You are right again.
The perpendicular height is approximately 16 palms, but as I have pointed out it is actually 2/3 digit more than 16 palms, which might be regarded as either build error or survey error, but for the fact that the vertical height is precisely 72 digits for the measured slope which draws attention to the the length of the passage as 72 cubits.
The architect designed the width of the passage as the seked of the slope not only for the upper section of the Ascending Passage but also for the upper section of the Entrance Passage. Just one agreement would be conspicuous, but two passages with the same design confirms that the seked was important to the architect.
The very first paper in the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Architecture feature's Maya's cubit ruler and the magnification tool shows that the digit was divided into 2 parts, 3 parts, 4 parts, 5 parts and so on up to 16 parts with the smallest division corresponding to 1/64 palm.
The seked in the Rhind Mathematical is in palms, so I calculated the seked of the Ascending Passage in palms on another recent post, which is conspicuous as 14 palms plus 7/22 palms.
The extra 7/22 palms (14/11 digits) reduces the slope by about half a degree.
This equates to a rise of 28 digits for a run of 57 digits plus 3/11 digits
The sequential division of the digit includes 11 divisions on Maya's ruler. A very precise template could have been made by marking a larger triangle on a flat base.
eg a short side of 11 cubits and a long side of 22 cubits plus 1/2 cubit (22.5 cubits)
The fact that the digit had a variable number of divisions shows us that Maya must have understood that say 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 1
And that 2/6 + 4/6 = 6/6 = 1
The Rhind Mathematical Text was obviously just a beginner's text.
11 times 14/11 digits = 14 digits (an extra half cubit on the run of 22 cubits for a rise of 11 cubits).
There was no need to measure accurately to 1/11 digit, but the ceremonial cubit shows that Maya understood the significance of dividing the digit as unit fractions and also as the sum of complex fractions because this is the inescapable conclusion of handling such a measuring device.
Mark
