> > > (Philip): Then perhaps you can explain how he can
> > > from Tura and head to Akhet-Khufu on one day,
> > and
> > > then on the very next day, depart from Tura
> > his
> > > way to Akhet-Khufu again.
> > (Avry): Because he just didn't write it down.
> So you're using what wasn't written down in the
> log as evidence of the log's veracity??????????
Let's look at your logic. Philip has a problem with Merer going from Tura to Ahket Khufu on one day, then going from Tura to Akhet Khufu on the following day because there is no mention of him returning to Tura. Now, even though what Philip opined is retained above in this post by way of quoting his post, I have the unenviable task of having to quote here again just in case you can't recall:
Then perhaps you can explain how he can depart from Tura and head to Akhet-Khufu on one day, and then on the very next day, depart from Tura on hisway to Akhet-Khufu again.
Philip appears mind-boggled: 'How can this possibly be?!?' (to paraphrase him).
If you or he or anyone can't deduce Merer returned to Tura and know so without him having written it down, then there is absolutely no doubt you are of the moron class. Or maybe you think he used an alien transport beam? A time machine? Certain things can be measured and understand by what is missing, as in this case. It is bloody obvious. However, Scholar Twit Philip goes on to apply 'omissions' to conclude ludicrous possibilities, or things that just didn't happen. There is a difference between something being self-evident and things that are not. Need an example? Of course you do. Simple explanations don't seem to click with you lot.
If the night before there is no snow on the ground and you wake up in the morning and there is snow on the ground, you don't need to have witnessed the snow falling to know that it snowed while you were sleeping.
Chances are pretty good you will not understand this. It is here to reveal to others how clueless you are.
> That's even better than your feedback loop in the
> algorithm. Lol
'Lol' indeed. Here it is again:
Am I surprised that I need to explain it with small words and short sentences? No. So here goes:
The black lines are your original drawing. You created the drawing to argue a point about the dating of the papyrus. I added the red lines. The red lines point toward what you concluded. Let me preempt your denial of having said so. I will quote you. Here is the quote, following this colon :
Author: Jon Ellison ()
Date: January 20, 2018 09:40PM
R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> A natural consequence of thinking of a different
> date means you must have one of two different
> A. Younger
> B. Older
C. Do not know.
After being confronted, you changed this to add 'under the circumstance of scientific dating' (namely, one could only imagine, C14). So let's go to your diagram, and review how your input applies. The following are all possible outcomes based on your chart:
A. Dated - Yes - (Non)scientific - Yes - Date Known (tentative: requires further input based on human doubt, go to C)
B. Dated - Yes - (Non)scientific - No - Date Unknown (tentative: requires further input, go to C)
C. Dated - Yes - Scientific - Yes - Date Known
D. Dated - Yes - Scientific - No - Date Unknown (tentative: requires further input, go to C)
E. Dated - No - Date Unknown (tentative: requires further input, go to START->Dated->Yes)
So. We see the problem. Well, we do. (I doubt you do, as I am sure your next response will show.) First, your 'personal' doubt of A kills the notion of 'algorithm', which is a pure mathematical scenario. The finality of the date being 'unknown' is false, as further input is required. Further flows also have to be added for the conformity of the dating techniques, which in the case of (non)scientific [he means 'relative' dating, folks] comes from the personal perspective of the investigator, and in the case of scientific may also be in doubt based on personal perspective.
Your chart is incomplete. You chart is misleading. You chart is not an algorithm.
Lastly, the whole original question of asking someone to explain why they think the date is wrong is not answered by your chart. It is deflection. Don't forget that even in the case of relative dating, the level of uncertainty in the date has been reduced by degree (whether by a lot or little), meaning there is no absolute 'knowing' in your chart. We find ourselves many pages later in the deep trench of obtusity because you and Woofy got flustered over answering a simple question --> Why would think the date is wrong? Seems you think so because it hasn't been tested scientifically. Hate to break it to you, but having-not-been-tested does not = wrong date; it just hasn't been dated with C14. You are employing an unknown to support an unknown.
> > Probably ... but maybe a timely algorithmic
> > can figue it out. May Ra bless us with such
> > divinity.
> That's a good idea.
Perhaps, yes. But not from you.