> They don't know what you're talking about.
> The mathematicians say the problem calculates
> frustum, involving calculus.
> Looks like a cone to me.
> But then, what would mathematicians know about a
> mathematical papyrus. And what the hell would you
> know about math, engineers don't use it ;) You're
> talking in terms these guys don't have a clue
> The bozos on this board see a pyramid glyph, they
> don't see mathematics, let alone calculus.
I just don't see how an illustration of a relatively straightforward triangle calculation problem and an unrelated mathematical description of a frustrum problem can somehow be used to justify the meaning of the symbol to be a pyramid.
I guess it could symbolise an isosceles triangle, but a triangle isn't a pyramid.
The scribe who wrote the papyrus made a pretty good job of drawing the relative length ratios accurately and in accordance with his notation, so if he's referring to pyramids and assuming that he has seen a real pyramid why are the triangles so acute?
As for the rope and beam thingy, without trigonometry it'd be a pretty good way of constructing and predicting any triangle.
I was under the impression that the AE made use of string and sticks to lay out simple geometric shapes.
IMO it's all about triangles, not pyramids. A text book on how to do triangles. Triangles for Dummies!
BTW do you have any idea what the glyph for a triangle is? Is there a glyph for triangle??