Hi C Wayne,

> This may sound like a quibble at first, but please
> bear with me. I am not arguing a theory--at least
> where the slope of Khufu's pyramid is concerned.
> I am suggesting that it is reasonable (= "not
> unreasonable") for one to believe that "P" was
> very probably a factor in the slope selection.

P equal, more or less, to one-quarter of (diameter/circumference ratio). So, for this statement to be true, the AE would have had to recognise the diameter/circumference ratio ...

In
> other words, it is not true that the debate over
> the slope is closed.

Well, I'm sure that that statement, C. Wayne, even if no other, will certainly prove to be true!

> Regarding the "therefore", I'm not certain I
> understand your comment but perhaps two points
> will help. First, if you mean that you don't see
> A leading to B leading to Conclusion, you won't.

Ah ...

> The argument is inductive--

A universal principle arising from the consideration of particular examples ...

not one of formal
> logic.

But the use of the word "therefore" in the context in which you used it suggests to me that I am looking at an argument based on logic ...

The pieces of evidence on each side of the
> debate are weighed to see which way the scales
> tip.

OK, but ... does that process form part of an inductive argument ... ??

Second, if you mean you don't see
> specifically the relevance of the Rhind Problem
> 50, I would make the following observation. I
> initially included the reference not so much to
> support the argument but to counter the rebuttal
> that the Rhind Problem 50 disproves the argument.
> In subsequent postings I have included my view
> that the Rhind Problem 50 carries some small
> positive weight for the argument. See for
> elaboration:

(Your post to Joanne)

C. Wayne:
>the argument is framed in terms of what beliefs/views/opinions are reasonable. The argument is, in effect, a counter to the position that "P" being a factor in the slope is unreasonable. The argument stands for the proposition that it is possible for reasonable minds to differ on the "P" factor.

>"I don't think the Rhind is a very strong piece of evidence because of the 800 year time seperation. But, it does show that at some point prior to c. 1797 BC the Egyptians were aware of the "P" concept. The argument is that it is not unreasonable to entertain the possibility that that awareness existed by the time of Khufu. And, awareness of "P" is a necessary condition for "P" being a factor."

Yes, but how do we know that they knew about it a long time before it was described in pRhind? For all we know to the contrary, it might have been no more than a century …

I would argue that, from the available textual and architectural evidence (e.g., the lack of circular buildings {apart from granaries}, a reasonable person would conclude that the AE had not worked out what the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle was, and had to wait (I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong here) for the Babylonians to explain it to them. I can’t accept the slope of the GP as providing any evidence in your argument, as the slope of the GP is straight, and not curved! I regret to say that I’m entirely ignorant about the construction methods used in the GP, but, if were an architect or civil engineer involved in its planning, I’d be concerned solely about what degree of slope would be able to best accommodate all the stresses and strains and forces, etc. etc., in the stonework. That would seem the most reasonable state of affairs to me ...


Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me