> you are so dead set on finding items like pi ... that simply do not exist in the Pyramids of Giza.
And dare one ask just how you intend to prove conclusively that pi is not present at all at Giza?
I fail to understand why there’s this big-end v little-end dispute about the presence of pi, or lack of it, in the design of G1. These are two competing hypotheses - neither is proven.
In fact, historically, the pi hypothesis has surely to be considered the prevailing hypothesis, the null hypothesis. It is therefore incumbent on naysayers to produce a compelling argument to reject it. Stating that the pi hypothesis is invalid because there is no written record of pi is far from compelling, because this is logically flawed. I repeat: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The case against Phi is an entirely different matter. You seem to be on stronger ground in this and when arguing in favour of an Egyptian mathematical context.
I’m led to believe that the hypothesis that you’re developing demands that there be no trace of pi at G1. I hope this is not so, because you’d then be falling into the same trap as the posters here, starting with what you want to believe and attempting by hook or by crook to reinforce it.
I see little or no proof here of anything other than that it’s possible to do what’s being done. I could lambaste it, but I choose not to, because I'm hoping that something useful or perceptive might turn up, as I feel has happened in the past. I don’t find the pi hypothesis to be the anathema that you perceive it to be. It’s a hypothesis, it could be wrong, but the existence of competing hypotheses is not the problem with this and similar threads.
It’s not the validity of the pi hypothesis that’s cause for comment or concern, it’s the nature and content of the argument.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Feb-19 02:14 by gjb.