User:AnnekeBart/archive

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, AnnekeBart! I am Mychele Trempetich and I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! --Mychele Trempetich (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptians

Actually, it's that most ancient and glorious of customs, the typo. He does belong in the category; I simply entered the category name wrong. (I use HotCat, which I highly recommend - unfortunately, I tend to be a little quicker on the draw than I ought to be sometimes.)

Thanks for catching the error - and keep up the good work! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AnnekeBart. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Egyptian Jackal Barnstar
		For your very fine work on Ancient Egyptian topics, I award you this Egyptian Jackal Barnstar. Wear it with pride. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Any time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Neferirkare Kakai

Dear Anneke,

So, the new archaeological information points to Neferirkare Kakai being a son of Sahure now? Or is this a hypothesis as the article you cite says. Does this mean that Verner's hypothesis that Shepseskare was a son of Sahure is wrong or should now be disregarded? Verner I don't think argued that Neferirkare Kaki was a son of Sahure. Perhaps Verner did not have access to this new discovery you mentioned from the 2007 article when he wrote his 2001 Ar Or. paper? Just curious. Both Verner and the author of the article you cite correctly state that there was a struggle for the throne around or after Raneferef's throne--between 2 competing lines of the royal family. I would think based on Verner's seal evidence that the struggle for the throne occured after Neferefre's death.

The source you state says that Sahure's first son was Neferef, so it is a little strange that this son of Sahure would change his name to Neferirkare when he became king. And yet, this hypothesis is logical since a son ideally should succeed his father (Sahure?)....and he cannot be Neferefre/Ranferef since Neferefre was Neferirkare Kakai's son. This is indeed a problem. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: As an aside, here are a few photos I sourced from friends on flickr in 2008 and 2009 here or here I sourced a few more images but I stopped in 2010 for the most part as my health is not the best now. This is the proudest image I sourced and I have thanked John for his kind help on the license. Today, its impossible to take photos at the Cairo museum. I'm sure you have seen some of them. I did my best for wikipedia in the past 2 years and must take a break now. With best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

m ḥtp

Just wanted to say it's nice to have you here; I always found your website very useful and interesting. Welcome to Wikipedia! – Alensha ^talk 23:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wanna reward you, but I don't know how.--Mychele (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the message :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a message for you on Wikiversity, but I can ask you here. Can I make my account there? But what can I wrote here and how? I notice that you used pictures from wikimedia there.--Mychele (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[Kaemqed] On this page is image of Priest Kaemqed - was he the same person as the Prince Kaemqed, son of Princess Nefertnesu?--Mychele (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm on vacation. Will have to get back to you in about a month or so :-) --AnnekeBart (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know. Very well, I wanna good fun to you. :)--Mychele (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Input on Egypt

Hello, you seem to have a strong grounding in ancient Egypt so I'm wondering if you're read this book. The theory is mostly sidelined here on Wikipedia but the book itself seems to be very well-researched. I'd appreciate your opinion if you have one.--~T P W 13:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't read the book. I'm off on vacation, so I cannot really look at much either at this time --AnnekeBart (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to your question

Two days ago you posted a question to my talk page. I apologise for not responding earlier, but I have done so now, at User talk:JamesBWatson#Question about edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple page for the same person

You posted on my user page instead of my talk page, and I have only now noticed it. Your question:

"I messed up :( I had done a search on the name but did not find the already existing page for Prince Meryatum II. Now there are two pages: Meryatum (20th dynasty) and Meryatum II. I don't know if we can merge them? One should be deleted. Should I move the new info from Meryatum II to the old page? Sorry about this! I do try to avoid situations like this by doing a search."

Looking at Category:Ancient Egyptian princes only 3 out of 75 include the dynasty (and one of them is Meryatum). What we probably should do is merge any information we want to keep into your new article and turn Meryatum (20th dynasty) into a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GodsWife

Template:GodsWife has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox High Priest of Ptah in Memphis

Template:Infobox High Priest of Ptah in Memphis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Egyptian dignitary templates

I've placed a tag on:

Template:Infobox High Priest of Re in Heliopolis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox High Priest of Amun in Thebes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox viceroy of kush (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because they are deprecated and orphaned templates. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

I've moved {{Infobox Viceroy of kush}} to {{Infobox Egyptian dignitary}}, and edited all articles transcluding the abvoe templates to transclude that instead, passing the title ("Viceroy of Kush", etc) as the Style= parameter. Thus they are redundant. This I hope is in line with the consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_30.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Titles

Hi! Although is true that ancient tite wasn't prince but king's son, we can still say today prince.--93.136.89.215 (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (Michelle)

Yes, but why not use the actual title? Makes more sense to me. --AnnekeBart (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. You were on vacation?--93.139.117.239 (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Michelle

Order of Third Dynasty Kings

Hello, AnnekeBart. You have new messages at Chewings72's talk page.
Message added --Chewings72 (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, AnnekeBart. You have new messages at Chewings72's talk page.
Message added --Chewings72 (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to the Ancient Egypt Wikiproject

Hello there:

I just saw that you have added your name to the list of members at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt/Members‎ and I just thought I would hello and welcome to you. Anything that you feel you can do to lend a hand to Egyptological topics would be appreciated.

