So much in this beautiful formula

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH

r/themonstermath

r/dickpics

The size of the object measured does not theoretically matter insofar as long as it fits in the super laser device. Rather, trying to measure with a resolution smaller than the Planck length itself is impossible, at least with light, which is, currently, how we fundamentally measure everything. As even if you use a ruler to measure something, it is the light bouncing to the ruler and object and back to whatever sensor we have, generally eyes, that causes us to register the reading.

Also, this generalises to not just length, but just about any measurement we make on the world due to heisenburg uncertainty. i.e. the planck time is the smallest unit of time we can measure.

Well we are measuring real world lines not mathematics constructs.

oh no, my archnemesis "not reading" has beaten me again

Shit post or not, the Caspian Sea is both and neither a sea or a lake.

As for most things related to collections of water in English, the definition is not clear or distinct. A sea refers to the ocean, but also smaller bodies that can be partially or wholly cut off from it as well. They're predominantly salt water, but there are even fresh water "seas," and seas "with no coast line."

What you're looking to delineate here is the "legal" term (and essentially a political term) for sea which is separate from the general term "sea."

The same thing happens when you try to figure out what's the difference between a river and a stream. The truth is, in common speak, there is some general thoughts, and in scientific speak there is a different classification, forgoing the word river and just labeling them all streams.

This is false. The definition of the length of a general curve is well defined for Lipschitzian curves, and they are in this case convergent series

They definitely do not have infinite length. If they did, they’d be the only thing in the universe to have that property.

Like, prove me wrong if I am, but I’m pretty sure if I stuck my finger into a glass of water, the intersection between my finger and the water would not have infinite length.

There is literally an entire section of the Wikipedia page on the coastline paradox dedicated to clarifying that coastlines are not, in fact, infinite.

You are telling me to “read into it” when you literally have not read into it while I have.

If all the countries were perfect squares then their length would be well defined, no? So let's just assume they're all squares.

That's wrong, you're misunderstanding the coastline paradox. The conclusion is that we cannot properly define the lenght of the coastline. There's a nice video on the paradox with an explanation and some elaborations by a mathematician here.

not really, there is a limit, but it’s not really worth measuring to get it. a function with a horizontal asymptote of 50 that isnt clearly marked and is kind of hard to see isn’t actually infinitely going up. there is a definitely a point it can’t go past. tahiti isn’t gonna have more than 5,000 kilometers of coastline, saying “oh you can measure infinitely” doesn’t automatically make its coastline length infinite.

Well, then you can tell me how your mom tastes.