| I'm moving in.... | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| RHIND MATHEMATICAL PAPYRUS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
ize=+2 color="#ffEgyptian mathematics on 6th Jan 1999 I'm 61 years old, from California, USA. The RMP and EMLR were both purchased by Henry Rhind in the late 1850's, in Egypt, and brought back to England, and laid unread for years. The first to be attempted to be read was the RMP and its famous 2/nth table, in the early 1870's, by a 'bootlegged' copy. By 1881 Sylvester and Cantor discussed the RMP, with several vulgar fractions aspects detailed by Sylvester in a manner that was NOT reflective of Egyptian thinking. By 1895, Hultsch suggested that the 2/p series followed an aliquot part rule, as given by: 2/p - A = (2A -p)/Ap (an algebraic identity) with p < A < p/2, and A being a highly composite number, such that: the divisors of A could be used to find 2A -p values, to exactly partition 2/p. Science Awakening, by BL van der Waerden offers a few examples of Hultsch's method, as Bruins independently confirmed in the 1950's. Sadly, historians such as Neugebauer, DE Smith, Knorr and other have tried to refute Hultsch-Bruins. Several suggestions have been offered following Sylvester's view of Fibonacci's greedy algorithms and other non-ancient Egyptian historical forms of mathematics, that has only acted to confuse Greek and Egyptian number theory. As proof that Hultsch was correct, 2/pq series followed a rule: 2/pq = 2/A x A/pq where A = (p + 1), for all but 2/35 and 2/91 and A = (p + q), for 2/35 and 2/91, as Neugebauer and his later adherents have sadly missed. More later, touching on the EMLR and its easy to read 1/p and 1/pq series. As clue to EMLR richness, it was not attempted to be read until 1927, well after an 'official' negation of RMP 2/nth table number theory had been published. Specially, line 1.0 of the 26 line EMLR read: 1/8 = 1/10 + 1/40 as computed by several historical methods, such as the duplation methods that appear in the RMP. However, line 1.0 is better read by: 1/pq = 1/A x A/pq where A = 5, or 1/8 = 1/5 x (5/8) = 1/5(1/2 + 1/8) = 1/10 + 1/40 as related to an out of order 1/8 computation found in the EMLR, written as A = 25, or 1/8 = 1/25 x 25/8 = 1/5 (25/40) = 1/5(3/5 + 1/40) = 1/5 (1/5 + 2/5 + 1/40) with 2/5 = 1/3 + 1/15 = 1/5(1/5 + 1/3 + 1/15 + 1/40) = 1/25 + 1/15 + 1/75 + 1/200 as not computed by any duplation method that I have ever seen. Again, this introduction opens a long closed door, that needs very much to be opened. Regards to all that wish to comment on this page. Please send comments here, or to [email protected] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
I will be moving my belongings in shortly. In the meantime why not check out the link below to get your own 20MB of free webspace? My first personal web page should now be posted. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
My interests: |
|
Favourite links
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been visited
|