If you are interested in monitoring changes made to the articles that fall under the purview of this group, you might want to keep tabs on the Ancient Egypt Watchlist (you can find a handy Userbox for this on my page which you can copy if you like).

There are always articles under this domain which can do with some help. You can find these listing for these and more at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt page.

I have very recently finished a collaboration which has brought the Rosetta Stone article to Feature article status, and am planning on helping another user with the article on the Middle Kingdom, just to give you a sense to what I have worked on/am working on these days.

If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Meresankh page

Hi! Is this one of your new pages?Meresankh III--Mychele (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That page is at least 3 years old. I forgot my password to that server :-) The main sources for the information on that page are from Dodson and Hilton and from The Mastaba of Meresankh III which I downloaded from gizapyramids.org --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What you think about this? It's possible that Hemiunu wrote ancient diaries?--Mychele (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like fiction to me :-). Finding diaries like this would be huge news and would have been all over the news. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

However, if these papyri are real, it s interesting that something like that exist. Is not impossible. Djedefhor wrote some book about life and wisdom, and Egyptians have their own ancient literature.--Mychele (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. I saw this and just thought I would pass along the opinion of Salima Ikram on this purported diary, who called it "a work of fiction" (see http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/234944216-khufu-firaun-of-the-holy-quran/page__st__100 for the reference). Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture This is a picture of Meresankh II and some boy.I understand this woman is Meresankh, but who is that boy? Maybe her little son Djaty?--Mychele (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that's impossible to say. He is not named (for as far as I cans see). And the posture of him rowing the boat might just as easily mean he is a servant I think. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's possible that the name of that boy was there, but now is damaged. Anyway, the scene is kind a wierd because Meresankh is depicted seating. Very unusualy.--Mychele (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are researching this particular Queen, you might find some useful info at: http://www.gizapyramids.org/code/emuseum.asp which provides a detailed archive of the finds by the Boston/Harvard expeditions undertaken at the Giza plateau at the beginning of the 20th century. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I found this quite interesting. I am particulary interested in images.:)--Mychele (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove links that I added at Meresankh II's page. Your articles always lacks links. I think article need at least 10 links (if is it possible).--Mychele (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What kind of links do you mean? Internal links are important, I agree. I always try to wikify the article. I'm not sure there's a goal for number of links on anything. The content of the article and providing accurate sources from the literature is much more important (IMO). I guess that's what wikipedia is about anyways: we do our part. But please be careful, your original edit deleted quite a bit of content. --AnnekeBart (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian mathematics

Thanks for your extensive rewrite of Egyptian mathematics. It's a real improvement. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add a bit more about division and I think the piece about the "Claims about interpretation of multiplication" should probably go. It really does not make a lot of sense to me as it is. There are no references to that piece. Any thoughts about that? --AnnekeBart (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. I didn't want to be the one to remove it, but it seemed wrong in many ways. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Greathouse's conclusion is premature. Without reading Clagett, and correcting his many oversights, many of which were passed along by Gillings, Chace, Peet and 1920's scholars, there can be no fair reporting of Egyptian mathematics. Best Regards to all that read the hieratic texts line by line, and stop the practice of quoting scholars that did not. Milogardner (talk) Milo Gardner 8/2610

The point of a wikipedia article is to have something that is accessible to the general public, uses inline references to the sources that support the points made and avoids original research. It seems to me that the text in question here was not well written, not sourced and looked like original research and hence should not be there. Clagett, Imhausen etc are well regarded scholars and provide a reasonable source for an good article. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many unsolved problems associated with Egyptian mathematics. What items are on your list? Omitting your personal list of unsolved problems needs to be corrected. My list is included on my Wikipedia bio page. For example, were algorithms used by Ahmes? If the duplation multiplication operation was algorithmic, in what situations did Ahmes not use algorithms? Anneka, your suggestion " The point of a wikipedia article is to have something that is accessible to the general public, uses online references to the sources that support the points made and avoids original research." is only valid when the information that is presented to the general public is accurate, and not misleading! For example, your personal editing of the EMLR Wikipedia entry attempts to exclude research published after Gilllings' 1972 book "Mathematics in the Time of the Pharaohs". Gillings himself cited a long list of unsolved problems, the greatest of which was the 2/n table problem in which the EMLR played an 'unknown' role. Well, today serious researchers who read primary sources are reporting how and why the EMLR fit into the 2/n table unsolved problem world of Gillings. So let's discuss primary text world of Ahmes, and let Gillings' secondary readings of Ahmes pass on. The same is true of Clagett. His books offer wonderful transliterations. Clearly, Clagett's Egyptian math 'decoding' suggestions, copied Gillings, Peet, Chace, et al, leaving an unspecified long list of unsolved problems! Best Regards, 75.48.3.168 (talk) Milo Gardner Aug. 27, 1010. —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

