles which contains the Territories of England Scotland and wales of the Sovereign state of the United Kingdom. the 2nd largest island in the British isles in the island of Ireland which contains another territory of the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland ) and the Republic of Ireland. technically even Irish people are British as it refers to the geological area not the sovereign state of the United Kingdom, so many people don't realise Great britain isnt a country but a region. the UK and GB are used interchangeably even though its completely incorrect to do so
Great Britain still have the commonwealth of nation
if you know about britain's decolonisation period
you'd know
that Britian could have kept many lands
but brittish pilitician
thought
it would be useless
and so they just gav e them up
and replace it withbritish commonwealth
all members
have queeen elizabetj as head of state
so ueen elizabeth is ruler of a greater land than trump is
Copied by same thing 4 months earlier and at time of posting this they have equal likes and one is ontop of the other
So, how you measure the coast depends on what you need your measurements for. If you need to patrol your coast with ships for defense or surveillance or whatever, you only need to have enough ships for their patrol routs to enclose the landmass, only accounting for the major features and drawing straight lines in the water between them. If you wanna calculate how much beachfront property you can build you, gotta determine what the minimal size is to make an worthwhile lot or neighborhood on, and then measure it with that resolution in mind. If you wanna know how many boats can be docked up against the land, you use another approach, and so on.
I'll have you know I know EXACTLY how long Bolivia and Liechtenstein's coastlines are!
Bolivia has a navy! 🙃
@@andrewgwilliam4831 not a coast tho
@@thatsmartidiot28 No, indeed. 🤔
*talks about America*
“Let’s move over to a smaller country, Great Britain.”
*Angry British Noises*
Czech-Ourselves • lol
Considering northern ireland, shetland and orkney are omitted...
Oh you think you're triggered? King George III is.
More like angry largest empire in existence noises
That fact triggers me
Like, almost every educational channel uses aMeRiCa for measurement and comparing with other countries.
Just use the Planck Length for measuring for the most accurate answer.
underrated comment makes me realize most dont know about Planck units xD
that could take forever tho lol
@@feeted_5204 And the result would be meaninglessly large to most people
Imagine how big it would be
@Lucas Brinster What you asked is debatable. But in science it is known that you can't measure less than a planck lenght. That is, as I understood it at least, the point of his/her comment. Doesn't necessarily mean you can't get smaller, but you can't measure smaller, at least meaningfully.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just chose a point in the water and measure in a straighter line? And why would you include river inlets into the calculation?
To get a more accurate number of land available.
You clearly don’t get the paradox
Wouldn't it be easier if you would just get with the program?
One, that point in the water you propose already exists. It's called the Continental Shelf. Problem is, measuring the shoreline only works ON THE SHORE! Two, inlets, bays, and coves are features of said coastline. Excluding them would only serve to deliver inaccurate results. Asking why inlets are included is like asking why the cost of tires is included in the sale of an automobile. One is quite literally a part of the other.
I'd say measure it like this: how long does it take to walk around the coast? Combine that with the walking speed of your walk and you have a human-sized length.
Me coming out of Area 51 knowing the exact measurement of the coastline of Great Britain
XD
All hail to the God of memes that destroy logic
@@adminconsole4643 nice nice
ok boomer
:)
"and then there is the Dutch".
Yes, your arguments are invalid. There is no such thing as sea, only unclaimed land.
*Makes a dam and drains the sea, then adding land*
We turned a sea into a lake
dont worry, i know about a secret german plan that includes saving money on coastal structures so that when the sea levels rise, the dutch will be flooded from mainland germany and not the sea itself
wir sehen uns dann unter wasser :D
@@suqmadique9762 , look at dutch history, we're used to being flooded
It’s free real estate ..
You could try measuring where the ocean meats the sand and getting a mean value of when the tide comes in and out, obviously that doesn't factor erosion over time but its an accurate way of getting a coastline measurement for that moment in time
just put a really really long string all along the coasts and measure that, duh. they taught that to us in like 3rd grade, get it together NOAA, CIA, and whoever else.
The length of the coast of Great Britain is 1. As I failed to specify the unit, that could be one anything and is therefore technically correct (1 coastline of Great Britain)
Now SOMEONE'S using their head
yes
Could it be 2 (2 half coastlines of Britain)
How many coastlines of Britain long it the US?
