Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

westcal98 t1_j39m0ku wrote

Your secret is safe with me cuz I'll never repeat this.

923

suzukigun4life t1_j39ntzh wrote

Yeah, I'll just continue to look at it as a rectangle instead.

474

HG_Shurtugal t1_j39o6bh wrote

It's the same reason nobody really knows how long the coast is.

46

Thin-Rip-3686 t1_j39q8yh wrote

Sure, but it’s an irregular one. All those poor constipated Coloradans.

2

TechnicalSymbiote t1_j39syv2 wrote

How the heck is that pronounced?

Hexa-hecta-ennea-conta-kai-hepta-gon?

6

LakeEarth t1_j39vlby wrote

Wait a minute. Colorado is a hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon? I've been telling everyone it was a hexahectaenneacontakaioctogon! Why didn't someone tell me? Oh, I’ve been making an idiot out of myself!

427

Timballist0 t1_j39whyj wrote

With coastline measuring, it's almost infinite.

−5

Landlubber77 t1_j3a7ty7 wrote

And Kelly Clarkson once ordered all of them with her entrée.

−1

Lowfuji t1_j3ag9gj wrote

Aliens were able to build structures with stone blocks in south america that look like they were carved with lasers, leaving little to no space betwixt.

−1

Ironwolf7448 t1_j3am2oj wrote

TIL that a hexahectaenneacontaiheptagon is a thing.

2

Mondiaposa t1_j3angt9 wrote

I just glazed over. I don’t have the energy to try and pronounce it.

7

Tyrinnus t1_j3aoore wrote

TIL.... something completely un-memorable, and who gives a shit? Just regurgitate something uninteresting for click bait.

−7

Wendals87 t1_j3aqfz0 wrote

I guess there is more than one side to this story

1

GimpsterMcgee t1_j3arq84 wrote

Yeah but how far off is it? How much exists outside the rectangle?(and conversely, how much of neighboring states intrudes into it?) I can’t imagine it’s remotely significant except for the… 7 people who live in those areas.

1

sckego t1_j3au1ji wrote

Replying to HG_Shurtugal (#1,299,173)

No, it’s completely different. They aren’t the same in any way.

Colorado is supposed to have straight borders. When surveyors went and staked out the borders, they didn’t place them right on the theoretical straight line, sometimes they were off by thousands of feet. And once the markers are placed and everyone shook hands on it, those became the “ground truth” - not the theoretical straight line. That didn’t really matter (or was even discoverable) until the advent of GPS, when they figured out that their “straight” line really zigged and zagged all over the place, and fixing them is real PITA as described in the article. So, they got left as-is.

Coastlines are jagged, not straight. You can measure a coastline with a mile-long ruler and get a value, but you’ll have skipped a bunch of zigs and zags along the way, so the coastline is actually longer than what you measured. So you get a shorter ruler, maybe 100 yds long. Same problem. You can use a normal 1-ft ruler, but you’re still missing the zigs and zags of individual rocks at the waters edge. Etc, etc…

37

DamnImAwesome t1_j3avqp1 wrote

I wanna see those smug spelling bee kids deal with this one

0

hazeleyedwolff t1_j3avss6 wrote

Changing my hotspot SSID to "shout hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon for password" the next time I'm in the airport.

2

2ndOfficerCHL t1_j3avxzm wrote

Replying to sckego (#1,300,612)

That's hair splitting. So human surveying errors caused Colorado to have a jagged border which appears straight from a distance. For practical purposes it can be drawn as a rectangle on maps, just like you don't need to account for the position of every grain of sand on the beach when measuring coasts.

13

drfsupercenter t1_j3awsyz wrote

Technically all shapes (besides a perfect circle) have a finite number of sides, the question is just when do you stop counting? All 50 states could be described this way.

3

jeremykelly1 t1_j3axqvh wrote

Replying to 2ndOfficerCHL (#1,300,677)

The jagged edge of Colorado is still measurable though. Changing the scale of measurement as is done in the coastline problem doesn’t change the outcome of the measurement of Colorado.

You don’t have to account for every grain of sand when measuring coasts, but what grains of sand do you account for? Answering that question differently amounts to different measurements. Colorado is not arbitrary in that regard. It’s just not 4 straight lines. It’s 697.

25

Silver-Toe4231 t1_j3axuvh wrote

I tried to pronounce that aloud, and a mummy came back to life.

