On 31/07/16 19:22, David Kastrup wrote: >>>> >>> 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. > Well, there may be a few minuscule towns named "Kansas", but the > "proper" Kansas is a state. You were probably thinking of Kansas City.
Well, if you're going to be pedantic, the figures for London are completely wrong as well. I believe the population of the City of London is in the low thousands. The figure in your web-page is for Greater London, most of which is not London at all ... :-) > >> > And the city boundaries are well big - although most of it is land >> > earmarked for development, and is actually pretty rural - not even >> > suburbs. > Uh, what? > Yes! As I understand it, the official city boundary extends far beyond the built up area. Weird I know, but ... Dunno where I picked up on that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was when I visited my aunt and cousins who live there. Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
