Cite? I can understand plant density being somewhat less on a slope as compared to absolute flat due to poorer soil condition, sun exposure, etc. However, claiming the exact inverse trigonometric percentile increase in the surface area of a slope related to growing area VS growing area requirements on the flat, is a little hard to swallow.
Would it be related to the need for trees to grow upwards, rather than being perpendicular to the slope? Your areal increase of land surface as the slope increases is offset by the constant sky [?] that remains available for tree growth and crown density.
I speak with authority because I’ve seen trees in real life, not just on TV or looked them up on Wikipedia.
With such stellar qualifications and social skills, you’re obviously an… authority.
You do however, make a good point. The 3-D geometry as related to your “constant sky” perspective and growth density explains it all. Thanks.
No worries.
I’ve been told that 80% of authority is sounding like you have it. Clearly got that nailed, its the other 20% that’s pretty iffy, but not sure I could be bothered with that ‘learning facts’ and ‘knowing what I’m talking about’ palaver.
B
As an aside per the OP’s original post, it’s been said that if you’d flatten West Virginia it would be as big as Texas… take that!, lone star bigheads!
Note that the Coastline paradox is another reason real-estate is measured by lat/long and not surface area.
It’s really not a paradox. Borders tend to move around when it comes to land adjacent to major bodies of water.
It is more than that, if you choose a small enough measuring stick the coastline’s length becomes infinite.
Small stick or large stick… coastlines are, as you say, Infinite. No paradox there. Picking at nits.
In the context of this thread, surface area has a similar problem.
When someone digs a ditch or when a farmer plow their field the furrows would add to the surface area.
Simply choosing to define these legal boundaries based on angular distances removes this complexity (while adding others)
I don’t understand your point.
If land was sold and taxed based on surface area, why not just dig a bunch of holes to increase the amount of land you own.
E.G.
_____________________________
_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_|¯|_
I am a bit limited in what I can figure out how to draw on here.
Well, it is, depending on the perspective (see upthread)
The question is, why would one want to increase their tax liability, based upon upthread considerations?
I still fail to understand your point.
Tax liabilities are typically far lower than sale values.
Sorry, I just don’t get the point you’re driving at per upthread discussion. Too late for any rational correspondence on my part, going to bed…