@@epauletshark3793 one coastline of the US
This is why Trump's wall is never going to work. You'll need to make an infinitely long wall to prevent microscopic immigrants from getting in.
Allen Wang HAHA
Èy màn¡You gòt dèm míní pésos¿
Bacteria?
But you can build it as a straight line 🤔
I hope he is stupid enough to build the wall around himself!!! 😂
Hey! A new RealLifeLore video! Oh.. wait.
Yeah... I would just put a limit on the scale of features that I would count as coastline, then just plank together those units and add them all up. I might be cutting off bits of land and ocean, but in the end we might give travelers an adequate idea of how far they can travel along the specific region. But the video itself and the idea of natural fractals is super cool, mind blowing really.
Imagine having a border with curves
This post was made by the Wyoming gang
rather have colorado, at least we exist
@@godzilla3768 virginia is squareirer
Yeah, Wyoming is like a square. And why most American state borders are straight lines?
I was searching exactly that and this video popped up ~_~
Any Americans who could help me?
Ah yes, all 2 people in Wyoming.
@@randomdude9135 most American state borders are not strait lines, and when they are, the reason really stands with the border, like how the bottom of Missouri is just the closest whole number lattitude to make sense
heres my solution:
- get a standard unit for measurement of coasts (say 1 meter)
- wait for the us to not abide by the standard unit
Yeah we're pretty f*ckin' stubborn
Meters were invented by the French and I only eat Liberty Fries!
@@viewfromthehillswift6979
Pretends to walk in feets divisible by 12
@@slice6298 lmao
As an american i measure using whatever i want.. including "my laptop screen is about 1 and a half of the size of an ipad mini"
That ad transition was so smooth, I wasn't ready for it lol
Do you measure when the tide is fully in or fully out, or halfway between? Then it becomes impossible, because one end of the country will be at a different tide from the other end. And you would also have to count both sides of every single river that leads out to sea, and then both sides of every smaller river that branches off from those.
There's only one solution. I gotta get out there with my Stanley 12 ft measuring tape and get to work!
I was of the same mind, I feel like none of these people understand how a freaking tape measure works. If measuring in straight lines doesn't work then why use straight lines?
DraconianPhilosopher then what would they use?
Your one week in steve. How's it going?
Steve Yea that’s the best thing to do
If we get every ruler and duct tape we got this
The sea: *trying to drown the land*
The Dutch: Do you have any idea who you're challenging?
*uses the land to drown the sea*
Imagine if the rising sea levels from climate change was just a conspiracy to disguise how much water the Netherlands is displacing via their ceaseless reclaimation of land from the sea. Like, they're so good at pushing water away that the rest of the world has to pick up the slack.
@@Neion8 And as they are all busy fighting the water and not paying attention to us, we steal their land too :P
@@lunabeekhuizen8858 So long as you are better rulers than the Belgians that's fine by me.
@@Neion8 it's kinda the other way around. Climate change and rising sea levels are man made to keep the Dutch busy and stop them from dominating the world
So if anyone is confused, you can put it like this:
Let’s say you walk for 10 feet in a straight line towards west. Now let’s say you walk the exact same distance, but make three zig zags towards north and south. You still traveled 10 feet west, but since you added the zig zags, you ended up walker more than just the ten foot straight line. It’s the same thing for coasts, just on a larger scale.
I’d say it depends on the purpose of the measurement. For military purposes I’d say using a unit of measurement around the scale of people walking, military camps, blockades etc. so when troops want to move along the coast the distance given is accurate within acceptable margins.
I’d even say that can be generalized: the length of the shore should include the details a footpath or small road should be reasonably able to follow them. I’d say that’s how we’d get the most relevant measurements for any real purpose.
Imagine having straight borders,
This post was made by Norwegian gang
psssshhhh imagine having curvy borders
this reply was made by Wyoming gang
@@peopleperson Straight borders are for nerds.
(This comment was made by Norway gang)
So Norway has gay borders
@@ERAMC0 lol gottem
xXCSGO_MASTER69Xx no no no. Norways borders are curvy, which means Norways kinda t h i c c
I know the exact coastline of Switzerland: 0 km.
