> V= 1/3h [a*+ab+b*]
> V= 2x[16+(2x4)+4]
> V= 2x[16+8+4]
> V= 2x28
> V= 56.
> Not a true pyramid. Moscow Papyrus.
> Totally unrelated to the triangle problems
> addressed in the Rhind papyrus.
You've lost them with the math, hence the torrent of insults. When the trolls cannot understand the subject matter, they ALWAYS resort to boring insults. They can't speak math or engineering, but they can look up hieroglyphs in Gardiner's list or a book then brag that they can read hieroglyphs. It's a foul game.
I'm glad you have the patience and time to look at the math in the papyrus, and then share it with us. What a concept eh? read the numbers in the papyrus enabling discussion on how the pyramid shape is being used.
> The drawings illustrating the unrelated triangle
> problems in the Rhind papyrus used as
> justification for the 'pyramid glyph'. ???
> So we take a truncated pyramid (not a true
> pyramid) problem from one document, combine it
> with an unrelated triangle problem from another
> document, and then somehow conclude that the
> illustration of the unrelated triangle problem
> equates to a true pyramid?
That's possible, and is the only explanation anyone on this board has come up with. Ok, give them some slack, since the explanation is not to be found in Gardiner's list.
All I can tell is at the turn of the century, maybe before, Akhet was translated as horizon (one of the meanings) and the interpretation was "horizon of ______" (insert pharaoh's name). Then at some point before 1932 someone came up with the cockamamie idea that 'horizon' meant the pyramid itself. No explanation is given by an Egyptologist for this interpretation. I gather from the posts on this board that no explanation is necessary, it's truth because it's printed in books. Kinda like the fundamentalists saying the bible is truth because it's printed within.
> Call me a sceptic, but I find that somewhat of a
Oh they will call us much more because they don't have an answer. Their tactic is to disguise ignorance with hostility.
You also said:
"A cubit is a unit of linear distance measure, it can be converted into any other unit of linear distance measure.
Which drawing illustrates an object of 220 cubits high and 330 cubits at the base?"
Do you mean that be it a cubit or inch or foot or meter, it is just a 'unit' of measure all of which can and are used to calculate triangles? And are not restricted to building pyramids.
And which problem no. DOES address 220 high X 330 wide?? Is this papyrus under lock and key at the British Museum with no digital copy available?