Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony:
>
> You wanted evidence of the number pi at Giza
> didn't you?
No.
I wanted evidence of intent for the encoding of 3 1/7 at Giza, as a representation of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.
> I have mentioned previously, the ratios expressed
> at Giza are mathematical.
I don't see a Nobel Prize headed your way for that brilliant statement. Sorry.
> It is a waste of energy
> and time for any individual to illustrate a simple
> 3.14:1 ratio...there is absolutely no knowledge
> attached to it.
Only the knowledge OF it... and that knowledge appears to be absent from the Old Kingdom in Egypt, based on the evidence we DO possess.
> Don is asking for a mathematical
> ratio with some segment of G1 set at a value of
> unity...what's the point...what am I proving?
Your ability to repeat the obvious?
> It would be equivalent of me expressing 365.256
> (number of days to an Earth year). Who on this
> planet would leave such a message?
A modern astronomer.
> If you, the reader, do not know pi or the number
> of days to an Earth year then you are not
> mathematically capable of understanding any
> measures in geometry or astronomy that I wish to
> leave.
And if they, as Egyptians, did not know Pi or the
exact number of days in a year, then they were not mathematically capable of "encoding" those measures in their buildings.
There. That was easy.
> It was wiser for the designers to express the
> "application" of a known constant rather than its
> basic value.
If the evidence says they didn't have it, then they wouldn't have gone around making it even more complicated... because they didn't have it. Show they had it, then you can make it more complicated. Not until then, though.
>
> An example: The 4/pi or 28:22 sekhed that you have
> discussed over the past several days has two very
> important mathematical relationships to a circle.
>
> a) A circle drawn tangential to a square's
> boundary has a perimeter to circumference ratio
> equal to 4/pi. That “is” the numerical ratio of a
> circle/square boundary relationship. As we state
> the number 22/7 being pi, then 28/22 is the circle
> to square circumference/perimeter ratio…a given
> mathematical fact…!
I could also state that 2+2=4 is a mathematical fact, and therefore you are wrong.
It's called a non sequitur ("That which does not follow"). Your facts do not lead to the conclusion you have drawn. I can't help that.
>
> 2) A circle having a diameter measure equal to
> 4/pi has an area equal to 4/pi. It's the one and
> only numerical value that works !
Ah, another factor that needs to be introduced in order to find anything resembling Pi.
Sorry. The "2" you need just isn't there in the shape of the pyramid.
>
> Two distinct mathematical examples using the ratio
> pi.
Neither of which have any relationship to the people who actually built the pyramids during the Old Kingdom in Egypt.
>
> Now…If I drew a circle having a radius of 109.34
> what message am I relaying to you?
You have too much time on your hands?
>
>
> Do you have the answer why these two numbers were
> selected?
For the same reason the chicken crossed the road!
(To prove to the armadillo it could be done.)
I'm sorry, Clive. Although I am perfectly capable of mathematically discussing all this with you (I was National Merit Scholarship Commended, mostly based on my math scores which were top 2-3% in the country), I am not going to engage in a discussion of modern mathematics on a board dedicated to discussing ancient Egypt. The two subjects are virtually exclusive, since their mathematical system was completely alien to the one you are using to manufacture and then find your coincidences.
Have a nice day.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2007 09:16AM by Anthony.