Maybe a little bit more if we consider the Leman lake 😂🤷♂️
There’s actually a river taking out to sea
DeathLightning44 we know Ethiopia coastline : 0 km
@@user-im1wu8ul4x a river is not part of a coast
Erwan Chauvel I would have liked if you didn’t use cringy emojis
That Segway made me audibly groan but I appreciate that you saved the ad for the end.
I actually did an investigation into fractals and used similar methods to measure the coastline of the uk for my math class
Can't a international organisation like U.N just agree that cost line is measured for all countries by, lets say 10 m?
agreed. just like how we agreed that 100cm = 1m and vice versa we can do the same for anything else.
Still depends where you start measuring and from where to where and so on
HoovyzePoot then we all have to agree to start a the northernmost point of the coastline or something.
Agreed. Problem solved. A lot of paradoxes depend on people contradicting each other. Probably some one will disagree with that statement. And I will call it a paradox.
10m = 1dam
Its real, not suggesting or something like that
Also
100m = 1 hm
1000m = 1km
10 cm = 1 dm
4:45 I got 62,473 km measuring by meters. Was a fun way to spent the summer :)
chad
Centimeters next
@@MrE_ damn gimme a week summer hasn’t started yet
I want you to tell me you're joking
@@robinharris3134 nope😏
Nice to see you revisit this subjec
I just remember someone introduced a "puzzle" with a circle inscribed in a square . They tried to draw approximation of the circle's perimeter by "rearranging" the square's border.
Hear me out, get a Fitbit, walk around the coast, then look at how long you've walked.
Lol just take a string, walk around the island then just measure that
Ikr
That’s exactly what I thought this problem doesn’t seem too difficult to overcome. Just measure the distance someone drives/flies over a coastline and do that a few times over different times of day then just take that average. Maybe I’m retarded but I don’t see why this would be a big deal.
@@victorianreactionary1875 Because you can't simply measure the coastline by driving over it, as getting the technically correct answer to "How long is ________'s coastline?" involves counting each individual atom, which is impossible because the tide is always changing.
That would work actually, but the problem is that the answer you would get is extremely large. And if you walked in big footsteps you would not get the same result as if you took tiny steps. This can be hard to imagine, but in fact you would discover that measuring the coast this way, trying to be very precise, would take an incredibly long amount of time. It only gets larger the more careful you try to be with your steps.
3 years ago, I started the grueling task of counting the distance of the Finnish coast at the atomic level, and I can confirm that the Finnish coast is exactly one infinity kilometers long.
So you Finnished it then?
So….. You’re commenting in the past after one infinity seconds passed?
@@Think_Inc Everything works differently when you meet the one who remains at the end of time.
Infinity ist not a number, so 1Infinity does not exist.
@@sHootR450 Don't worry. It was a countable infinity.
These videos are timeless
this is one of the best advertisements i've seen in my life, don't lose your sight please, 😥there are enough places for that already
Now we just need someone to walk the Norwegian coastline counting their steps with a fitbit.
ive seen fjords go from sea level to 1000 meters above the sea in like 5 steps, gl walking that coastline
@@BoaresAddja “It builds character”
-Your Boomer Father
@@BoaresAddjajust gotta walk it different directions
Whiiiiiiiii splash
ok i got 76082mi what about yall
@@micah5409 i got 1 mile
Imagine how much time it would take a Toyota Corolla to drive around the coastline of Norway.
Yes
If it was a Chevy it wouldn’t finish
@@itchyscientist0576 *ford
BL1TZKRI3G either
Try driving around Canada's cost line
that ad segway was smooth as hell
I measured Norway but then created a new measurement system that makes everything simple. The answer is 1Nw or 1 Norway. It will always remain a constant of 1 because the measurement is based on the current length of Norway's coast.
It's impossible to measure anything else by this measurement system though.
Just take a measuring tape and get going
Yet my girlfriend doesn’t understand.
It broke
my thought exactly
Help Its not long enough
@@thetrashtrain3774 _use a longer one_
Norway's coastline measures to be exactly 1 NCU (Norwegian Coastline Unit)
Thta's actually pretty good. How many NCUs in a SNSLDU (Sweden North-South Largest Distance Unit)?