Concerning Imhausen, a chapter in Victor Katz's over view of ancient math: http://books.google.com/books?id=3ullzl036UEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mathematics+of+egypt,+Victor+Katz&source=bl&ots=OTnENHqInE&sig=p53PzlgF0b7iglXjN6myFAwvW3Y&hl=en&ei=Gp-XS8OFHJD-sgPNw7TCAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false validates herself as an able Egyptologist that reads texts from inside-out. I saw no evidence of Imhausen reporting outside-in info as math historians consider. My view is that Dr. Imhausen follows the writing style adopted by Dr. Gay Robins (an able Egyptologist), and her husband Charles Shute (an amateur math historian), wrote the "Rhind Mathematical Papyrus" in 1987, transliterating hieratic texts without translating numbers and math into readable modern arithmetic statements. Imhausen skipped over important Middle Kingdom texts, not understanding the Reisner Papyrus that she did select, as an example of remainder arithmetic. She made transliteration attempts to decode the Reisner, but did not mention the Akhmim Wooden Tablet nor other Egyptian remainder arithmetic texts. Ahmes reported over 40 problems and answers in remainder arithmetic in RMP 35 (a problem that Robins-Shute discussed but did not decode), RMP 80, 81, 82 and 83 that reported a hekat unity (64/64) validated by Hana Vymazalova. Bruce Friedman and myself decoded the AWT (in 2005) by five division problems solving (64/64)/n = Q/64 + (5R/n)ro, with Q = quotient, R a remainder scaled by LCM 5 that always obtained 1/320 hekat ro units. Tanja Pemmerening precisely decoded a dja as 1/64 hekat from the Ebers Papyrus as a healing unit in 2001 and 2006 (in a PhD thesis) in practical terms. The Eye of Horus round off error was corrected in the Middle Kingdom by adding 5 ro, 1/64 of a hekat to weights and measures statements in theoretical ways. Dr. Imhausen's writing style jumped over Middle Kingdom scribal achievements, and Vymazalova and Pemmerening's 2001-2005 achievements, to the New Kingdom and Demotic texts that were influenced by Babylonian scribes ... in both directions. As a friend of Eleanor Robson, also an author in Katz's book, Dr. Imhausen tended to view Egyptian math from a Babylonian point of view, not standing up for or stressing Middle Kingdom math and weights and measures methods and achievements that continued in Greek, Arab, and medieval Fiboancci (Liber Abaci) eras within unit fraction math, trading and monetary systems. Best Regards Milogardner (talk) Milo Gardner 8/27/10.

Dr. Dr. Bart, reliability is a very important key to reading and verifying the contents and scribal meanings of the EMLR, RMP 2/n table, RMP 35, and four algebraic geometry formulas found in MMP 10, KP, and RMP 41, 42 and 43 per: http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7165959&tstart=0 . The scribes themselves provide the required documentation to decode and verify. For example, Robins-Shute reported a correct unit fraction answer to the division of 100 hekats of grain by 70. Scribal facts that were missing included Hana Vymazalova's (64/64) hekat unity, published 14 years too late to assist Robins-Shute to completely report 100 hekat as (6400/64) divided by 70 first as (91/64) hekat + (30/4480), second as (64 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 1)/64 + (150/70)(1/320) and as Robin-Shute accurately reported (1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64)hekat + (2 + 1/7)ro.

I'd like to add a positive note concerning Dr. Imhausen. Her many achievements validate that she is more than an able Egyptologist. It would be great if you, and/or another outside-in mathematician, created an ongoing team approach to decode one or more under reported and muddled hieratic math texts. Robins-Shute made great strides in the team approach direction, nearing a fair decoding of RMP 35, as well as fairly discussing the Hultsch-Bruin method (correctly evaluated as not used in any scribal text, but muddled with respect to outside-in mathematical methods that fairly tested an abstract decoding method. Were aliquot parts, a medieval view of number theory idea, used in Ahmes' 2/n table?) Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) Milo Gardner 8/27/10.

To me it's straight forward. There are a couple of things to point out:

1. I would like to see a peer review of any of your work that validates the results you claim. So far all I can find is a lot of blog entries and websites where you promote your own ideas. That's not scientific. I see a lot of bluster and long convoluted arguments that I find less than convincing.

