Rob Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And, Pi/4 multiplied by the "parent" or
> "encapsulating" square area...
> will approximate the area of that "child" circle
> in ratio to the square.
>
> this "could" concern the RMP 50.. because it shows
> how the square and circle are seen in geometry...
> and math.... combined.

Hi Rob:

You must find a means of linking this ratio to the RMP 50.
This problem "adjusts" the width of a circle with a constant then squares the result...whereas our method is squaring the width and multiplying by the constant...pi. That verifies, in a "nut-shell", that pi was "not used" to solve the problem.

What irks me most is those who have studied this document use problem 50 to make claim that the AE only knew pi to an accuracy of 3.16+, when in fact the author didn't use pi to resolve the problem.
They can't have it both ways...
From another view it is equivalent to stating that the problem does not refer to pi, therefore the author didn't know of its existence...guilty before proven innocent.

> Ahmes didn't get 100% on the Rhind Papyrus, or
> some of the results were shown to be in error.....
> so, i don't think his solution was "the" solution
> ....just "a" solution....

Now we are getting there....good analysis.
Study the errors...they always help.
How often have you written an incorrect word or entered the wrong number in a math question. Edit the work yourself and its difficult to find the errors.

> there is much speculation as to whether AE knew or
> experimented with roots or not. Even professor
> Assem Deif has written recent articles speculating
> such...

They knew the root values very well.
As you are aware, root values can be derived from basic geometry, so why and what was there for them to expand upon?

> I was just offering what i could see via the
> geometric approach....
> doesn’t mean it applies to AE... and the RMP
> directly...

Why not?
Don't run off when you have a legitimate point...try expand with more samples to back your statements. "Simple" drawings speak volumes...you are doing fine.

> Use of Square to get to the Pi... seems legit for RMP 50.

Too vague, try rephrase in greater detail....

> i trust that should assist to better explain the
> diagram previously posted.
> good evening.

You did well Rob...excellent input.

Best.
Clive