TIME IS LIKE A RIVER
Ubezikstans coastline measure to be exactly zero.
I feel like theres some kind of weighted average you could achieve using a high detail measurement, and several lower detail measurements, to find a number that's accurate and practical.
Not to mention the question: Do rivers count towards coastline if they border a body of water that can reach the oceans? Like in Canada, there’s a ton of rivers that connect to the arctic or Great Lakes / St Lawrence, do those count towards the total coastline?
Me as an Austrian:
I don’t have such a weakness
Tu felix Austria
Austria has Lake Constance
@@greenleaf2074 Yeah, but the part of Austria that's on Lake Constance is so small compared to Austria overall that there's no point in making a fuss about it.
@@ohauss Nu a Oliver H.? Sehr gut, mia übernehmen d Welt
"*how long is the border of Austria?*"
"Let's move on to a smaller country"
The British Empire: *intensely glares at RealLifeLore*
If Great Britain's Commonwealth
can be considered as Great Britain's sphere of influance
and translated into one country
Britain is 2 time larger than USA
That’s one benefit of living in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, or Utah: You can know exactly what the perimeter of your state is without having to estimate!
oh ty..this is gonna make for some great argument material!!
1:52 im just imagining a cartographer being driven insane and shooting their globe.
My brain hurts after seeing your pfp
-_-
Oh no the Scots are raiding our beaches.
I know what that flag is -_-
Nowadays, it's the computer when ArcGIS Pro decides to stop working.
@@aaronadams376 felt that. It’s so goddamn annoying ArcGIS pro just decides it’s had enough and leaves the chat in the middle of me finishing a map. Worst, I cry when Arc freezes when I am in the middle of doing analysis and I fear my data being lost or corrupted.
Yo that advertisement transition tho😶😶
Carl Enricoso it wuz gey
He always does that
I felt suddenly betrayed. Even though I knew the moment would come. 😐
Lmao its scary
i have adblocker
that ad segway was brilliant
Thank you for explaining Gojo's power
Actually, while it appears that the length increases indefinitely, it increases less and less with each new unit, so in fact the total length will approach a single value the more resolution you have. So in reality, there is a definite answer to how long any coastline is, it just depends on how accurate you want the measurement to be.
Aaah, there IS intelligent life on Earth!
Thank god I'm not the only one who thought about it
Seems like a lot of people aren't familiar with convergent infinite series.
This is a Falsidical paradox! Look it up if you wouldn't mind because I don't believe I can do it justice by explaining falsidical with just my words. The short of it: it still has to add up to a whole integer at /some/ point so it isn't paradoxical, merely an interesting thought chain.
I can imagine just a really long string that is laid on the coastline. You can adjust it to you heart’s desire to be accurate and assuming you got a long enough string, you can roll it back and measure how much string you used.
I measured the Coastline of Austria: 0mm
(Crying in Habsburg)
Space Science Gold
Unless you count the coast of lake Constance
chin up, at least it wont flood permanently
reunite Austria-Hungary to get a coast
Quiran Doge we just need to wait for the sea level to rise and we have a coast again
I already know this paradox but I clicked the video because I love seeing this illustrated.
Norway's coastline is absolutely HUGE...trust me, I've seen most of it. It's just full of fjords and little coves and tiny little islands...so so many islands. it really is very large coast-wise.
And what's the measurement for a Toyota Corola?
Beast Toyota Corolla itself is a measurement unit silly
The length of one corrola is 1c
2 feet
About 200,000 km
The Corolla itself approaches infinite length at the atomic scale...
Simple solution: standardize the base unit for measure. A one line segment cannot be shorter than 10 meters and must not bend more than 45 degrees related to the previous line direction.
It eliminates the paradox and standardizes how to measure the coastline
It creates a uniform way of measuring coastlines, but it doesn't eliminate the paradox itself. Determining the true, precise length of a coastline is still a paradox.
@@Ntyler01mil mathematically yes, but practically get the fuck out, it's a brilliant solution
@@Ntyler01mil the coastline paradox itself is a theoretical problem. In practical terms, it just doesn't matter. Coasts should be measured in regards to the distance one would need to cover to travel from beginning to end. In that sense, the idea of a 10m unit with the restriction of max 45 degrees between segments is great.
Exactly my thoughts!
