lobo-hotei Wrote:
> John Wall Wrote:
> > The "hypothesis", as I understand it, is that the
> > AEs used 22/7, 3 1/7, etc because they recognised
> > that as Pi (the relationship between a circle's
> > diameter and circumference).
>
> Really? Wow! Here I was thinking it was an
> experiment to see if a person could discern any
> purposeful plans for one of the boxes. Where you
> get this is another "Pi" thread in need of your
> repetitive decrying of "Pi wasn't in AE" is beyond
> me.

I'm going to the root of the problem.

> > Now, there is no
> > doubt that 22/7, 3 1/7, etc can be found in AE
> > structures (just as they can be found in Anthony's
> > bathroom) but in order to substantiate that this
> > was recognised as Pi (or an an approximation to
> > Pi) a text is required. Unfortunately there is
> > some evidence, albeit tenuous, that they may have
> > recognised 256/81 as Pi.
>
> Actually you are wrong on this as well. This
> 256/81 is made up of imaginary conclusions.
> The actual fraction was (8/9)^2. It had to do
> with a square with sides 8/9ths as long as the
> diameter. You found the area of the square you
> found a close approximation of the area of the
> circle in question. The only way it became 256/81
> was by including the "times 4" that represents the
> ratio between the Radius squared and the Diameter
> squared, neither of which is important in finding
> the area of a square.
>
> On the thread that got closed due to obvious
> reasons Dave hinted at something I was hoping
> would be followed up on but either wasn't noticed
> or didn't have time to do so. IT follows along the
> same "problem" as the area of a circle but
> involves the circumference dimension of the circle
> using the same setup(diameter and a square).
>
> Do you have it in ya to try and figure it out?
> Circular maths do not need to be applied. The
> mathematics of the square seems to be fairly well
> known to the AE with their use of squares and
> rectangles.

Read Gillings/Peet on MMP10.

John