Thanks for doing this!
A nitpick - maybe square miles per county, just to not have all those zeroes hanging around?
Also, I once saw something saying that the counties in California basically were larger the further you got from the state's early population centers at San Francisco and Sacramento. The mechanism is natural - if you're sitting in one place then it seems easier to draw distinctions between nearby places than far away places. I wonder if something similar happens in other states. You can definitely see it if you look at a map of Utah, for example.
It would be interesting but if we change to square mile per county we are not measuring the same thing. By doing counties per square mile we measure county density in a state but if we do square miles per county we are measuring the size of the county.
It's the reciprocal, which means it would be the exact same data presented. The state with the smallest area per county would be the one with the highest county density. Rank lowest to highest and list would be no different.
No it would not represent the same data. Pay close attention to what they are asking. Square miles per county in a state is not the reciprocal to counties per square mile in a state.
One is measuring how many counties there are per square mile the other is measuring how large a county is. They are not necessarily the same thing.
While there may be a correlation between the two it is not reciprocal.
> Square miles per county in a state is not the reciprocal to counties per square mile in a state
Sorry, but "square miles per county" (in a state) is, indeed, the reciprocal of "counties per square mile" (in a state). That's exactly what "reciprocal" means.
So, for example, California has 0.000354 counties per square mile - or 2822 square miles per county. (0.000354 = 1/2822 (roughly))
I understand the difference but agree with the sentiment from the other commenter that it's difficult to read with so many leading zeros for each answer. Took me a few seconds to understand which direction the list was going in because of deciphering the zeros. I think a different unit of measurement to remove the leading zeros would be the answer
I’m sure someone has said this, but a teacher once told me that Georgia has so many counties because the state government didn’t want the county seat to be more than half a day’s buggy ride from anywhere in the county. Made if convenient for county residents to deal with the local government, and a central place to do business in really rural areas.
TIL, 2 states are subdivided differently than the rest, Alaska and it’s boroughs and Louisiana and it’s parishes.
Alaska didn’t like “traditional” counties and how dependent they were, and Louisiana followed in it’s Roman Catholic past, going with the religious term.
Thanks for doing this! A nitpick - maybe square miles per county, just to not have all those zeroes hanging around? Also, I once saw something saying that the counties in California basically were larger the further you got from the state's early population centers at San Francisco and Sacramento. The mechanism is natural - if you're sitting in one place then it seems easier to draw distinctions between nearby places than far away places. I wonder if something similar happens in other states. You can definitely see it if you look at a map of Utah, for example.
It would be interesting but if we change to square mile per county we are not measuring the same thing. By doing counties per square mile we measure county density in a state but if we do square miles per county we are measuring the size of the county.
It's the reciprocal, which means it would be the exact same data presented. The state with the smallest area per county would be the one with the highest county density. Rank lowest to highest and list would be no different.
No it would not represent the same data. Pay close attention to what they are asking. Square miles per county in a state is not the reciprocal to counties per square mile in a state. One is measuring how many counties there are per square mile the other is measuring how large a county is. They are not necessarily the same thing. While there may be a correlation between the two it is not reciprocal.
I’d say maybe just countries per 100sqmi or something just bump the decimal right a few times
There ya go bud I edited it to make it per 100 square miles.
> Square miles per county in a state is not the reciprocal to counties per square mile in a state Sorry, but "square miles per county" (in a state) is, indeed, the reciprocal of "counties per square mile" (in a state). That's exactly what "reciprocal" means. So, for example, California has 0.000354 counties per square mile - or 2822 square miles per county. (0.000354 = 1/2822 (roughly))
Typo I meant to put "counties per square mile is not the precipice of square miles per county". As he had said "maybe square miles per county"
I understand the difference but agree with the sentiment from the other commenter that it's difficult to read with so many leading zeros for each answer. Took me a few seconds to understand which direction the list was going in because of deciphering the zeros. I think a different unit of measurement to remove the leading zeros would be the answer
updated it
Prior to becoming a state Kentucky was a county in Virginia. Guessing that the latter had an effect on the former.
A few people had issues trying to read it with all the zeros so I made it per 100 square miles to make it easier for you guys.
I’m sure someone has said this, but a teacher once told me that Georgia has so many counties because the state government didn’t want the county seat to be more than half a day’s buggy ride from anywhere in the county. Made if convenient for county residents to deal with the local government, and a central place to do business in really rural areas.
Dude, do the opposite, average area by county
I spent my first 36 years in West Virginia and Virginia. I never realized everyone else had counties that were so much bigger than ours.
TIL, 2 states are subdivided differently than the rest, Alaska and it’s boroughs and Louisiana and it’s parishes. Alaska didn’t like “traditional” counties and how dependent they were, and Louisiana followed in it’s Roman Catholic past, going with the religious term.
That is interesting. I didn't know Alaska was divided into boroughs. Thanks you for that.