@@Ntyler01mil I have a partial solution to the mathematical problem.
We know that the length of coastline tends to infinity as N(length of line segment) tends to 0.
We will define length of uk coastline as 1 Oskar coastline (unit is named after me, since I invented it😜).
Now a bit of math
Let an arbitrary coastline as a function of N be f(N) and uk coastline as a function of N be g(N).
Then the length of the arbitrary coastline will be
lim(N -> 0) f(N)/g(N)
is defined as the value of the length of coastline in my units.
P.S. :- I know this will not cover all types of fractal boundaries since many will outright give 0 or infinity as the limit, that is why I said partial solution.
Also, you can replace uk coastline by something formal like the koch fractal.
it's almost like taking a really wiggly bundled up thing and straightening it out makes it longer
Genuine question, so what's the value of constantly measuring coastlines if cartographers are able to create mostly accurate maps and globes? Is it for them to be constantly updated, or is it some territorial country border thing that will help prevent disputes between two nations?
Does this mean that when she asks how long my dongalong is I can say its infinitely long.
You can say that it has an infinitely long perimeter
No, because the limit as the measurement goes to zero might not be infinity.
Anticorncob6 So it would instead be D(for dongalong perimeter)>0 long, right?
I am sorry, no you couldnt. Try to make it bigger by surgery.
Brage Sangolt viagra works as well
I feel like the practical solution to this is the standardization of a method for measuring coastlines. For example, we could define coastlines as the average between local high and low tides, and measure along those lines in segments that are more human in scale, like meters, as opposed to hundreds of miles or the distance between molecules.
I was thinking exactly the same!, a standard unit for everything
That would indeed be the practical solution for our purposes that don't really require extreme exactitude.
Similar to the nautical mile
he said the 'p' word!
Hhsssssssssssss
@@MiguelSucksAtUrbanism the yard
Reminds me of Zeno's paradox of the arrow in motion. Take an arrow in flight towards a destination. The arrow flies halfway there. Then the arrow flies half of the remaining distance, and again half of that distance, and again, and so on... how many halvings until it arrives?
Technically, never. If we have the destination set as 0, no matter how many times we halve 1, we will never get to zero. 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, 0.0625, 0.03125, 0.015625 ...
We keep getting closer, but we will never reach zero.
The English word for >Fjord< is >Firth<
(And the German is >Förde
There is a finite amount of molecules in the coastline, and a finite separation between them, so the total perimeter measured with molecules is still finite. And it’s much closer to 0 than to infinity (though that’s true of every number).
Do you think molecules are the smallest we could go?
0.999_equals1 Well, theoretically we could go down to the Planck’s length, but that’s still finite. So my point stands. In real life, there’s no paradox. But it’s useful as an introduction to fractals.
Yeah, we'll always get a finite number, but the number will be arbitrarily unfathomably large. It wouldn't really be useful if one measured Britain's coastline in cm and got something in the tens of millions of kilometers, add to that that erosion changes coastlines more significantly the smaller you go. You might be right that it won't approach infinity, but it's still a valid paradox that anyone wanting to measure coastlines has to be aware of
Rory Kirk, the only reason this so-called paradox even exists is that coastline measurement has not been standardized by defining a universal measurement unit (e.g. 1km). Some people simply tend to overcomplicate very simple things and find difficulties which do not even exist.
@@playaaaLV the world gets a lot more unorganized and overcomplicated than the coastline paradox, lol.
Also, rewatch the video. The smaller your measuring units are, the bigger the coastline will measure out to be. It isn't something that can be solved if scientists just scrutinize it really hard, it's a really subjective domain. What unit is small enough to be precise but large enough that it doesn't give ridiculous answers is up to the individual
"And then there's THE DUTCH" he says with an air of contempt and annoyance.
As a Dutch person, let me just say: Thank you. You made me feel better. XD
I don’t get it
@@morgiewthelord8648 He complemented the Dutch.
I am Dutch.
I appreciate the compliment.
What don't you get?
@@ayporos I don’t understand why it’s a compliment to you.
@@morgiewthelord8648 Sounds like a you problem mate.
@@ayporos you said mate? Are you sure the Dutch and English aren’t brothers?
