MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Quote:
> > The papyrus calculates pi as (8/9)^2x4
> > approximately = 3.1605 (a margin of error of less
> > than 1%)..."
> The papyrus does no such thing.
This is your chance to clear the air with Wikipedia.
> All that the EMP tell us is that the AEs do not
> appear to have known that the ratio of
> diameter-to-circumference can be used to
> accurately calculate the area of a circle or
> semi-circle.
> They do not tell us that the AEs knew pi, either
> as an irrational number or as an approximation.
That's not logical.
How can a anything/body "tell" you something that it doesn't know?
> > Please...since you have studied this papyrus, can
> > you post the confirmed translated texts of the
> > above claim so all can read and judge for
> > themselves?
> > Most appreciated.
> Anybody interested in the evidence for the AEs
> mathematical skills would learn far, far more by
> reading Gillings, Rossi et al.
Not interested in their work...just your translation of the script.
> There are differences of opinion over the meaning
> of some of the texts, but the overall picture is,
> so I believe, quite clear.
That tells me a total "nothing"...just rambling words MJ.
> > couldn't it be seen that the
> > square root of 10 is (8/9)^2x4 approximately =
> > 3.1605 (a margin of error of less than 0.1%...ten
> > times more accurate than the comparison offered
> > above for the value of pi)?
> The problems in the EMP have nothing to do with pi
That's what I'm telling you !
3.16 is "not" the assumed representation of pi but the sqrt of 10...!
> > What problems relate to circular measures involving pi?
> None.
Thank you.
> > BTW...what is the circumference of a circle having a radius equal to 3.1605?
> Goodness me, Clive, you do like playing little games, don’t you...
> Okay, and just to humour you, the answer is
> 19.858
I calculated 19+1/2+1/4+1/16+1/32
> a) what the intended measurements of these pyramids were
> b) what their finished dimensions were
You are kidding us...
How many years did you claim to have studied Giza?
> how can you even reasonably assert that they
> “are precise and intriguing” and consequently
> tell us more about AE maths than the EMP?
The EMP only tells you how to solve certain problems...end of story.
> To be honest, Clive, I have more faith in the
> works of Peet, Gillings, Rossi, Robins, Clagett et
> al than I could ever have in your speculations.
Your option...but you must understand that you have now reached your limit of realizing the AE's total achievements; limited because of a papyrus scroll dedicated to solving simple math problems...unfortunate for you. The way I see it.
Best.
Clive