Humanities desk
< June 29	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	July 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 30[edit]

Population of convex cover of states relative to state[edit]

I thinking about the three californias referendum, I noticed that the state boundaries of most US States wouldn't be viewed as Gerrymandered. So what I'm looking for is the degree to which each state is gerrymandered using its convex cover. In other words, for each state, get a US Map, put an extra copy of the state on top, put a rubber band around the state and compare the population inside the US of the convex cover of the state to the population of the State. The Least gerrymandered would be Alaska, Hawaii, Colorado and Wyoming (which would have a ration of 1) . Utah would be only slightly greater than one, the population in the Wyoming area which would need to be added as a triangle to get a convex cover is *tiny*. My guess is that the only state with a ratio greater than 2 would be West Virginia as the population of Pennsylvania between the top of the Northern Panhandle and the upper bulge of the Eastern Panhandle is a significant percentage of WV's population and the population between the southern edge of WV and the tip of the Eastern panhandle would be enough to get it over 2. So any ideas where to get more exact numbers? (Idaho might be high as well, depends on the border with Washington State near Spokane.)Naraht (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey's pretty high too, especially if you count the waters where New Jersey State laws work as part of New Jersey (3 miles into the ocean I think). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking Land here, and I'm not sure with using Land how much of NY ends up in side the convex cover. Parts of Pennsylania, sure.Naraht (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all of Manhattan (1+2/3 million), about half of Brooklyn (the denser half of 2+2/3+ million), all of Staten Island (0.5 million), and crumbs of Queens (2.4 million) and the Bronx (1.5 million). And probably at least 4 or 5 million in PA. I think New Jersey beats Idaho actually, Boise's a bigger metro area than many people think. The Google Maps projection might be messing up that area though, would need Google Earth for a more accurate line. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right on New Jersey, it almost certainly be second, except as you said below about Michigan...Naraht (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ignorant foreigner here. What is convex cover? HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a universe thing, not an American thing. It's apparently the least amount of grout you have to put around the state to remove all concavity. Or any shape really. And very few Americans would know what that is if you just asked them "what's a convex cover?" Fun fact: the convex cover of Croatia is mostly made of other countries. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I get it. So for the USA "lower 48", you would include pretty much the northern half of the Gulf of Mexico, and a few other bits. Have I got that right? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the Gulf of Carpentaria and Great Australian Bight and a few other bits for mainland Australia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Righto! Now I understand more of the conversation above. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more usual name is convex hull. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the 3 Californias referendum must be a referendum to make California 3 states (which would require Congress to agree too). Fun fact: Texas is explicitly allowed to become up to 5 states. It's the size of France so that's probably why. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was part of the treaty that brought Texas into the union, but it expired a few years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrymandering refers to a 200 year old American Gerry salamander. Well there's an article on it, I don't know if the term is well known in other countries too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh yeah. Gerrymandering has been big in Australia, in some places and at some times. One even got its own name, the Bjelkemander in Queensland in the 1970s and 1980s. It allowed the Country Party to win government with only 20% of the vote. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For Colorado and Wyoming the ratio wouldn't be exactly 1, more like 1.0001. The northern borders of those states follow parallels, but other than the equator these are not great circles. This makes the states slightly concave; the convex hulls of these states include an up to ca. 6 km wide strip of their northern neighbours. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to be supremely pedantic, their borders aren't straight. Sure, their ideal definition follows the parallels, but their real-world definition doesn't, because surveys always overrule the ideal. An excellent example of this is a small job near Edith, CO: [1] --Golbez (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The geographical center of Boston is in Roxbury. Due north of the center we find the South End. This is not to be confused with South Boston which lies directly east from the South End. North of the South End is East Boston and southwest of East Boston is the North End."[2] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of the history of where those names come from. The North End and South End refer to the ends of the Shawmut Peninsula, which was once all of Boston proper. South Boston, East Boston, Roxbury, and a whole lot of other parts of modern Boston used to be other towns that lied across various bodies of water from Boston. Boston only used to have one tiny land border with the town of Dorchester, it was almost an island. Over time, massive landfill projects filled in much of that water, and Boston spent much of the 19th and early 20th century annexing all of the towns around it. --Jayron 32 04:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How would you deal with Michigan btw? It's slightly non-contiguous. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't take away the idea of how to make a convex cover/hull, smallest Rubber band. And note with *that*, the complex cover of Michigan includes Green Bay and Milwaukee. It also includes a thin triangle at the north end of Indiana which is fairly populated.Naraht (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

rephrasing my conglomerate question[edit]

I'd like to rephrase my question about AT&T, GE and Kodak. This is in regards to the RMS Titanic tragedy. It's understood a wireless system was used to send out a distress signal, which was received by Cape Race. But was the system an AT&T innovation? The Cape Race Lighthouse was operating. Were the light and electricity provided by GE? (Did AT&T and GE collaborate on working at Cape Race?) In the aftermath of the RMS Titanic tragedy, lots and lots of pictures were taken. The same thing happened when the RMS Carpathia carrying the survivors reached New York City. Did the photographers use Kodak film and cameras? (I saw a YouTube video. It was about the Kodak Gallery. In one segment, a diver was looking at some underwater pictures. One was of the RMS Titanic. Of course, I'm well-aware the depth is too deep for divers.)142.255.69.73 (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too deep for scuba divers, but there were submersibles used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't the Titanic telegraphs Marconi Wireless systems? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to this[3] and other sources via Google. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thus they were Marconi Wireless Co, not AT&T. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems. AT&T was into wired communication, Marconi into wireless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wireless telegraph was fairly new when the Titanic sunk, if it was under patent AT&T would've probably had to have had a royalty agreement with Marconi to be a wireless telegraphy provider. How the signal got from Cape Race to New York and the rest of the world (wired or wireless) I don't know. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to our lighthouse article (and a reference) the wireless at the Cape Race Lighthouse was a Marconi Company station, not an AT&T station. Furthermore, the Telegraph line from that lighthouse to the rest of the world would likely not have been AT&T, as the lighthouse was in Newfoundland. -Arch dude (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic cables were laid even in the 19th century (the first was bleeding edge tech though), the gap to Newfoundland is narrow in comparison (especially the more remote northern one). I do not pretend to know if Cape Race sent info to populated parts of the mainland by wire or air. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the lighthouse had wire-line communications, but I doubt that the US-based AT&T was the provider in Newfoundland. Newfoundland was not part of the US. and in fact was not part of Canada, either. There were various local telcos. See NewTel Communications. -Arch dude (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More information here: List of Marconi wireless stations#Cape Race and Cape Ray. -Arch dude (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]