For coastlines, you also have the issue of tides with high and low water levels
“Let’s move to a smaller country like the United Kingdom”
Oh man, why do Americans struggle with this so much?
struggle with what?
?
@@porsche911sbs the UK isn't a country, it's a collection of countries
@@dislikebutton2462 that may be in British English, but in American English the United Kingdom can correctly be referred to as a country itself
@@dislikebutton2462 it's both.
Solution: ISO defining unit of measurement for borders/coastlines.
I think the best way to measure coastline should be with chunks the size a bit larger than one average property size (average lenght of one house with small yard) from satelite images as it would be tied more closesly to real value of coastline - the value of property
yes houses change size, but it could be defined as exact number slightly larger than average house, that won't logically go much higher
this could be standardised
Just use cm as unit of measure and convert to
Km when done
You’d want “inner straight-miles” and “outer straight-miles”, which gives you 2 different numbers, and then “inner straight-km” and “outer straight-km”, another 2 numbers. But at least you could finally compare them and agree on it.
First time in the history of RealLifeLore
No Toyota Corolla mentioned........
it's a sad day for human kind
Jesal Vyas so true
It wasn't the first...
Just wait, there will be a re-upload
Jesal Vyas 😂😂😂
what a smooth transition to an ad
Why don’t you just be one of those guys who gets a wheelie thingy and walk all around it counting in m or cm
I measured the coastline of Norway with a measuring stick with a length of 1 lightyear and got 0 lightyear
Not to be a killjoy but using a lightyear to measure the coastline would just make it the length of a straight line from one end of the coastline to the other, so it wouldn't be 0 km.
@@momentary_Thank you. It would be 0 lightyears tho, which I think +Dlol. actually meant ^^
Sexy Loser fuck you tho. Do you even meme bro. Or know sarcasm?
WOOOOOOOOOOSH
🤔🇳🇴
Next video: How many corrolas can u fit on the U.S. Coastline
12 really big ones
How many Toyota Corrolas can you fit in the sea?
*70 negguh.*
13 big bois
Is this the right channel?
'and then there's the dutch' boy am I glad I'd just swallowed my drink, my laptop would have been swimming lol.
Learned about this in James Gleick's 'Chaos'.
Some guy walking across the shore of the uk with a Fitbit: I’m about to end this man’s whole career.
*Big brain time*
So for the record, I wanted to clear something up. The smaller you go, the less the length of the coast increases. While it is true that this could effectively be infinite, this would only be true if you could somehow measure far below the fundamental units of length. Atoms might measure it as 100000 kilometers, but it's not gonna be millions.
Really? What is the circumference of an atom in Planck units?
The issue is actually that once you get down to atoms, you have significantly more complexity in how they are arranged.
Source: I made it up
@@RickJaeger you wouldn't be able to measure it though because atoms are invisible and also no microscope can zoom far enough into quarks.
@@Xavier17.5 I know. It was rhetorical.
0:33 I know it's super inconsequential but I've been thinking about the 18/19k miles a lot
i needed this.
The exact measurement of Norway’s coastline:
A f***ton of kilometres
Just get one of those weely things and have someone walk around the coast.
@Hammy Burgers just wait 6h
You truly didn’t understand the problem at play here
@@AK-jt9gx And here ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of someone who doesn't understand humor.
@@billcarter8615 lmao I’m literally autistic so like… yeah you’re correct
No, no, they got a point! That's another way to take a guess at how long the coast lenght is.
This is not a paradox, It's a trade-off between resources and what's possible to what resolution of detail you need for the problem you're solving.
The more detail you add the closer you get to the true number which is a finite number. The distance keeps increasing but the amount it increases decreases every time you add more points. Until you run into the fact that there are no more meaningful places to put points. Then whatever that answer is is your true distance. Assuming the best definition of a shoreline you could come up with is down to the atom. The amount of atoms that make up the shoreline and the distance between them would be the true distance.
TLDR: The more points you add the closer you get to the real value. It just doesn't make sense to try to measure a shoreline down to the smallest possible point.
I mean measuring a perfect circle can range all the way from a square to a hexagon or any other polygon untill it makes a circle at the subatomic level
But I mean you could just measure with phisical means also...
The coastline of Serbia equals 0 and I am a 100% sure at that
I don't think that counts
CIA: You're hired.