2. Write clear entries in articles. So far I have seen a lot of writing that is borderline unintelligible. The statements of the facts should be clear and concise and explain the concepts to a non-expert.

3. Provide a reference to a respected scientific source. (bogs and websites do not qualify).

4. I feel no further need to get into long arguments over this. I honestly just do not have the time for it.

My regards --AnnekeBart (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dr. Bart: Thank you for your comments. Our current differences of reporting Egyptian mathematics will reduce over time. Reporting Egyptian math texts as scribes actually wrote down numerical methods tends to cloud certain translations to English and modern languages. Gillings attempted to decode RMP 41, 42, 43, MMP 10 and the Kahun Papyrus area and volume of a circular granaries by suggesting that Ahmes used a diameter D within a perimeter of a circle formula. Ahmes and scribes from his time period replaced radius R with a semi-diameter (D/2.) Gillings backed off personal views of Archimedes' use of related area of a circle formula. To speak of Archimedes nearer to Archimedes' thinking, Heiberg published a 1906 translation in which a 1/4 geometric infinite series was suggested to follow Eudoxus (too bad his writings are not available for review) by:

4A/3 = A + A/4 + A/16 + A/64 + ...

NOVA and recent Stanford researchers stressed a 'method of exhaustion' aspect of the Western Tradition's first calculus. Dijksterhuis wrote "Archimedes" in 1987 reporting Heiberg inclusion of Egyptian fraction aspect of Archimedes' copied and re-copied text with:

4A/3 = A + A/4 + A/12

Note that one phase of the Eye of Horus was included by the many time erased text. What was meant by the unit fraction series? In another forum I'd love to offer scholarly proof that Old Kingdom algorithms, the Eye of Horus being one, were corrected by finite arithmetic methods. For example, in hekat problems Ahmes and MK scribes added back 5 ro (1/64 of a hekat) to avoid round off errors. RMP 38 replaced one hekat by 320 ro, and elsewhere 10/n hin, 64/n dja and 320/n ro that allowed divisor n to be any positive rational number, thereby commenting beyond RMP 35 and a 100 hekat written as (6400/64) by divisor 70.

Archimedes and Greeks continued the practice. For a given geometric shape, a parabola in the case of Archimedes, an algorithm was applied such that a finite version of the algorithm exactly corrected round off errors within positive rational numbers. The issue of pi approximated by 256/81 used by Ahmes can not be argued.

Best Regards, Milogardner (talk)Milo Gardner 8/28/10.

Dr. Dr. Bart: Your peer review point requires a short response. In the early 1990s three RMP 2/n table papers were submitted to the journal Historia Mathematica based on a Worchester Poly (http://w.wpi.edu/) history of science department recommendation. Eberhardt Knobloch, HM editor, arranged an informal review of the first paper by David Pingree, Jens Hoyrup, and a third scholar. None of the 'peer review' panel read hieratic. Thus no one was prepared to directly comment on my use of (n/p - 1/m) = (mn -p)/pm a proposed 2/n table method that lacked red auxiliary number discussions. On one level the three HM submittals contained serious errors. Ahmes actually used n/p(m/m) = mn/mp with the divisors of mp written in red that summed to mn, as RMP 36 detailed, points that I did not appreciate until 2008, more often than Fibonacci's medieval (n/p- 1/m) = (mn - p) notation was mentioned by Ahmes in hard-to-read shorthand. Note that Fibonacci set (mn -p) = 1. At other times Fibonacci wrote (4/13 - 1/4) = (3/52 - 1/18) = 1/468 within one of three Arab notations, one named after Euclid, a very different series than Ahmes would have written (4/13)(4/4) = 16/52 = (13 + 2+ 1)/42 = 1/4 + 1/26 + 1/52.

I'll end with Sigler's 2002 Liber Abaci transliteration that reads much like Clagett's Egyptian math summaries. Sigler and Clagett were editors, and not mathematicians. Both editors omitted subtle scribal arithmetic points. Fibonacci took 120 pages to demonstrate foundations to justify seven arithmetic distinctions (Sigler's terminology), in total 1/3 of the LA. Ahmes took 1/3 of the RMP to demonstrate rational number conversions by unstated (by present) 2/n table rules, the foundation of scribal arithmetic. Readers of Egyptian math texts must learn to parse difficult scribal n/p conversions. Ahmes cited 30/53 and 28/97, solved by 28/53 + 2/53 and 26/97 + 2/97, respectively, meaning that Ahmes applied n/p = (n-2)/p + 2/p justifying 1/3 of papyrus space to the 2/n table.

Best Regards, Milogardner (talk)Milo Gardner 8/28/10.

