Hello Clive,

I wrote, ‘1) the Egyptians of the 4th-into-5th Dyn did not know the irrational number pi (which we know as
3.1415926 ad infinitum).

You reply, ‘This is like a broken record...I will repeat. Pi, as known before the advent of computer, was "commonly" known and used as 22/7...that is what I was taught in math many years ago. And, according to the approximate age you profess to be, you were taught likewise.’
Etc., etc.

In order to avoid implying that the 4th Dyn Egyptians possessed mathematical skills beyond those detailed in the Egyptian Mathematical Papyri, I choose to distinguish between irrational pi and approximation pi, respectively 3.1415926… and 3 1/7.
If you choose not to draw a distinction between irrational pi and approximation pi, then that is entirely up to you.
It may be of interest to you to learn that I was taught both values when I was at school.
I recall learning that in some areas of engineering and mathematics irrational pi was (and still is?) obligatory, where as is in trades such as, say, general building it was (and still is, I am told) quite acceptable to take pi as 3 1/7.
----------

I wrote, ‘2) the Egyptians of the 4th-into-5th Dyn did know that the circumference of a circle is to all intents and purposes invariably 3 1/7 times the diameter.’

You reply, ‘This is good, but you must provide the proof. What evidence do you have?

Well, believe it or not my evidence is, for the most part, exactly the same as that for every theory ever written about The Great Pyramid (a.k.a. Khufu’s Pyramid or G1); it’s called The Great Pyramid (a.k.a. Khufu’s Pyramid or G1).

I also call on things such as the evolution of the Egyptian pyramids, the cultures of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Egyptian Dynasties, and the Egyptian Mathematical Papyri.

As this suggests, I see getting this Pyramid into its proper context as imperative.
----------

You write, ‘Your last topic posted re: pi was lacking of evidence, confusing to read and poorly presented.’

I see your ‘was lacking of evidence’ as unwarranted.
I concur that the post was confusing, but I feel I have since clarified it sufficiently to pass muster.
As for 'poorly presented', well, what can I say...
----------

You write, ‘To include the RMP problem #50 was unwise since you depend solely on other individuals and their concept of the written words of the text. You can't read it yet you claim full understanding of its purpose...IOW... it's hearsay.

I find this statement to be utterly absurd.
I cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs but I can read English translations of them.
If you are asserting that I cannot read and understand the English translations of Problem 50 of the RMP, then I can only assume that you are being argumentative purely for the sake of it.
----------

I wrote, ‘3) Multiplication and division by 3 1/7 or 22/7 were used extensively in the planning of Khufu's pyramid and its passages and chambers.’

You reply, ‘This is not true, according to your mathematical "experts", these same individuals whose writings you follow faithfully with blinkers set in place, state different.
These "wizards" claim the AE didn't know how to "multiply" or "divide"...remember?
But that is an incorrect "assumption" on their part...you and I know that...right?

It is blatantly misleading of you, Clive, to assert that experts on the Egyptian Mathematical Papyri “claim the AE didn't know how to "multiply" or "divide"...”
They do no such thing, and if you were to make even a superficial study of their work you would know this.
The simple reality is that the AEs used a method of multiplication and division different to ours.
----------

I wrote, ‘4) Khufu's architect chose Seked 5 1/2 for the Pyramid's slope because he was aware that the diameter-to-circumference ratio he knew as 3 1/7 or 22/7 was inherent in it.’

You reply, ‘A tongue-in-cheek statement with absolutely no foundation or merit attached to make it worthy of discussion. I would suggest you drop it from your list of four.’

The evidence is that Khufu’s pyramid has a slope at or very close to Seked 5½, and Seked 5½ has 3 1/7 inherent in it.
I hypothesise that the intended 280rc height and 220rc 1/2 base of this Pyramid was determined by Seked 5½ being seen as 28 digits rise to 22 digits run.
Perhaps you would like to make clear what in your opinion is wrong with this.
----------

I wrote, ‘Now, I see this as consistent with the views expressed by Petrie, Edwards,Verner and no doubt other authorities on the Egyptian pyramids.’

You reply, ‘One out of four is not what I would claim “consistent”...far removed.’

Sorry, Clive, you’ve lost me with this.
Please do explain what it is you are trying to say.

MJ