Definition of Area of a Two Dimensional Line
I learned recently that lines such as the boundary of some Julia sets and the Hilbert curve have area. I was wondering what the strict definition of such an area would be, and I intuitively came up with the following:
Let $S$ be the set of all points on the line.
Let $R$ be the set of points in some contiguous region containing the line fully inside of it.
The area of the line is the percent of $R$ also in $S$ multiplied by the area of the region.
fractals
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
add a comment |
I learned recently that lines such as the boundary of some Julia sets and the Hilbert curve have area. I was wondering what the strict definition of such an area would be, and I intuitively came up with the following:
Let $S$ be the set of all points on the line.
Let $R$ be the set of points in some contiguous region containing the line fully inside of it.
The area of the line is the percent of $R$ also in $S$ multiplied by the area of the region.
fractals
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39
add a comment |
I learned recently that lines such as the boundary of some Julia sets and the Hilbert curve have area. I was wondering what the strict definition of such an area would be, and I intuitively came up with the following:
Let $S$ be the set of all points on the line.
Let $R$ be the set of points in some contiguous region containing the line fully inside of it.
The area of the line is the percent of $R$ also in $S$ multiplied by the area of the region.
fractals
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
I learned recently that lines such as the boundary of some Julia sets and the Hilbert curve have area. I was wondering what the strict definition of such an area would be, and I intuitively came up with the following:
Let $S$ be the set of all points on the line.
Let $R$ be the set of points in some contiguous region containing the line fully inside of it.
The area of the line is the percent of $R$ also in $S$ multiplied by the area of the region.
fractals
fractals
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
asked Dec 27 '18 at 17:56
William Grannis
1,015521
1,015521
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39
add a comment |
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Your definition suffers from the following(fatal, I would say) flaws:
You rely on the word “percent” to define your “area”. But you clearly don’t mean percent in the usual sense, because the word “percent” is (usually) defined for finite quantities and has something to do with amount out of $100$ if you like.
Your choice of the enclosing region R is not unique. Thus you must give a clear indication of how R is chosen and moreover prove that different choices of R give the same value of area.
The usual definition of area of S is $mu(S) $where by $mu$ I denoted Lebesgue measure(I guess you could use other measures as well). You can read more about it on wiki of course.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054211%2fdefinition-of-area-of-a-two-dimensional-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Your definition suffers from the following(fatal, I would say) flaws:
You rely on the word “percent” to define your “area”. But you clearly don’t mean percent in the usual sense, because the word “percent” is (usually) defined for finite quantities and has something to do with amount out of $100$ if you like.
Your choice of the enclosing region R is not unique. Thus you must give a clear indication of how R is chosen and moreover prove that different choices of R give the same value of area.
The usual definition of area of S is $mu(S) $where by $mu$ I denoted Lebesgue measure(I guess you could use other measures as well). You can read more about it on wiki of course.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
add a comment |
Your definition suffers from the following(fatal, I would say) flaws:
You rely on the word “percent” to define your “area”. But you clearly don’t mean percent in the usual sense, because the word “percent” is (usually) defined for finite quantities and has something to do with amount out of $100$ if you like.
Your choice of the enclosing region R is not unique. Thus you must give a clear indication of how R is chosen and moreover prove that different choices of R give the same value of area.
The usual definition of area of S is $mu(S) $where by $mu$ I denoted Lebesgue measure(I guess you could use other measures as well). You can read more about it on wiki of course.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
add a comment |
Your definition suffers from the following(fatal, I would say) flaws:
You rely on the word “percent” to define your “area”. But you clearly don’t mean percent in the usual sense, because the word “percent” is (usually) defined for finite quantities and has something to do with amount out of $100$ if you like.
Your choice of the enclosing region R is not unique. Thus you must give a clear indication of how R is chosen and moreover prove that different choices of R give the same value of area.
The usual definition of area of S is $mu(S) $where by $mu$ I denoted Lebesgue measure(I guess you could use other measures as well). You can read more about it on wiki of course.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
Your definition suffers from the following(fatal, I would say) flaws:
You rely on the word “percent” to define your “area”. But you clearly don’t mean percent in the usual sense, because the word “percent” is (usually) defined for finite quantities and has something to do with amount out of $100$ if you like.
Your choice of the enclosing region R is not unique. Thus you must give a clear indication of how R is chosen and moreover prove that different choices of R give the same value of area.
The usual definition of area of S is $mu(S) $where by $mu$ I denoted Lebesgue measure(I guess you could use other measures as well). You can read more about it on wiki of course.
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:33
Sorin Tirc
1,520113
1,520113
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
add a comment |
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
Thank you. Is my wild stab in the dark at least intuitively correct, if not concrete in details?
– William Grannis
Dec 27 '18 at 18:46
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
It is only very distantly correct if I may say so :) because when you define the Lebesgue measure of S you also cover S, but, here’s the difference!, you cover S not just with one region R, but with many many(as many as you can) regions R, usually of rectangular shape(so we know their area) and sum the value of these rectangular areas and tale the limit.
– Sorin Tirc
Dec 27 '18 at 18:52
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3054211%2fdefinition-of-area-of-a-two-dimensional-line%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I don't know about the boundary of a Julia set, but the Hilbert curve is space-filling, and the area is just the usual two-dimensional area.
– saulspatz
Dec 27 '18 at 18:30
The word "line" is not a good choice for the boundary you ask about. Lines are straight. While words like "curve" or "path" avoid implying straightness, your post would probably be better phrased in terms of the boundary or border of a region.
– hardmath
Dec 27 '18 at 18:39