Doug M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said pi.
I'm referring to the arguments put forth by DaveL, Petrie and such, and they refer to 22/7 as an approximation of Pi, with the relationship between a circle's circumference and its diameter as being the meaning "encoded" in the pyramid's dimensions.
> My point is that arguing against
> pi by arguing that the Egyptians somehow built
> structures with no intent behind the dimensions is
> demonstrably false.
Of course.
> It is also demonstrably false
> that over time after building so many pyramids and
> other related structures, that they could not have
> understood enough about the relationships between
> the sides, base and apex to produce a pyramid
> which has the dimensions of the great pyramid,
> because they did.
But I think somewhere in that thought is the concept that the dimension itself had "meaning". Is that what you intended? and if so, do you have evidence to support it?
> Those are totally separate and
> distinct things from knowing pi and understanding
> its relationship to a circle, square or triangle.
No doubt.
> For example, Pi is implicit in every circle, but
> whether one knows it or not is another issue.
Clearly.
> Therefore, just because someone has the ability to
> draw a perfect circle or understands the
> mathematical definition of a circle (not using
> pi), does not mean that they understand pi.
People were drawing circles and understanding them long before Pi was ever discovered.
> A
> definition of a circle is a closed line in which
> all points are equidistant from the center axis or
> center point. Just because the dimensions of the
> pyramid have ratios that some think are
> representations of Pi does not mean that the
> Egyptians did not understood ratios or did not
> choose the ratios in the great pyramid, whatever
> ratios that they did use.
Their ratios were, in fact, called "seqeds". They were based on the very practical construction application of "rise over run". Nothing more.
> It also is obvious that
> all the ratios in the pyramid are not related to
> Pi at all, whether they occur by coincidence or
> not. Making up ratios or finding ratios to fit
> such an idea is obviously wrong as well.
Agreed.
> However,
> that does not change the fact that by the time of
> the Great Pyramid the Egyptians could and did use
> ratios that would build a Great Pyramid with its
> constructed dimensions. That is a demonstrable
> fact.
Obviously.
>
> There are many slopes and ratios in the great
> pyramid, inside and outside and all of these
> elements of pyramid architecture were honed and
> developed over time, leading to the production of
> the great pyramid. It is a travesty to only focus
> on Pi and not the overall mathematical
> significance of a structure outside of any
> possibility of Pi and that goes for any of the
> pyramids.
>
We agree completely, but I don't know if it is for the same reasons.
Good talking with you.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