Hangaroid what if someone transported a serbian rock to the coastline and dropped it in the water. That rock is serbian, and is by the coast.
+Prince Pineapple It would belong to the coastline of the country it is in since it's not in the borders of Serbia
Hangaroid the rock je srbja
Math teacher: aw come on the homework is easy
The homework:
A solution would be to create multiple standards for measurement. Some standards may be based on the meter and converted into useful information such as miles or kilometers. And would be measured at the average tidal height, leaving room for high tide and low tide. Another standard could be effective coastal length. Which could be measured by kilometers. This would remove the confusion in areas like Norway where the effective cost to length would give you an idea of the size of the country while the precise length. Would give you a more precise definition of the expense of the coast
This paradox can also be applied to rivers when seeking to establish the longest river in the world.
It's easy: drive a jeep along the beach, then count the mileage. You're welcome.
There's no road in the coastline, it can be cliffs or beaches, it can be a forest. Costlines are various. I think technology can measure it from a boat going around the coastline.
@HighPixel_Studios 😂😂😂 my bad I'm reading Balzac
@@freespiritable just take a tank
@@roberttarasov3994 of course. A tankini while on the boat 😜
@@freespiritable with rockets!
"Let's move over to a smaller county, Great Britain"
Queen Elizabeth : *I used to rule you all foolish mortals.*
Key word is used
Its still a smaller country.
HISSSSSSS
Technically neither Queen Elizabeth have ever ruled the new world. That was some of the the kings in between....🤓
The once and future Queen
*Here's a very long explanation to the ones pointing that smaller segments gives us a better approximation, insead of infinite perimeter.*
What you are talking about is *function approximation,* that is when you find a line -say, a portion of coastline, and you want to build a function that represent that, for instance, a polynomial, which represents a curve that approximates to the coastline formation on each term you add. That's sort of "resolution climbing" that tends to converge asymptotically to the form of the coastline.
The problem here, though, is that *you add new elements between two given points,* each time you increase resolution, so you *unfailingly add more distance with resolution.* So for instance, each time you duplicate the segments used to measure the coastline, you do approximate better to the shape of the coast, but increase distance. So the surface contained tends to converge to a number, but not the perimeter.
You may confuse this with a circumference, as a polygon of infinite sides, that has a finite and determinated length. Likewise, you'd say this is the exact same case. But no, because the circle has a certain shape, and once you "zoom in", or add resolution to approximate it, you don't find irregularities. In other words, *the length between two points do increases with resolution, but each time it does it predictably slower.*
In contrast, *coastline measurement finds irregularities each time you increase resolution.* And with "irregularities" we mean *new elements* -with their unique shape each: a peninsula, a beach in part of it, a group of rocks at the beach, a single rock, a hole in the rock, a different hole inside that hole, grains of sand inside it, each grain different from each other, an so on. Perhaps in molecular or atomic environment we could finally find some sort of regularities, that could finally give us a function similar to the circumference case, and that could end in a finite size.
But the case here is that *measuring things in tiny segments (say, millimiters) gives us counter intuitive notion of length.* For instance, adding the shape of 1-metre-sized rocks to measure the length of a beach between two mountains that are 1 kilometre (straight line) between increases dramatically what you _perceive_ is the size of that curved line beach. How much do you think it measures? Well, about some amount above 1km, say 1.3km. But if you start to add the irregularities (say, rocks and sand formations) that beach can measure 3km, which seems nonsense.
So in my opinion, the solution would be to use *representative segments* to measure coastline with some considerations:
1) Small enough to take irregular coasts into account.
2) Big enough not to fall into the "infinite problem" talked above.
3) The unit used must be feasible -the smaller, the more difficult, of course.
4) The most important: Everyone should use the same segments.
So I'd say a 100 or 500-metre segment would be the fairer segment to use to measure coastlines around the world. Dunno if feasible, but certainly fairer.
well, i dont know if it would be a good solution, but let's think about this.
if we mesure the line that pass through the mid of the intertidal zone on the coast, in a certain time (the mesure must be taken really fast) would it be a good normalized way to mesure a coast?
in this case we are not considering the whole coast, just a zone that can define its length.
i'm probably wrong, so i'll accept every criticism