Morph Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indeed there are any number of fractional
> approximations, the only one known to have been
> considered by the AE being 256/81, and whilst i
> have always been of the view they could have come
> up with something slightly more accurate if they
> had desired, the real question for me is why they
> chose that numeric formula.

The answer is quite simple: it didn't matter to them.

They were a practical people. The number they calculated was based on grids (which is how it appears nearly all of their mathematics, engineering, and even their artwork, was actually done). A circle was just another shape that could be layed out on a piece of graph paper, the blocks inside the shape counted, and then estimates made for all those blocks that were only partially included.

Later on, people would draw finer, more detailed graph grids, and they could count a higher number of blocks with fewer estimations. They would take that count, relate it back to the grid, and come up with a more accurate formula for calculating things like the area of a circle. Simple, practical... and based on the evidence, plenty good enough for any purpose the Egyptians had for the calculation.

That's what is obvious if you go by the evidence we possess. If one wants to imagine there's other evidence and then base calculations on that...well, I know you're smarter than that, so there's no point in explaining why it only leads one away from Egyptian studies, and into modern psychological profiles.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.