Thanks for the response. The reference I was looking for is actually the book you published. That allows us to include information with an inline reference in the article. With an eye on exposition I tried to give a very short summary of what you proposed as a possible computational technique. The example illustrates that the technique does actually give the fraction expansion of 1/8 that actually appears in the EMLR (which is a nice point to make). I tried to keep the explanation rather straight forward and I think the inline reference as given makes it clear where an interested reader can find more information on this topic. More detail is a bit too much for the scope of wikipedia. It is not meant to read as a mathematics article. The references to "LCM method" and such would be confusing to the average reader. It requires a bit of work to provide the relevant definitions and go over the technique, and that's not really appropriate for Wikipedia. An interested reader should just either read your blogs or buy the book.

In a related note: I found the fact that the computation for 1/8 contained a 2/n conversion rather interesting. Hard to say which came first, the 1/n table or the 2/n table. Personally, I would not be surprised if they developed more or less simultaneously. They both are clearly very useful as a reference when doing computations. It's interesting that the 1/n table does not appear in the RMP. Unless it's incomplete and that part is missing. But all that is speculation :) --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Bart: The set of EMLR 1/4 and 1/8 scaling factors, with LCM 25 being the largest, offers fun topics. Kevin Brown discussed a wider array of 2/n table meta topics (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath340/kmath340.htm). Citing possible modern computations of ancient number patterns opens important doors. Filtering alternative modern methods to find correct ancient doors offers large challenges. Ahmes simplified the filtering process in 87 problems, two problems in particular, RMP 36 and 37 used of red auxiliary numbers (Gillings' terminology), and other scribal patterns that assist in decoding scribal arithmetic patterns as a math encyclopedia article should report. Excessive detail should be avoided, as you fairly mention, but not all ancient details should be avoided. Why else would Egyptian math topics be placed on Wikipedia? Wikipedia should discuss Egyptian math words and concepts in complete ancient and modern sentences. (talk)Milo Gardner 8/29/10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.0.77 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dr. Bart,

This morning Bruce Friedman and I cleared up line 5 of RMP 43,reported as a quadruple UNIT ... actually 100 HEKAT PER

http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7186142&tstart=0

Scribal math does give up its structural secrets ... given a little hard work ... Oh, BTW, over the weekend a Yale scholar working on Babylonian Larsa city state trade in perfumes from 1900 to 1600 BCE ... reported cubits and kar units ... well before Demotic script emerged. Look on Acamedia.edu for the 80 page paper, 36 in the body and 44 appendices -- filled with Egyptian unit fraction monetary units ... well before coins jump started a late aspect of ANE money systems.

Best Regards Milogardner (talk)Milo Gardner Sept, 7, 2010

Dr. Dr. Bart,

An Academia.edu discussion of perfume trade conducted from Larsa (connected the Persian Gulf and likely Egypt itself) mentioned cubits, khar (volume units) and unit fraction monetary trading units that looked base 10. The discussion is found at http://yale.academia.edu/RobertMiddekeConlin/StatusUpdates/46225/I-just-uploaded-a-draft-paper-that-I-would-like-to-publish-Feel-free-to-read-it-If-you-can-offer-any-advise-or-point-out-problems-and-mistakes-Id-be-very-appreciative , that discusses other Egyptian fraction economic and math topics on http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/EconomicContextOfEgyptianFractions.html .

Best Regards,

Milogardner (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Milo Gardner

Line 5 of RMP 43, and RMP 42 and the Kahun Papyrus scaled a khar to 5-hekats, as well as scaling a 'quadruple hekat' to 100-hekats. Scribal metrology units cry out to be corrected. Meta points of view are required to solve these issues. Attempting to read texts inside-out, the approach taken by linguists, and not connecting one scribal text to like-texts, the approach that mathematicians and code breakers MUST take --- at some point ... will continue to fight it out on Wilipedia ... Wiki-wars that are silly at their core. To understand and fully decode scribal weights and measures the Akhmim Wooden Tablet and Hana Vymazalova's 64/64 scaling of weights and measures rational numbers used in scribal remainder arithmetic, and line 5 of RMP 43 AND OVER 40 TIMES IN THE RMP must be considered. Ignoring these facts should end. Thank you for the discussions. I'll not bother you any longer ... until you or others that correct your 'dumbed down' entries on Wikipedia's Egyptian math project ask for assistance .... Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing dumbed down about what is written. Your comments are often mathematically wrong. You WP:OR and WP:COI remains a problem. I have no intention of asking for any help from you because from what I have seen you do not understand even basic mathematics. The comments you made are silly and pedantic. You consistently turn perfectly good pages into a disaster. I have suggested to some admins that you should be banned. I prefer not to communicate any further. I find you a complete waste of time. --AnnekeBart (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Bart: Name calling does neither of our causes any good. I do make arithmetical mistakes ... as do you ... we all do ... placing a PhD, or any degree, I have two, after a person's name does not protect that person from arithmetic errors. There are many math jokes about this topic. One is: who makes more arithmetic mistakes, a math professor or the student? Answer, the math professor, ha, ha. Contrary to your protests copying of Annette Imhausen's Lahun Mathematical Papyrus papers without double checking her work has dumbed down the arithmetic progression formula also used in RMP 40 and RMP 64, two other scribal texts that you have not double checked.

