[pct-l] (Guest Post) PCT Total Vertical Gain?

[ROYROBIN@aol.com (ROYROBIN@aol.com)]

<<  I can tell you that 318,563 feet won't get you through California. That 
may be the "book" value, but it's not even close to the total elevation 
gain....
 
 Jim:  Since I was not privy to the methods used to collect the data, I made 
no defense. >>

The people on this list are pretty sharp.  (Well, except maybe for Monte's 
pistols and pretty legs thread.)  There is a right answer to this PCT total 
elevation gain question, but no "correct" answer.  Have you heard of 
fractals?  This is the perfect fractional dimension problem.  

How far is it around a lake?  It's obviously a two-dimensional problem.  
Right?  Water is level.  You can look at a map of the lake and measure the 
distance around it.  But if you go out and pace the distance around the 
water's edge, you'll get a larger number.  Why?  Because your 2 to 3 foot 
stride takes into account all the  irregularities that don't show on the map. 
 Now, go around the lake again, measuring the water's edge one millimeter at 
a time (or one micrometer.)  Whoa!  The distance becomes really, really 
large!  You begin to understand that the distance around the lake is a 
fractal, something more than two dimensions but less than three.

So, how should we measure the "true" total vertical gain on the PCT?  There 
is no correct answer, because it is a fractional dimension problem.  However, 
there is a right answer.  There is a right answer for you, and there is a 
slightly different right answer for me.  Don't use a map of the highs and 
lows; definitely do not go out there with a millimeter scale.  Simply add up 
each and every elevation change, up or down, that you accomplish with YOUR 
stride, then add up the "ups".  That is YOUR right answer.  (And you thought 
fractals were difficult.)  If one of the class of "01 would be so kind as to 
do the math and tell us the "right" answer to this question, we would be 
grateful!