Now Don, don't get me wrong, I do not support your findings, but not on mathamatical reasons. I also would not call them flat wrong. But I would not say they are supported either. There needs to be some archaeological or textual support to have a theory be what is called supported. It also has to fit, at least in some way, with existing understanding of its context. For instance, if you said they had a one unit square, I would not doubt it, or a 1-1 right triangle either, but there is issue in using either the pythagorean theoram or irrational routes, as they are not attested.

If you really don't know what Kat means by support, I would really suggest the book she contributed to. I do not say this because I want you to read it and throw your theory out or anything, just that it has some very accurate and scientific dealings concerning the process of supporting and gaining acceptance for a theory. Really, if even people that read the book threw out all the theories they read in and got the methodology, things would go much more smoothly in all respects. (I don't like posting the book here, as Kat contributed and it looks a little iffy maybe, but I am currently finishing it and it is on my mind. It is also accessable and somthing anyone can pick up from Borders and not have to go to a university library or through Jstor etc).