A professionally written paper, free from errors, was sent to you a few days ago on the Akhmim Wooden Tablet. Hana Vymazalova's 2001 paper was also provided that fairly decoded binary quotients and ro scaled remainders, multiplied by initial divisors, returning (64/64) five times,an identity that was properly titled: hekat unity. Your silence on this scribal abstract arithmetic topic is deafening.

As an easier task, try reading the first 124 pages of Liber Abaci via Sigler's 2002 translation. Sigler goes outside of Egyptian ciphered numerals and made a serious attempt to decode Fibonacci' seven distinctions recorded in modern Indu-Islamic numerals. Sigler's translation needs a little work, a topic for another day. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat: I have nothing more to say to you. This is going nowhere. You deliberately ignore warning against original research and conflict of interest issues, and create illegible pages. The mistakes you make are not simple mathematical mistakes they are fundamental problems. End of discussion. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Kahun Papyrus

Dr. Dr. Bart, you removal of John Legon's 1992 analysis of the text, and its obvious h = S/n + (n-1)(d/2) formula, that was confirmed by Sylvia Couchoud's 1993 formula and terms, h = highest term, S - sum of the arithmetic series, n = number of terms in the series, and d = difference between each term in the series, was also verified by RMP 40 and 64 by Ahmes himself. Let the ancient texts speak for themselves, please! Best Regards, (talk)Milo Gardner Sept. 1, 2010

Wrong page to be editing. Kahun papyri is a general page about the entire collection which is much more than just a mathematical text. The math portion is at another page. Please read the article before editing and avoid posting on the wrong page. --AnnekeBart (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Why the rush? The old Kahun Papyrus Wikipedia page has been redirected to Kahun Papyri. Hence, your comment is misleading. Put the old Kahun Papyrus Wikipedia back ... and our problem will end. Best Regards, (talk)Milo Gardner Sept. 1, 2010

There is nothing rushed. If you read the actual article on Kahun Papyri you will see that this is a general article. The mathematical papyri are described on Lahun Mathematical Papyri. Nothing misleading, no problems .... So nothing should be "put back" It's exactly where it should be. Like I said please read carefully before editing and putting material in a place where is does not belong. --AnnekeBart (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Couchoud and Annette Imhausen

Dr. Dr. Bart: the Lahun Mathematical Papyri entry was focused on incomplete and misleading algorithms suggested by Annette Imhausen, and other incomplete 2/n table discussions. Imhausen excluded Sylvia Couchoud and other critics that have not adopted her chosen algorithmic pedagogy, passed down by Jim Ritter. I have been reading Jim Ritter since 1992. Ritter's views use algorithms as a method to over value Babylonian algorithms, and under value Ahmes and Middle Kingdom mathematical texts. Imhausen herself over valued Demotic script and fragments of algorithms in her 2007 writings edited by Victor Katz. I read Katz's 1990s HPM (history and pedagogy of mathematics) newsletter, have you? Ritter and Imhausen's Babylonian algorithm may or may not have taken root in Egypt, and erased Middle Kingdom formulas that were not algorithms ... well after hieratic math texts flowered for over 500 years. Three Math forum discussions on incomplete and misleading suggestions by Couchoud, a well motivated researcher,

per: http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2111548&tstart=0

are submitted for your review.

Couchoud's views are internally inconsistent. At the outset, and/or in her conclusions, Couchoud says that Ahmes, and other Middle Kingdom scribes never documented formulas (a true statement), hence formulas were not created and used by scribes (a false statement), only Greeks made that intellectual leap (a false statement). Yet, in discussing the Kahun Papyrus (as Imhausen under reports on her web page) Couchoud points out h = S/n + (n -1)d calculated the highest term in an arithmetic progression, as Ahmes reported in RMP 40 and 64. Annette has not stressed this vivid formula (Is it because the formula is not an algorithm?)