29

djdefenda t1_j3ay86v wrote

Check out Fort Blunder and the story behind those map lines :)

1

sckego t1_j3b04od wrote

Replying to 2ndOfficerCHL (#1,300,677)

If it could be drawn as a straight border, we wouldn’t be having this conversation—no one would care if it were off by a few feet one way or the other. It matters because it’s off by more than half a mile in places, and can’t be just hand-waved away as “straight enough”… which is the point of the article, that Colorado actually has 600whatever sides.

In measuring coastlines, there is no “straight enough.” It’s ALWAYS changing. You say you don’t need to account for every grain of sand. Fine, what about every large rock outcrop? Every small inlet? Every major bay? The length is 100% dependent on what measuring stick you use, and there is no right answer for which is the correct measuring stick.

3

ourobboros t1_j3b07wd wrote

God dangit. You wrote my lastpass master password.

1

Due_Platypus_3913 t1_j3b1tqg wrote

According to maps,and the globe I’m looking at,it’s what’s called a “rectangle “.

2

nautilator44 t1_j3b67bm wrote

No, it has four. Stop trying to make the shape of Colorado interesting. Focus more on the beautiful landscapes.

5

triggerfish15 t1_j3b6lga wrote

Note to self: Colorado can never win something fair and square.

0

Landlubber77 t1_j3b9y08 wrote

Replying to meiandus (#1,301,007)

Brother, crispy onion straws are a thing, and a beautiful one at that. Sometimes they're an add-on to your steak at a fancy steak house, or an add-on to your burger at a non-fancy Applebee's. Either way they're delish, like yummy fried air. And you weren't far off on your initial impression of me, I definitely love me some ranch and/or blue cheese.

1

jewellman100 t1_j3bbb5i wrote

It's actually 698 sides, you missed one, check again

2

prjindigo t1_j3bdasj wrote

Uh, it has a lot more surfaces than that...

1

horsemagicians t1_j3beagc wrote

That may quite possibly be the stupidest description anybody has ever thought the need to create. Why the hell do we need a word for an object with 697 sides.

1

starmartyr t1_j3bk953 wrote

Replying to 2ndOfficerCHL (#1,300,677)

It kind of depends on which maps. Along the borders, you really need to know where the state line is for things like zoning regulations and legal jurisdiction. In some cases, these jagged edges are half a mile wide.

0

starmartyr t1_j3bkmak wrote

Replying to drfsupercenter (#1,300,706)

In the case of Colorado, it does not have any natural boundaries. Colorado and Wyoming are the only states that are like this. Every other state has at least one boundary defined by a coastline or river. All of Colorado's sides are straight lines (at least as straight as a line can be on a globe).

3

[deleted] t1_j3bpgib wrote

Do we seriously have names for all the 696 other variants too?

−1

ramriot t1_j3brxdi wrote

At that point, why not just admit that a rectangle drawn on a spheroid has curved sides.

1

[deleted] t1_j3bw82n wrote

Greek is a beautiful language

I can't understand it for shit, but it is beautiful

0

TheCloudFestival t1_j3bxzg7 wrote

This article is the most clickbait nonsense I've ever seen.

TL;DR - Colorado is indeed a four sided state when represented on a globe, but when it's borders are applied to a flat map, the corrections to the projection distort the otherwise straight borders.

Well thanks Gerardus Mercator, but I heard you died in the C16th?

6

EternamD t1_j3c3vi2 wrote

An irregular hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon I might add

1

SquirrelGirlSucks t1_j3c6wj2 wrote

Yeah no that’s a square. No stupid science or math bitches are convincing me otherwise.

−2

Omnus89 t1_j3cd3ty wrote

This is just a dramatic way of saying it's jagged.

3

OptimusPhillip t1_j3cfv85 wrote

I think I've heard this one before. It was intended to be a rectangle, bounded by four specific lines of latitude and longitude, but the surveyors, due to limited technology, were a little off in where they placed the border markers, giving it way more (very small) corners than it was supposed to have.

3

MangoSea323 t1_j3cokoz wrote

This could be reposted every day and noone would remember.

1

Dezpeche t1_j3dec61 wrote

That's a cool password if you can even remember it.

1

Jaspers47 t1_j3dztez wrote

Some time in the 19th century, some asshole mapmaker tried to draw the borders but didn't want to use a ruler

1

spookynovember t1_j3e7xok wrote

It's not any-gon, because it is wrapped onto a sphere.

1

osi_layer_one t1_j3ec7x9 wrote

the fact that we have a word for this shape just blows my mind...

0

herbw t1_j3es2p8 wrote

Replying to spookynovember (#1,305,075)

ANY polygon by strict geometric definition is 2 D planar; & imposing 2 D on a spherical, provably 3 D surface does Not have polygonal edges.

