Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ:
>
> See...“Mathematical knowledge”
>
> Quote:
> The papyrus calculates pi as (8/9)^2x4
> approximately = 3.1605 (a margin of error of less
> than 1%)..."
The papyrus does no such thing.
All that the EMP tell us is that the AEs do not appear to have known that the ratio of diameter-to-circumference can be used to accurately calculate the area of a circle or semi-circle.
They do not tell us that the AEs knew pi, either as an irrational number or as an approximation.
> Please...since you have studied this papyrus, can
> you post the confirmed translated texts of the
> above claim so all can read and judge for
> themselves?
> Most appreciated.
Anybody interested in the evidence for the AEs mathematical skills would learn far, far more by reading Gillings, Rossi et al.
There are differences of opinion over the meaning of some of the texts, but the overall picture is, so I believe, quite clear.
> Continuing with the quote:
> > “...The RMP's 84 problems begin with six
> division-by-10 problems, the central subject of
> the Reisner Papyrus...”
> If it's know that the 10 divisor is the central
> subject of the RMP, couldn't it be seen that the
> square root of 10 is (8/9)^2x4 approximately =
> 3.1605 (a margin of error of less than 0.1%...ten
> times more accurate than the comparison offered
> above for the value of pi)?
The problems in the EMP have nothing to do with pi – see above.
> What problems relate to circular measures involving pi?
None.
> BTW...what is the circumference of a circle having a radius equal to 3.1605?
Goodness me, Clive, you do like playing little games, don’t you…
Okay, and just to humour you, the answer is 19.858
Is this meant to be telling of something?
> Also...No. I have not spent much time on this mathematical papyrus. Giza, Dashure and Medium tell us considerably more...they are precise and intriguing.
Given that nobody knows exactly a) what the intended measurements of these pyramids were and b) what their finished dimensions were, how can you even reasonably assert that they “are precise and intriguing” and consequently tell us more about AE maths than the EMP?
To be honest, Clive, I have more faith in the works of Peet, Gillings, Rossi, Robins, Clagett et al than I could ever have in your speculations.
MJ
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/29/2008 04:54AM by MJ Thomas.