Clive refers to, 'Measuring circles is ancient math....!'

Anthony responds with, 'Prove it happened in Egypt in the Fourth Dynasty.'

The only way we can sensibly prove anything at all about any historical issue is by providing original contemporary texts written by the person or persons involved; and even then we have to assume that what we read is the truth.

IMO, without Mathematical texts from the times of the 4th Dyn. AEs Clive can no more prove that the 4th Dyn. AEs measured the circumferences of circles than Anthony can prove that they didn't.

Isn't it because of situations like this that we have theories?

IIRC, there is no mention in any of the four (five?) Mathematical papyri/leather rolls about a 2 x 1 rectangle.
Yet, in the King's Chamber we see a 2 x 1 floor plan.
But we have no contemporary texts telling us that this plan is intentional.
Are we then to assume that this simple 2 x 1 rectangle was created using some method other than simply putting two squares together?

Were the walls of the KC intended to be five times the height of a course (excluding the block above the doorway), or was a course intended to be one-fifth of the wall height?
Or were the courses/ wall height the product of something else?

Where do we draw the proverbial line in situations like this?

MJ