Presented by Bruce C. Friedman
Last modified: October 10, 2004 as per H. Vymazalova.
http://www.mathorigins.com/B_emlr050602.htm
Please ignore my ACHMIM analysis within these 2 links above and instead refer to the revision and translation below.
(from CG 25.368)
(These identities are demonstrated in hieratic, in black ink on a plastered wooden plank. Georges Daressy reports this item [C.G. 25.368] to measure .475 m by .260 m. G. Daressy reports that the other tablet [C.G. 25.367] measures .465 m by .250 m. These tablets are assigned by the style of script used and the Old Kingdom styled names that appear on them to the XIIth Dynasty. They are further known to date from the 28th reign year of an unnamed King. Daressy assumes the unnamed Pharaoh to be either Usertesen or Amenemhat.
Note that (2/3 + 1/22 + 1/66) is shown in this identity, which of itself is exactly 8/11. The scribe, or his teacher, in keeping with the style of calculations in the EMLR and RMP and KMP, must have been adept at such workings.
TABLE OF ELEVENTHS:
LINE
# |
||||||||||
| 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| 10 | 100 | 10 | 2 | |||||||
| 20 | 200 | 20 | 3 | |||||||
| 2 | 20 | 2 | 4 | |||||||
| 4 | 40 | 4 | 5 | |||||||
| 8 | 80 | 8 | 6 | |||||||
| 1 | 11 | 7 | ||||||||
| /11 | 4 ro | /64 | /16 | 1 | 8 | |||||
| /66 | /6 | 3 ro | /64 | /32 | /8 | 2 | 9 | |||
| /33 | 1 ro | /64 | /32 | /16 | /4 | 4 | 10 | |||
| /66 | /22 | //3 | 2 ro | /32 | /16 | /8 | /2 | 8 | 11 | |
The typical Old Kingdom hkt divisions are simply repeated halvings:
1/2
1/4
1/8
1/16
1/32
1/64
**1/320 = a daily ration = 1/32*1/10 = 1 ro = 1 [r3]
Lines one through seven are simple and correct.
Line Eight:
/11_4 ro _/64_ /16_1
Read this as {(/11*/320)+4/320+1/64+1/16=1 [eleventh of a hkt]
20+5+4+/11=24+ /11 ro
(29 +/11)* 11= 319+1 = 320 ro = 1 hk3t = correct.
Line Nine:
/66_/6_3 ro_/64_/32_/8_2
Read this as {(1/66+/6)*/320)+3/320+1/64+1/32+1/8=2 [elevenths of a hkt]
= 1 eleventh of 2 hk3t
40+10+5+3+(6+/66) ro = 58+ 12/66 ro = 58 2/11 ro
(58 + 2/11)* 11 = 638 + 2 = 640 ro = 2 hk3t = correct.
*See the left end of line nine on the image which perhaps reads 1/68 due to damage/smudging/age or possibly a scribal error. I have adjusted the similar difficulty at the left end of line eleven and treated both as if they describe 1/66, NOT 1/68. The scribe seems to have known this meant 1/66.
Unfortunately all examples of the determination of four elevenths contain an error of omission.
Line Ten:
/33_1 ro_/64_ /32_ /16_ /4_ 4
Read this as {(1/33*1/320)+1 ro +1/64+1/32+1/16+1/4=4 [elevenths of a hkt]
= 1 eleventh of 4 hk3t
80+20+10+5+1+(/33) ro = 116+ /33 ro
(116 + /33)* 11 = 1276 + 11/33 ro, is less than correct by the omission of one-third ro in the identity and subsequently the error cumulatively brings the workings to a shortage of eleven thirds or 3+2/3 ro.
Line Eleven:
1/66 1/22 2/3 2 ro 1/32 1/16 1/8 1/2 8 [checked off]
(232 + 8/11) * 11 = 2552 + 8 = 2560 ro = 8 hk3t = correct.
Further note that the scribe
has checked three lines on the image above and appears to have separately
verified that his calculations for 1/11, 2/11, and 8/11 total 11/11 or Unity!
The total is 100% accurate less the error of omitting one third ro in line
ten.