> I will pick yokels apart, and with your own help:
> LOL, Rhind Mathematical Papyrus problem # 50 What
> is the area of a circular field with a diameter of
> 9. The written solution states, subtract 1/9 of of
> the diameter which leaves 8 khet. The area is 8
> multiplied by 8, or 64 setat.
> As previously stated the value of 256/81 is our
> value extrapolated using our methods from RMP
> problem #50. According to all records, if and only
> if, 256/81 were known in Ancient Egypt...
> IS OUR VALUE EXTRAPOLATED..
> Let alone what I previously posted that you are
> responding to and not responding to...
> Jacob...as I said, what we have to rely upon as
> what the ancients knew is not what they knew...it
> is a little bit of what they knew. Tell me...why
> did the ancient Greeks go to Alexandria and the
> surrounds to learn about math and astronomy if
> they could do so much better? The ancient Greeks
> were tremendous with delving into stuff...why go
> anywhere else?
> Why did Pythagoras go to Egypt to discover the
> Pythagorean theorem of a right angled triangle if
> he could do it himself?
> And on that note...the origin of 'pi'...do we
> ascribe the Greeks to that? Oh lmfao.
> When did the Alexandria Library get destroyed?
> Sheesh...Jacob, honestly, if you want to stay with
> a few papyri, you won't raise yourself to what
> math is all about and where it came from...you'll
> be stuck with children's math instead of
> university math. 8/9 and such is kid's
> stuff...that's why folk who keep investigating
> this stuff can't go anywhere above it. They are
> stuck in it...in a circle and a square that don't
> equate and they still try to make it equate.
> Okay...extend yourself for a moment: the circle
> has 360deg, 60 minutes per degree, and 60 seconds
> per minute...and standing on a hill, you can see
> the horizon where an arc-second can have 50 or a
> 100 parts to it - depending on your eye sight.
> Let's say 100. You have turned 1,296,000 parts of
> the circle into 129,600,000 parts to the circle.
> How much better are you in defining a value for
Way ahead of you, please read carefully the following, let me know what you do not understand, because the following is the essence of of all Ancient Egyptian mathematics.
From 6 years ago: Is it possible or even more probable the Royal Egyptian cubit is just an extension of or possibly the precursor of the Ancient Sumerian Sexagesimal Mathematics System. Since there is scant evidence showing the Ancient Egyptians having developed any kind of divisions for the circle, but since time frames run concurrently with Sumeria, it is not a stretch, in light of what follows, to substitute the Sumerian values for the circles divisions. That is a circle with a value of 360 * 60 * 60 gives a value of 1296000 arc seconds.
Calculating in the square and circle method demonstrated here:
1296000 x (14/11) = 1649454 6/11
1649454 6/11 / 8 = 206181 9/11, making the radius in arc seconds divided by 10,000 equals the value of the Royal Egyptian Cubit of 20 34/55, 20.6181818… arc seconds, a value used by most but normally rounded in decimal form of 20.62 inches. This cubit 20 34/55 inches (20.6181818...) which corresponds to all of G1 measurement within fractions of inches. i.c. The North Wall in the Kings Chamber 62 6/7 cubits (1296 inches), the horizontal roof length of Grand Gallery 80 cubits (1649 5/11 inches) and the width of the Kings Chamber. 10 cubits (206 2/11 inches). What this actually states is 1/1296000 of the circle is equal to one inch. but the mathematics in themselves are not hard evidence. Matching measured pyramid dimensions makes it hard evidence,
For instance the horizontal length of the Grand Gallery of 80 cubits, 1649 5/11 is 1/22 the perimeter of G1 improper fraction 18144/11 inches cubits or any other unit you wish to apply.