More on Imhausen's incomplete and misleading views of Egyptian math in future posts. I will be showing that Imhausen has not challenged incorrect algorithm definitions, such as an odd scribal division 'single false position', a suggestion from the 1920s, leaving this and other critical issues mute. Imhausen has not fairly discussed scribal multiplication operations that inverted every arithmetic division operation, such as S/n, as a multiplication operation, and corrected the scribal record (and hard-to-read scribal shorthand) in other ways. For example, the Reiser Papyrus ( http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ReisnerPapyrus.html ) will be discussed in terms of scribal remainder arithmetic, a critical point that was under reported by Imhausen's transliteration of the text edited by per Katz in 2007 and published with Eleanor Robson, and other Babylonian algorithm views (in http://books.google.com/books?id=3ullzl036UEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mathematics+of+egypt,+Victor+Katz&source=bl&ots=OTnENHqInE&sig=p53PzlgF0b7iglXjN6myFAwvW3Y&hl=en&ei=Gp-XS8OFHJD-sgPNw7TCAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false ). Best Regards, (talk)Milo Gardner Sept. 2, 2010

The Lahun Mathematical Papyri page never attempted to go into who has theorized what. So it never was focused on anything "misleading". Considering that University College actually owns the texts means that providing a link to their page is no more than appropriate. The fact that they (as scholars) have chosen the pages by Imhausen to describe the fragments is their choice. And those pages are descriptive more than anything else.

And a one sided series of posts on mathforum is not a discussion. You have decided to dismiss work by experts which leads us back to original research WP:OR and conflict of interest issues WP:COI. You seem to have declared yourself the world expert on this and dismiss work by others. This is a problem at wikipedia.

In edits there is no attempt made to provide inline references, which goes against accepted wikipedia standards. The general text edits you provide are so convoluted and poorly written/formatted that it makes the article virtually impossible to follow. Short concise surveys of ideas is the point. An occasional example, but only to help illustrate a point is the standard used here. Adding an additional (well published) interpretation / analysis should be as simple as writing a well written paragraph explaining the main concept with possibly a short example to illustrate the point. Then provide an inline reference after that to provide the reputable source it is based on. --AnnekeBart (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Dr. Bart: I fully accept the work of John Legon, an Egyptologist, and other scholars. Syvlia Couchoud and Legon went beyond simple transliterations of the Kahun (Lahun Mathematical Papyrus, as did other scholars that reported vivid scribal mathematical contents in other texts. There are hard to read formulas in the mathematical texts. Yet, it seems that almost EVERYONE that publishes and attempts to decode the Kahun Papyrus accepts h = S/n + (n -1)(d/2) connects with RMP 40 and 64 as a vivid arithmetic progression formula. Gillings wrote about this fact as well. Why is the "owner" of the Lahun Mathematical Papyrus document and Annette Imhausen behind the learning curve? The days of ownership and control of publishing went out with the Dead Sea Scrolls being published online. Ownership of any ancient document, Egyptian math included, may not under value, or misleader others concerning the math contents of texts. British Museum oddly practiced ownership control under reporting the EMLR and RMP from 1864 to the present. Thanks to a German, a pirated version of the RMP text was published in 1879. The British Museum itself sponsored Robins-Shute in 1987, publishing an improvement that previous additive efforts (that began to break up the ownership control tradition) muddled several topics. Robins-Shute stressed transliterations and reported observations of what Ahmes wrote and did not report abstract (64/64) hekat unity facts used over 40 times in the RMP (in RMP 35 to convert 100 hekat divided by 70 to 64000/70 = 91/64 + 30/4480 to (64 + 16 + 8 + 2 + 1)/64 + (150/70)ro, by scaling the remainder by (5/5) reporting (1 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/32 + 1/64 )hekat + ( 2 + 1/7)ro, and 29 times in RMP 81, and other formulas. Reporting scribal mathematics and abstract definitions and formulas as written by scribes is all that I do. Please excuse any errors. Prior to 2001, I published several errors. The internet is free of censorship, thank goodness. Most of my errors have been corrected. Reverting scribal mathematics, such as the Kahun Papyrus arithmetic progression formula to an unreadable transliterations may be Annette Imhausen style, an academic method that corrects few errors. Let the ancient texts speak for themselves via interdisciplinary teams, an approach that Imhausen and Tanja Pemmerening championed in 2009 (http://www.aegyptologie-altorientalistik.uni-mainz.de/460.php). Imhausen and Pemmerening were on the right track. Let their better judgments control their writings. Allow math historians and professional code breakers equal seats at the table. Invite all appropriate disciplines to jointly judge the contents of the Egyptian mathematical texts, and avoid stressing transliterations and down playing scribal mathematical contents. A hekat unity was pointed out by Hana Vymazalova in the Akhmim Wooden Tablet 2001 and a dja scaled to 1/64 a hekat, was published by Tanja Pemmerening in the Ebers Papyrus in 2001 and 2005. The (64/64) as a heakt unity and dja as 1/64 a hekat are worthy achievements as are several other publication conclusions. One of my publications has been forwarded for your view, a topic that was under represented in the 2009 interdisciplinary conference. Best Regards, 75.48.26.176 (talk)milogardner Sept. 3, 2010.

Regarding the children of Cleopatra Selene

Hi there,

How can you say that Drusilla of Mauretania was a possible daughter of Cleopatra Selene II?