The typical print madia journo defects. Ignoring the Spherical shape of earth, thus concluding the facts that the EARTH is Round does not happen.

Facts are, there are NO proven evidences of that many sides. Show us the real, existing sides by photography. Those are not there. Imposed, illusions. Caca del toro Post SOS on the utube, which hasn't the slightest credibility. Credulous yes. Truth no.

Provably the Spherical quadrangle of CO is the case. There is no polygon because polygons are 2D.

I mean it's just so easy to show the post is wrong. 1900 upvotes mean 1900 were wrong.

Gee, that's a terrible outcome & measures utter ignorance.

Which means that without substantiation, nothin here is reliable but to the credulous. The lines on a 2 D quadrangle do NOT meet. In the 3D world the N/S lines meet at the poles.

Thus we can also, truly conclude the NE and NW corners are closer than the SE and SW corners of Both CO and Wyoming.

IT'S that simple and geometrical & the case. A polygon? BS. A spherical quadrangle, likely.

1

herbw t1_j3ewiyo wrote

Replying to starmartyr (#1,301,356)

nope. Those are implied micro corrections to a false 2D system imposed on a sphere. Beautiful curved, smooth spherical lines is what they can do. Rest is all SOThe Bull.

0

herbw t1_j3exbks wrote

Replying to drfsupercenter (#1,300,706)

Perfect circles do not exist. Idealisms are not real. That is another reason that Math , as Godel showed, is not complete, not always applicable, and occ. wrong.

Einstein a great empirical visual thinker said this. To the extent math is accurate it's useful. To the extent it's precise, it's not real. This einsteinian concept easily proves and is proven by the disparities between Maps and the features they pretend to show.

Mercator projections are not real. It distorts features. Either.

For instance if we look at 90 Deg map on the point directly below us, over a globe all the edges are distorted. If we move over 100 miles, worse. What we've mapped before is distorted and what we see 90 below us is NOT the same as 100 Miles East or west. Nor is the southern edge nor north edge.

So we do successive corrections and get an approximation. But it's never quite right. The flat map paper we lay down to read is Not exact either. Imposing that same 90 deg 2D flat map problem. See? Accurate, useful but assuming real goes too far.

As is said, what you measure depends by Einsteinian, true relativity, cannot be correct. There is NO absolute measure. There is NO absolute space/time. That space on the maps is a measure of that highly likely, by proven Relativity.

Thus ALL the flat maps we use are Wrongl! because they impose the Flat 2d, 90 deg but not spherical map on paper. National geo Maps are flat. The Earth is round, thus ALL OUR maps are not quite right.

So our maps' errors show the relativity of measuring methods. Missed that, dintcha!!

1

herbw t1_j3ezs8c wrote

Replying to starmartyr (#1,301,349)

Natural boundaries such as river and lake sea coasts are not stable, set, nor precisely measurable.

Most competent map makers are aware of that. Not so 99% here.

1

starmartyr t1_j3f3bej wrote

Replying to GregorianShant (#1,304,716)

That isn't what is happening here. Colorado's border was defined by congress as 37°N to 41°N latitude, and from 25°W to 32°W longitude. That is effectively a trapezoid or at least as close to one that can be drawn on a globe. That shape does have 4 edges as you say. However, when they went to survey the land errors were made. 19th-century surveyors would stray from the legal border by as much as half a mile in some places and would correct it by making a couple of near 90-degree turns to correct this. Congress then accepted the survey boundaries as the legal boundaries making it have more than 4 edges.

3

starmartyr t1_j3f3p57 wrote

Replying to TheCloudFestival (#1,301,837)

That's not correct. The borders aren't perfectly straight. This is due to 19th-century surveying errors rather than flat map distortion. You can see the jagged edges if you zoom in close enough on google earth.

1

Slym12312425 t1_j3f8j5z wrote

My wife- you have no life. My son- gesundheit.

1

OptimusPhillip t1_j3fdntg wrote

Replying to herbw (#1,305,924)

Okay, fair enough. The shape bounded by four lines of latitude and longitude on one hemisphere of a circle is not a rectangle. Even in a non-Euclidean spherical plane, it's not a rectangle (since latitude lines aren't great circles). That said, OP described Colorado's true shape as a polygon, so they're quite clearly referring to the imperfect survey thing, and not the fact that Colorado can't be a Euclidean rectangle.

1

arbivark t1_j3hrfmq wrote

hexahectaenneacontakaiheptagon, 24 letters.

1