Simply because one cannot prove a certain thing to be true does not mean that one cannot conclude that the evidence allows for the possibility, or even the likelihood, that it is true. This, I believe, is the state of things in regard to certain published pyramid design correlation observations.

If your question was in regard to capability, I would initially suggest a study of Problem 14 of the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus, and Kahun Papyrus IV.3 (along with Rhind Mathematical Papyrus 43). The kind of mind that developed the solutions seen in these instances was certainly the kind of mind that would have looked hard to uncover at least the more immediate correlations that are in evidence in OK pyramid design. I am talking empirical discovery here on the part of the AE, not a Euclidian approach.

The paucity of surviving written documentation puts huge constraints on what can be "proved" regarding AE mathematical knowledge. I have found, however, that the deeper I study the few documents we do have, the greater an appreciation I develop of the intelligence, cleverness, and doggedness that underlies the techniques and applications used by the scribes. I think that one does a tremendous disservice to the culture by too hastily downplaying their capabilities.

Lee Cooper