I'm afraid you are all focussing on the wrong walls/s.
My fault - I should have provided a link.

The ones I have in mind are those referred to by Clive in the thread [www.hallofmaat.com] and subsequent related threads.
Do bear in mind that these particular walls - what's left of them - are just one example of the doubtful reference points 'found' at Giza.

I don't deny the possibility of some of the arithmetical/geometrical patterns found being intentional.
But I do have serious doubts about these patterns encoding any kind of information (square roots, planetary cycles, and so on).

As much as I admire (from a technical viewpoint) the efforts of Clive, Don, Ogygos and others, I feel that churning out pattern after pattern is getting everybody nowhere.
I already feel that the Giza Plateau is in imminent danger of becoming like Salisbury Plain and disappearing under a bewildering and impenetrable mesh of geometric patterns.

Would it not be sensible to put the proverbial brakes on and go back to the beginning?
For example, take an obvious - to us - meaningful geometric pattern (say, a right-angled triangle formed by the clear-cut corners of three major structures from the same period, and containing the square root of 3) and ask ourselves: was what we see/find in this geometric shape as meaningful to the AEs as it is to us - and then set out to find the answer?

Now I think about it, the biggest single problem is the way that discoverers of these 'meaningful' patterns keep skirting the question of intent.
For example (a rather simple one, I admit, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment), the floorplan of the King's Chamber is a 2 x 1 (1 x 2, if one prefers) rectangle.
What was the AEs intent here?
To show the world that they knew the square root of 5 and, by dividing the floorplan into two squares, the square root of 2?
Or was there no such intent and the floorplan is 2 x 1/1 x 2 because, say, the planner found it aesthetically pleasing?

I'm going to put my neck in a noose here and suggest that 99% plus of the 'meaningful arithmatical/geometrical patterns' being discovered at Giza are entirely imaginary.
If you think I'm wrong (and I accept I could well be), then play fair and provide at least some evidence of intent.

Regards to all,

MJ