MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

MJ:
Ooooh...I see...it is you who is introducing the use and confusion over 3.141592654 and the 3-1/7 value. I was of the impression that you were accusing others of the decimal decimation of the number.
So we can now drop any and all connection regarding the ten-decimal placed number...correct? Because to continue with this is no more than folly...you will be running with it all by your lonesome.


> If you choose not to draw a distinction between
> irrational pi and approximation pi, then that is
> entirely up to you.

I have no intention of playing with multi decimal placed numbers...it's a pointless exercise.
The total length of the Giza site is 35,690+/- inches. Comparing this length and its significant digits is equivalent to a pi value calculated to three decimal places (3.142…or 22/7). Why would you try to defeat the simplicity of these measures?

> It may be of interest to you to learn that I was
> taught both values when I was at school.

So was I...electronics, electrical, civil, mechanical and architectural drafting. I know the value to 10 decimal places without the aid of a calculator...but 22/7 does the job perfectly.

> I recall learning that in some areas of
> engineering and mathematics irrational pi was (and
> still is?) obligatory.

I managed in heavy equipment manufacturing...to the 1,000th of an inch. The Pi value is set to the identical tolerance. So what...what has this got to do with Giza?

> 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

How the heck can it be "exactly the same" for the most part?

> 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.

I think you should study pyramid structural endurance and see for yourself how the AE "regressed" in their construction ability.

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

G1 is a huge pyramid...granted, but it is not the primary aspect of those built in the early dynasties. Dashure tells us more than you could ever imagine...and only two pyramids are used to express more than the simple problem solving RMP.

> I see your ‘was lacking of evidence’ as unwarranted.

Why?
What evidence did you present?
You offered a crumbling sub-floor of a chamber and the rough finish of an antechamber as precise measures, yet in the past you have been quick to tell me that Petrie's measure of the Grand Gallery cannot be accepted as accurate. That the height of the niche is not a ratio of the GG's length, so on…and so on?

> I concur that the post was confusing, but I feel I
> have since clarified it sufficiently to pass
> muster.

Too late...others had to direct you to do so.

> I cannot read Egyptian hieroglyphs but I can read
> English translations of them.

I thought you couldn't read AE text. Now I know that you are on the same level as many others on this site.

> 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.

Your input from previous was that confusion over some texts remains...nothing is definite. Therefore, what you have read is only speculation…and what you perceive from these writings is also speculation...a poor foundation for any theory.


> The simple reality is that the AEs used a method
> of multiplication and division different to ours.

Wrong...they added and subtracted...no more...no less.

> 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.

Petrie gave you measures to play with...he embellishes his belief of the rise-run and the 4/pi connection by providing upper measures of the monument.
He informed us that the apex would have reached 280Rc and that the base "is" 440Rc if built in accordance to the angled base stone (measures converted from inches to Rc).

That makes your hypotheses no more than a manipulation of Petrie's numbers. And this introduces another problem for you to resolve.
How can you prove that the Giza builders used Royal cubits, palms and digits for their measure?

Best.
Clive