On 31/07/16 14:02, David Kastrup wrote: > Wols Lists <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 31/07/16 12:46, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Wols Lists <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> Bearing in mind I live on the edge of London (the largest city in the >>>> world?) >>> >>> Well, if "the world" is just the Commonwealth and we skip over India, >>> Pakistan, and Nigeria (after all, an urban administration not able to >>> recognize the Queen as head of state is suitable for a hamlet rather >>> than a city, even if some of them play a mean Cricket). >>> >>> <URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_cities#List>. >>> >> Well, I believe that according to certain criteria, Kansas is the >> largest city in the world ... :-) > > I would have imagined that any criteria for "largest city in the world" > would include "has to be a city". Without that restriction, I would > imagine Asia to be a bigger city than Kansas.
Well, I thought Kansas WAS a city. And the city boundaries are well big - although most of it is land earmarked for development, and is actually pretty rural - not even suburbs. > >> But it looks like my general knowledge may be a little out of date - I >> don't think the population of London has changed (much) over my >> lifetime, but I suspect my figures date from when the population of >> India was closer to 400K than its current figure ... :-) > > India. 400K. That would likely have been a few millennia before > Christ, in the early stages of the Indus civilization. > > I hope you are exaggerating your age. > Whoops. I meant, of course, 400M :-) Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
