Seacoast shapes are examples of highly involved curves with the property that — in a statistical sense — each portion can be considered a reduced-scale image of the whole. This property will be referred to as ‘‘statistical self-similarity.’’ The concept of ‘‘length’’ is usually meaningless for geographical curves. They can be considered superpositions of features of widely scattered characteristic sizes; as even finer features are taken into account, the total measured length increases, and there is usually no clear-cut gap or crossover, between the realm of geography and details with which geography need not be concerned.

Quantities other than length are therefore needed to discriminate between various degrees of complication for a geographical curve. When a curve is self-similar, it is characterized by an exponent of

similarity, D, which possesses many properties of a dimension, though it is usually a fraction greater that the dimension 1 commonly attributed to curves.

*B. Mandelbrot,* “How long is the coast of Britain? Statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension”, *Science*: 156, 1967, pp. 636-638.

One cool consequence: the number of dimension(s) of the west coast of Britain is 1.25.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

I was just thinking this same thing as I ate my pancakes this morning.

I hope it didn’t ruin them. I forbid myself any thought at all during breakfast. coffee sips should echo in the void.

Fractals and Chaos are fascinating but 1.25. what ?

well, that’s the number of dimension(s) of the coast. not a mere 1-dimensional curve, not a 2-dimensional surface, a 1.25 dimensional object.

this crazy concept is the real meaning of the abused ‘fractal’ (often mistaken for the trippy visual representations of Mandelbrot sets)

nothing crazy there, it’s just different.

well, it seemed quite crazy to most at first. especially in the beginnings, when Peano was playing with his squaroid curve in the late 19th

(actually, anything having to do with transfinite arithmetic was deemed loony by lots of the conservative mathematicians of the time)

should have been clearer. good question, as usual

you’re never clear but thanks… 😆