Is not my hypothesis. It was Smyth's hypothesis, accepted by Petrie. I see no reason to disagree having applied the historical royal cubit to survey dimensions in inches.

Smyth saw the geometric form of the chambers, which did not rely on the unit of length.

Petrie insisted, rightly so, on converting measurements to either royal cubits (or palms and royal cubits).

Petrie saw no reason to search for further proof, as the pi aspects of the Great Pyramid were beyond all reasonable doubt.

There was no significant challenge to Petrie's pi theory during his life. Subsequent generations have been left to question his conclusions.

The historical evidence of written texts has led some to the reject Petrie's pi theory, but most Egyptologists have little interest in the matter. Petrie's first edition of 'The Pyramids and Temples of Giza' is not even in the archives of the Egypt Exploration Society (or wasn't in 2003). This isn't a matter of major importance to Egyptologists.

Petrie warned his readers not to rely on his 1885 second edition of 'The Pyramids and Temples of Giza'. Any study of Petrie's pi theory should begin with hundreds of hours of study on his first edition of 'The Pyramids and Temples of Giza', and then hundreds of hours of further study following up the references to Smyth's earlier work.

It is standard procedure to review the literature in any field of scientific research.

Mark