Eye of Horace division of one arc second 1/1296000 dispensing with the zeros since the Ancient Egyptians had no notation for zero, holding places by changing the hieroglyph. please find the following:
Eye of Horace divisions for 1/1296 divided by 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 etc is accomplished by additive methods i.e. 1/1296 + 1/1296 = 1/648 equals our equation 1296 / 1/2 = 1/648
1 = 1/1296
1/2 ... 1/648...reciprocal (648)
1/4 .. 1/324..reciprocal (324)
1/8 ….1/162...reciprocal (162)
1/16... 1/81...reciprocal (81)
1/32... 1/54 + 1/162 ...2/81... reciprocal 40 + 1//2) = (81/2)
1/64….1/27 + 1/81... 4/81....reciprocal 20 + 1/4. (81/4) this is an important number Catalog #6349 in the inventory of Turin Museum is a bronze cubit rod Scale B is 20 1/4 inches in length having no palms divisions, subdivided into 27 digits 3/4 inches. 1/10 of this rod equals the seked of the Grand Gallery. .
The record show only one instance of going beyond 1/64, but lets take it beyond 1/64 and see what just to see what develops.
1/128...1/18 + 1/27 + 1/162... 8/81.reciprocal 10 + 1/8 (81/8)
1/256...1/6 + 1/54 + 1/81..16/81...reciprocal 5 +1/16 (81/16)
1/512...1/3 + 1/18 + 1/162 ... 32/81... reciprocal 2 + 1/3 + 1/6 + 1/32 (81/32)
1/1024...1/2 + 1/6 + 1/9 + 1/81... 64/81...reciprocal 1 + 1/6 + 1/12 + 1/64... (81/64) 64/81 is also (8/9)^2 For those who have studied the Mathematical Papyri this is recognizable as part of problem #50 Rhind Mathematical Papyrus A = d^2 * (8/9)^2 also found in Moscow Mathematical Papyrus problem #10 where S = 2d * (8/9)^2 * d, which calculates the surface are of a hemisphere.
1/2048... 1/2 + 1/8 + 1/128 = 81/128...(81/128)...reciprocal 1 + 1/2 + 1/24 + 1/27 + 1/648 (128/81)
1/4096...1/4 + 1/16 + 1/256 = 81/256…reciprocal 3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + 1/81...(256/81) This I believe this is what we have erroneously interpreted as the Ancient Egyptian value for pi in Rhind Mathematical Papyrus problem # 50 What is the area of a circular field with a diameter of 9. The written solution states, subtract 1/9 of of the diameter which leaves 8 khet. The area is 8 multiplied by 8, or 64 setat.
I will try to explain, but I do not consider myself a teacher, and not sure if I can get the point across or that anyone will grasp the assumptions present in the extrapolation.
The opening statement for extrapolating 256/81 from their statement is π (d/2)^2 logically that equation demonstrates we have the knowledge of pi, but in no way proves Ancient Egyptian knowledge of pi. This only projects that knowledge of pi upon the ancient Egyptians. So the very nature of the equation in context makes the assumption the Ancient Egyptians had knowledge of pi.
Now if you can extrapolate pi from any where in problem 50 without starting with pi or the concept of pi, you are a much better mathematician than I. If you can I would do a dance of joy, as it would reinstate 1/3 of my research regarding pi and G2 and G3. There is no doubt our methods are quicker and easier, but not near through enough since no one seems to have noted this glaring error before. It is because pi is so ingrained and so absolute among most there are no conceivable alternatives.
Believing 256/81 to be pi is a common misconception arrived at by using our concept of pi, mathematical logic and methods to calculate their data, which as you can see, so far from these preliminary results are misguided. Our shortcuts do not always tell the tale of what was written by the ancient Egyptians.
Attributing a knowledge of pi in any form upon the Ancient Egyptians is pure unsupported speculation. Regardless of how many people believe otherwise. You are all welcome to speculate about 256/81 in free exchange of ideas, but please do it somewhere other than this thread. I can't ignore it, as I normally do, and to put it bluntly, I won’t feel compelled to respond to your post wasting my time trying to counter your erroneous circular reasoning and logic regarding whether the Ancient Egyptians used pi.
Have a great day!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jun-18 17:13 by Sirfiroth.