Hello Clive,

You wrote, ‘The papyrus calculates pi as (8/9)^2x4 approximately = 3.1605 (a margin of error of less than 1%)..."

I responded with, ‘The papyrus does no such thing.’

You reply, ‘This is your chance to clear the air with Wikipedia.

Well, I’ve just had a look at Wikipedia’s entry on the AEs and pi and what do I see at the top of the page?
‘This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.”
I suggest that you will do better to read Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs by Richard J. Gillings, and Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt by Corinna Rossi.
There are several other books on the subject but these two are more readily available than, say, Peet or Robins
--------------------------------

I wrote, ‘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.’

You reply, ‘That's not logical.’
How can a anything/body "tell" you something that it doesn't know?

Look at it this way; if the author of the Rhind papyrus knew that the ratio of diameter-to-circumference can be used to accurately calculate the area of a circle or semi-circle, then why did he use the less accurate method of 8/9 of the diameter, etc., etc?
I think the answer is quite obvious: he didn’t know that the ratio of diameter-to-circumference can be used to accurately calculate the area of a circle or semi-circle
--------------------------------

You wrote, ‘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.’

I replied, ‘Anybody interested in the evidence for the AEs mathematical skills would learn far, far more by reading Gillings, Rossi et al.

You respond with, ‘Not interested in their work...just your translation of the script.’

I don’t think there is any real need for me to complete my own translation of the scripts – and nor do you…
Yet again, Clive, you only need to read Gillings, Rossi et al for yourself.
--------------------------------

I wrote, ‘There are differences of opinion over the meaning of some of the texts, but the overall picture is,
so I believe, quite clear.

You reply, ‘That tells me a total "nothing"...just rambling words MJ.’

It is so glaringly obvious what my response to this is I can’t be bothered to write it.
--------------------------------

You wrote, ‘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)?

I replied, ‘The problems in the EMP have nothing to do with pi.’

You reply, ‘That's what I'm telling you !
3.16 is "not" the assumed representation of pi but the sqrt of 10...!

This really is becoming farcical, Clive.
Please, please, please, I beg of you, please read and inwardly digest Problem 50 of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus and Problem 10 of the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, then come back to me on it…
--------------------------------

You asked, ‘BTW...what is the circumference of a circle having a radius equal to 3.1605?’

I replied, ‘Goodness me, Clive, you do like playing little games, don’t you...
Okay, and just to humour you, the answer is 19.858

You respond with, ‘I calculated 19+1/2+1/4+1/16+1/32’

Since when has it been okay to mix decimals and fractions in the way you are doing here?

3.1605 units expressed as an Egyptian fraction is 3 + 1/7 + 1/57 + 1/10102 units, and 19.858 units expressed as an Egyptian fraction is 19 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/41 + 1/3618 + 1/37084500.
You may find 19 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/32 pleasing or significant because of the sequence of the fractions but is not the Egyptian fraction equivalent of 19.858, it’s actually 19.84375.

Quite what I am now supposed to do with this info escapes me…
--------------------------------

I wrote that we don’t know ‘a) what the intended measurements of these pyramids were b) what their finished dimensions were’

You reply, ‘You are kidding us... How many years did you claim to have studied Giza?

Certainly long enough to know that contrary to what you (apparently) like to believe, the intended and finished measurements of these pyramids are not known.
Which length of the actual sides (if any) of the base of Khufu’s pyramid was the intended one, and which length of the actual sides (if any) was the finished one?
Of the various recorded gradients of the slopes of this Pyramid, which one (if any) was intended and which one (if any) was the finished product?
See the problem?
--------------------------------

You write, ‘The EMP only tells you how to solve certain problems...end of story.’

I disagree.
The Egyptian Mathematical Papyri are a part of the knowledge we have about the pyramids of Egypt.
True, these texts were written long after the time of Khufu, but that is no excuse to simply ignore them – as you appear to be doing.
--------------------------------

I wrote, ‘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.’

You reply, ‘Your option...but you must understand that you have now reached your limit of realizing the AE's total achievements; limited because of a papyrus scroll dedicated to solving simple math problems...unfortunate for you. The way I see it.

I would suggest that your opinion would carry considerably more much-needed weight if you were able to back it with at least some understanding of the EMP.

To close, I remind you that the mathematical knowledge contained within the EMP is more than sufficient for the planning of the pyramids - including those at Giza.

MJ