She did live and there is a statue bust of her that is on display in the Lourve Museum in Paris, France, there is an honorific inscription dedicated to her in Athens as the 'daughter of King Juba' and there is a reference of her in Tacitus' history as the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra.

I have given you all the evidence that proves that Drusilla did live. If you see in Wikipedia there are articles on Drusilla of Mauretania. One as the daughter of Cleopatra Selene II and Juba II and the other the daughter of Ptolemy of Mauretania. About Cleopatra's daughter I have put a link in the article who shows her statue bust in the museum in Paris.

About Ptolemy of Mauretania in the older historial sources state he was born anywhere from 20-5 BC, in fact he was born in 1 BC. This fact of him being born in 1 BC, is based on a reference from Tacitus' annals that he succeeded his father as king and the war of the local tribes against Rome. Tacitus states he was a young age, when he succeeded his father.

Cleopatra Selene II and Juba II was much older when they had their children.

If you like to comment, you can use answer on my talk page.

Thank you for your understanding,

Anriz.

Drusilla of Mauretania

I have given you the links for the two Drusillas that I have mentioned to you earlier. You read these for your reference.

Anriz.

As I understand it these are thought to be one and the same person by some. That's what I am basing my edits on. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

I moved your sandbox out of the article namespace to User:AnnekeBart/sandbox. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Amenhotep-Huy vs Amenhotep (Huy) - I think we have duplicate articles??

Anneke

I noticed that you recently started an article called Amenhotep-Huy which refers to a senior official (vizier?) under Amenhotep III. There already exists an article called Amenhotep (Huy) which seems to cover the same person?? --Chewings72 (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are different individuals to my understanding. The man named Amenhotep (Huy) was high steward, but never a vizier. The vizier Amenhotep-Huy we do not have a possible family for. It would be quite interesting if they were one and the same person but I have never seen anyone claim that. There's a third Amenhotep named Huy btw, who was Viceroy of Kush under Tutankhamen so that's all quite confusing. --AnnekeBart (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. --Chewings72 (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Numerical approximations of π

Hi - could you please comment here on the discussion about Pi and the pyramids? It's being discussed at WP:RSN also. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment and wrote a possible intro with references in case someone wants to use them. I also added a comment on WP:RSN. --AnnekeBart (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Anneke, we shouldn't write things like "Nefertiabet had a tomb at Giza" in Khufu's page. This is written in Nefertiabet's page. And wasn't Babaef son of Khufu? Maybe there were two Babaefs.--Mychele (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that locations of tombs are sometimes the reason for assuming people are children of pharaohs in this time, that should be there. And the tombs are the source for the information. A better change would be something like "She is known from her tomb G xxxx in Giza". I see no reason to remove that. And yes, there are two Babaf's --AnnekeBart (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the children of Cleopatra Selene

Hi there,

How can you say that Drusilla of Mauretania was a possibly daughter of Cleopatra Selene II?

She did live and there is a statue bust of her that is on display in the Lourve Museum in Paris, France, there is an honorific inscription dedicated to her in Athens as the 'daughter of King Juba' and there is a reference of her in Tacitus' history as the granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra.

I have given you all the evidence that proves that Drusilla did live. If you see in Wikipedia there are articles on Drusilla of Mauretania. One as the daughter of Cleopatra Selene II and Juba II and the other the daughter of Ptolemy of Mauretania. About Cleopatra's daughter I have put a link in the article who shows her statue bust in the museum in Paris.

About Ptolemy of Mauretania in the older historial sources state he was born anywhere from 20-5 BC, in fact he was born in 1 BC. This fact of him being born in 1 BC, is based on a reference from Tacitus' annals that he succeeded his father as king and the war of the local tribes against Rome. Tacitus states he was a young age, when he succeeded his father.

Cleopatra Selene II and Juba II was much older when they had their children.

If you like to comment, you can use answer on my talk page.

Thank you for your understanding,

Anriz.

The artifacts that identify a woman as the daughter of Juba and Cleopatra Selene never provide a name. The woman listed on wikipedia as the Drusilla daughter of Cleopatra Selene is never actually named and people have pointed out that the name Drusilla would be somewhat unlikely. Drusilla, wife of Felix, is almost certainly the daughter of Ptolemy of Mauretania. The literature consist of some conflicting theories and not enough info to really decide one way or the other. That's why I put probably. And the "bad" part is that there are several possibilities:

* Drusilla year 5 and Drusilla year 38 are the daughter and grand daughter of Selene.

* Drusilla year 5 is actually a princess of unknown name (maybe Cleopatra?) and Drusilla year 38 is the daughter of Ptolemy of Mauretania and the wife of Felix.

* They are one and the same person birth year unknown.

Not at all clear cut. Maybe try to get some consensus about how to deal with this in the article? I posted something on the talk pages for some of the articles affected by this. --AnnekeBart (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)