> 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
This (Rhind) text is not the basis of the hieroglyph meaning "pyramid".
It is not a frustrum(sic) problem , not even remotely a (actually "frustum") problem. Read even the English translation of it.
Your continuing vacuous efforts to sound like you know what you are talking about only appeals to lonely barking swooning dogs!
> 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
The problem refers to cubits.
Now it will be stretching your artistic imagination and MerKarnical Engineering knowledge but what do you know about AE cubits? In rounded (simplified for Dummies) it is approx. 20 inches . What could a 1550 BCE culture be talking about in terms of 280 cubits high and 330 cubits base?
That is pretty big isn't it? What else oould they be referring to?
What were they referring to other than what the/us Dummies call pyramids?
> 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
> IMO it's all about triangles, not pyramids. A text
> book on how to do triangles. Triangles for
> BTW do you have any idea what the glyph for a
> triangle is? Is there a glyph for triangle??
You pretend you know about Frustum (err sorry Frustrum (sic)) problems and yet talk in triangles to your (thankfully occasional!) mad barking audience.