Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>> Clive Wrote:
> > Some look at hieroglyphs and think in these
> > identical terms...excluding pyramids, circles,
> > squares and pi of course.
> What does that statement have to do with the
> present discussion?
Parallelism...a comparison to your statement.
> > I known that very well, but who is arguing with no
> > evidence?
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here ...
I will ask again...Who is arguing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
What evidence is absent?
> My only point was...some circular architecture, or circular
> motifs, seems a good way of recording their
> achievement.
No it was not...!
You originally stated that constructing “a” circle would suffice in the ancients suggesting they knew the pi ratio of a circle.
> However, there isn't any evidence
> that they did grasp the significance of this
> formula, so perhaps it's not surprising...
The surprise is you...
Five days of discussion with this group and you still do not understand...pi is “not” a formula.
> ...that they preferred to stick with what they were used to:
> namely, pyramids.
Derogatory remark. Next you will be telling the world that pyramids were built only to demonstrate the AE's understanding of triangles.
> > "Self evident" is an assumption only and simple to
> > state, but try and prove it...that's another story.
> 1. Pyramids are large constructions (especially
> the GP).
G1, G2 and G3...all three are large.
> 2. Do you have any evidence that 16th and 17th
> century European travellers concluded that it must
> be easy to put such constructions into place?
Do you actually understand what is being discussed here?
Difficulty in tackling and completing a task is not civil engineering, nor does it require mathematics.
> > > how it could be argued that civil engineering
> > > could avoid being dependent upon mathematics.
> > Good logic...we're getting there...
> Yes ... "self-evident", you see ...
No...I was being sarcastic...your statement is redundant.
If you do not understand math then you are "not" a Civil engineer...that simple...period!
> > > Gardner Wilkinson
> No, we're discussing your accusation that the
> mathematical abilities of the AE had been
> belittled for centuries ... remember?
I did?
> > BTW...was Wilkinson an engineer or mathematician?
> Some information on Gardner Wilkinson.
Quote from your reference:
“...Sent by his guardian to Harrow School in 1813, he later went up to Exeter College, Oxford in 1816. Wilkinson ultimately took no degree...”
Hmmm...another Egyptologist without a university degree...
Best.
Clive
