Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Inactive » math-history-list

Topic: Egypttian and Greek sqare root
Replies: 9   Last Post: Dec 13, 2012 8:17 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Milo Gardner

Posts: 1,105
Registered: 12/3/04
Re: Egyptian and Greek sqare root
Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:33 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

2. Based on Parker's Coptic reporting of the approximate square root of 200 as (14 + 1/7) it s clear that a 'quick and dirty' method was available to construction workers and student scribes. The easy method inspected the quotient 14, doubled it, and multiplied the inverse 1/28 by 4 (200 - 196) = 4/28 = 1/7. The easy method considered (200 - Q^2), with Q = 14, hence, the 'quick and dirty' method estimated the square root of 200 as:

(14 + 1/7)^2 = 196 + 14/7 + 14/7 + 1/49 = 200 + 1/49

accurate to 1/49.

Modern vulgar fraction proof:

(14 + 1/7)^2 = (98/7 + 1/7)^2 = (99/7)^2 = 9801/49 = (9800 + 1)/49 = 200 + 1/49

C. GREEK ERA SQUARE ROOT: The Hibeh Papayrus data offers examples of Greek numeration based on Egyptian numeration as Gillings, following the work of R.C. Archibald reported unified rational number subjects connected to a 200 BCE text discussed in MATH IN THE TIME OF THE PHARAOHS on PAGES 214-217

Square root of 164 denoted as [164]^1/2 estimated [12 + 2/3 + 1/15 + 1/26 + 1/32]

without citing alternative precise historical methods, was this estimate the best Egyptian and Greek square root method? That is, was an accuracy of (1/160)^2 the best that was available?

1. An advanced square root method follows Occam's razor says:

a. "Quick and dirty" Method

(12 + R)^2 considered 1/24 and(164 - 144) = 20 meant an E(QD) = 20/24 = 5/6

an error that the scribe reduced by considering

b. 164^1/2 was nearly (12 + 4/5)^2 stated in terms of (Q + R)^2, quotient (Q) and remainder (R) form, or,

(1) 164^ 2 = (144 + 48/5 + 48/5 + 16/25) = (163 + 21/25), an error as high as 4/25

(2) to reduce the lesser 4/25 error,

(a) multiplied 1/28 (4/25) 1/7(1/25) = 1/175

(b) the scribe converted 4/5 to a 24/24 scaled unit fraction series:

(4/5)(24/24) = 96/120 = (80 + 8 + 5 + 3)/120 = 2/3 + 1/15 + 1/24 + 1/40

the last term 1/40 was increased by at least 1/175.

Actually 1/160 was selected by considering

(1/24 - 1/40) = 16/(24)(40) = 1/80, not enough

(1/30 - 1/40) = 1/120, not enough

(1/32 - 1/40) = 1/160, about right , hence replace 1/40 with 1/32

Pretty neat, to my eyes.

Any comments?



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.