
Re: RMP # 48
Posted:
Jul 23, 2010 8:57 AM


Thanks for citing Lee's paper. Lee and I have been in contact for several years. We emailed each other last week, for example.
I can prove that Historia Mathematica only publishes Egyptian math papers that accept Peet, Chace, Struve, and the 1920's crowd ... the crowd had no confirmed idea, or methodology, to report how and why the EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICAL LEATHER ROLL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Mathematical_Leather_Roll
was written as it was!
My EMLR paper was published in India in 2001, that opened the EMLR and 2/n table construction method to modern eyes.
The 1920s crowd, including Gillings, and as late as RobinsShute in 1987, Ahmes' 2/n table was not fairly read either (additive blinders are hard to remove).
A version of a correct view has been online since 2006:
http://rmprectotable.blogspot.com/
Note the vivid abstract number theory that dominated all of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom math texts!
That is, taking a singular geometry focus attempting to fairly decode MMP 10, or related RMP geometry problems, assumes that Euclidean insights appropriately assists  The "Greek geometry" approach does not work! Egyptian arithmetic is needed early on to decode MMP 10!
Egyptian arithmetic and rational number n/p used LCM m to scale n/p to mn/mp to write a concise unit fraction series (by inspecting the divisors of m, and adding them, and at times p) discussed on Wikipedia per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus_2/n_table
using the example:
to convert 2/53 Ahmes reported in RMP 36 these facts:
2/53 x (30/30) = 60/1590 = (53 + 5 + 2)/1590
such that:
2/53 = 1/30 + 1/318 + 1/795
the same series as the 2/n table used m = 30, numerator mn = 60 citing (53 + 5 + 2), recorded in red, a level of info embedded in MMP 10, oddly not discussed in the scribes shorthand notes. Lee left out Ahmes' 2/n table info because the MMP scribe seemed not to use it ... but the MMP scribe did use it ... again I'll prove my position line by line ... referencing the ancient texts ... a form of analysis that is based on my years of training as a military cryptanalyst, cited in an IEEE article:
http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Cryptography
Why have vivid Middle Kingdom 2/n and n/p conversion facts not been discussed by Lee, and yourself?
One reason is that the journal Historia Mathematica will not publish your paper if you do ... censorship at its worst!
I submitted three RMP 2/n tables to HM in the early 1990's based on
(2/p  1/A) = (2A  p)/Ap
a subtraction context that was used in the Liber Abaci
http://liberabaci.blogspot.com/
Had HM published any of my three medieval rational number conversion methods as Ahmes' 2/n table method in the early 1990's, the paper would have been intellectually correct in a general way, but incomplete by not discussing red auxiliary aspects of Middle Kingdom scribal thinking. I would have quickly corrected my errors in judgment.
All the 1920s scholars are dead ... who will be allowed to correct their errors in judgment (that considered minimalist additive aspects of the EMLR, RMP and MMP 10)?
Best Regards,
Milo Gardner

