|
Post by msdemos on Apr 7, 2019 15:57:32 GMT
Technically, we consider it a continent, but does that really change the fact that it's still just a body of land (granted, nearly 3 million square miles of land) surrounded on all sides by water ?? SAVE FERRIS
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 8, 2019 12:51:50 GMT
Via Quora:
“...Islands are either extensions of the oceanic crust (e.g. volcanic islands) or geologically they are part of some continent sitting on continental lithosphere (e.g. Greenland). But for Australia, which sits on its own continental lithosphere and tectonic plate can be considered as a continent.”
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Sept 15, 2019 16:17:28 GMT
Technically, we consider it a continent, but does that really change the fact that it's still just a body of land (granted, nearly 3 million square miles of land) surrounded on all sides by water ?? SAVE FERRIS It is! It's an: Island Country And Continent. Fatty!
|
|
|
Post by kleinreturns on Sept 16, 2019 17:46:52 GMT
Technically, we consider it a continent, but does that really change the fact that it's still just a body of land (granted, nearly 3 million square miles of land) surrounded on all sides by water ?? SAVE FERRIS It is! It's an: Island Country And Continent. Fatty!
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Sept 16, 2019 18:15:12 GMT
It is! It's an: Island Country And Continent. Fatty! No; I'm English, but we like to keep an eye on our colonies. Just to make sure everything is working out okay.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Sept 19, 2019 14:50:08 GMT
No; I'm English, but we like to keep an eye on our colonies. Just to make sure everything is working out okay. You really dropped the ball with the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by nostromo on Sept 19, 2019 14:54:22 GMT
If it is a continent, then what continent is New Zealand in?
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Sept 19, 2019 15:22:59 GMT
If it is a continent, then what continent is New Zealand in? New Zealand is not part of the continent of Australia, but of the separate, submerged continent of Zealandia. New Zealand and Australia are both part of the Oceanian sub-region known as Australasia, with New Guinea being in Melanesia.
|
|
|
Post by lordquesterjones on Sept 19, 2019 19:59:25 GMT
No; I'm English, but we like to keep an eye on our colonies. Just to make sure everything is working out okay. You really dropped the ball with the U.S. I know. Every former colony that decided to go it alone has turned to shit. Without exception!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 18:31:45 GMT
Because it doesn't meet the definition of an island.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 24, 2019 6:10:44 GMT
Technically, we consider it a continent, but does that really change the fact that it's still just a body of land (granted, nearly 3 million square miles of land) surrounded on all sides by water ?? SAVE FERRIS Isn't part of the definition of island that the body of land surrounded by water on all sides is smaller than a continent?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2019 13:59:03 GMT
You really dropped the ball with the U.S. I know. Every former colony that decided to go it alone has turned to shit. Without exception! I know it's easy to make fun of the States but they are a world leader for a reason, if not 'the world leader'. For a former colony, it has done exponentially well
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Sept 29, 2019 2:44:32 GMT
Australia is moving ever so (very) slowly northbound into Indonesia. Another few million years or so & its giant island appeal will be gone.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 20, 2019 13:24:43 GMT
Because it doesn't meet the definition of an island. Yes it does. It can be an island and a continent.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Dec 23, 2019 1:57:05 GMT
...And... A square is a rectangle, but most rectangles are not squares.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 23, 2019 2:30:37 GMT
...And... A square is a rectangle, but most rectangles are not squares.George Cantor might disagree with you here. You imply that there are more rectangles than squares. We can map (or make a one-to-one correspondence) between each member of the set of all rectangles and the set of all natural numbers (ie 1, 2, 3...). We can make the same mapping of all squares with the natural numbers. Therefore I would suggest (and I believe Cantor proved) that the set of all rectangles and the set of all squares are the same size.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Dec 23, 2019 4:14:11 GMT
...And... A square is a rectangle, but most rectangles are not squares.George Cantor might disagree with you here. You imply that there are more rectangles than squares. We can map (or make a one-to-one correspondence) between each member of the set of all rectangles and the set of all natural numbers (ie 1, 2, 3...). We can make the same mapping of all squares with the natural numbers. Therefore I would suggest (and I believe Cantor proved) that the set of all rectangles and the set of all squares are the same size. That is ridiculous. Obviously there are more rectangles than squares. Both numbers are infinite, but one is bigger than the other - just like the number of multiples of 3 is bigger than the numbers of multiples of 5 (even though both are infinite).
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Dec 23, 2019 5:33:36 GMT
George Cantor might disagree with you here. You imply that there are more rectangles than squares. We can map (or make a one-to-one correspondence) between each member of the set of all rectangles and the set of all natural numbers (ie 1, 2, 3...). We can make the same mapping of all squares with the natural numbers. Therefore I would suggest (and I believe Cantor proved) that the set of all rectangles and the set of all squares are the same size. That is ridiculous. Obviously there are more rectangles than squares. Both numbers are infinite, but one is bigger than the other - just like the number of multiples of 3 is bigger than the numbers of multiples of 5 (even though both are infinite). It is a long time since I learnt this stuff so I might not get the terminology correct. I was wrong above. The set of squares or rectangles cannot be mapped to the natural numbers. However they are all infinite sets so that the set of squares and rectangles are said to have the same cardinality or size.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 9, 2020 22:37:53 GMT
George Cantor might disagree with you here. You imply that there are more rectangles than squares. We can map (or make a one-to-one correspondence) between each member of the set of all rectangles and the set of all natural numbers (ie 1, 2, 3...). We can make the same mapping of all squares with the natural numbers. Therefore I would suggest (and I believe Cantor proved) that the set of all rectangles and the set of all squares are the same size. That is ridiculous. Obviously there are more rectangles than squares. Both numbers are infinite, but one is bigger than the other - just like the number of multiples of 3 is bigger than the numbers of multiples of 5 (even though both are infinite). Actually multiples of 3 can be put into one-to-one correspondence with multiples of 5, and therefore have the same count. This is easy to verify. What's a bit more mind-blowing is that Cantor showed that the points on a line are the same in number as the points in a plane, and therefore their count is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Jan 9, 2020 23:09:12 GMT
That is ridiculous. Obviously there are more rectangles than squares. Both numbers are infinite, but one is bigger than the other - just like the number of multiples of 3 is bigger than the numbers of multiples of 5 (even though both are infinite). Actually multiples of 3 can be put into one-to-one correspondence with multiples of 5, and therefore have the same count. This is easy to verify. What's a bit more mind-blowing is that Cantor showed that the points on a line are the same in number as the points in a plane, and therefore their count is the same.
That's only if you accept the premise that all infinite counts are the same.
|
|