MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Anthony wrote: “Tell me, what is the only
> mathematical calculation relating to a pyramid
> that we find in Egyptian formula texts?”
> The answer is, of course, the seked.
The seked is the form of the answer, it is not, however,
the question. Allow me to quote the papyrus (RMP, #56, for example) in question.
Quote
56. Example of reckoning a pyramid 360 in its ukha-thebet and 250 in its peremus. Cause thou that I know the seked of it.
You are to take half of 360; It becomes 180.
You are to reckon with 250 to find 180.
Result: 1/2 + 1/5 + 1/50.
A cubit being 7 palms, you are to multiply by 7.
1 7
1/2 3 + 1/2
1/5 1 + 1/3 + 1/15
1/50 1/10 + 1/25
Its seked is 5 1/25 palms.
[
www.math.washington.edu]
This summary applies to the other problems on the papyrus that relate to pyramids:
Quote
Exercise 56 concerns determining the seked, given the length of one side and the height. The seked turns out to be 5 1/25 palms (per cubit of height).
Exercise 57 concerns determining the height, given the length of one side and the seked. The seked is five palms, one finger (per cubit).
Exercise 58 concerns determining the seked, given the length of one side and the height. The seked is again five palms, one finger (per cubit).
Exercise 59 seems to concern two pyramids - one with a seked of five palms, two fingers and the other with a seked of five palms, one finger.
Exercise 60 seems to concern a pillar instead of a pyramid. It is rather small and steep, with a seked of four palms (per cubit).
Whether this is a good translation or not is fairly meaningless. The point is, the calculations are quite mundane, showing the method for calculating a seqed, or dimensions from a seqed, but most importantly,
not the reverse. There are no significant seqeds, or ratios, that drive the dimensions, but rather the opposite. All values seem to be on equal footing, with no preference for one seqed or ratio, over another, specficially when it comes to pyramid design.
Of course, one could argue that they were giving instructions on how to decode a pyramid, aka, finding the magical ratio based upon the provided dimensions, but there is no indication of this kind of occult geometry in these particular equations.
> I pointed out that the seked is not “the only
> mathematical calculation relating to a pyramid
> that we find in Egyptian formula texts”, because
> arithmetic and rectilinear geometry were used in
> the planning of the pyramid’s passages and
> chambers, and arithmetic and rectilinear geometry
> figure large in the EMP.
>
Yet those do not answer the question as asked, and so cannot give relevant perspective to the answer that is so obviously attained.
> If this is putting words in Anthony’s mouth, and
> creating statements he never made so I could then
> prove him wrong, then perhaps he would care to now
> explain what exactly he meant by his rhetorical
> (as I see it) question: “what is the only
> mathematical calculation relating to a pyramid
> that we find in Egyptian formula texts?”
Then that should suffice.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.