Talk:Moscow Mathematical Papyrus

Strange excerpt temporarily moved here
Please, provide inline citation for the following comment on V. Struve's book before its reinclusion into the article: "The mathematics, however, is illegible in some spots and erroneous in others. Nevertheless, one problem in particular, the 14th, has received some heightened interest among present-day historians." Cmapm 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition ?
Reading closely, the article doesn't tell the reader what the Moscow Mathematical Papyrus actually is (!!!). I think this should be fixed ... Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 22:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1892/3 or 1893/4
Is that "March 1892 or April 1893" or "1892/1893 or 1893/1894"? I haven't a clue, that is why we should use unambiguous terms and not try and save space by using coded abbreviations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the papyrus for?
The article doesnt mention any theory of what the papyrus was for. It reads very closely to a modern maths "test" for students. Was it a test for use by teachers in learning, or a guide for day-to-day use? Fig (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem 10: Hemisphere calculation formula is entered incorrectly.
The article mixes radius = r and diameter = d with each other. Diameter of the hemisphere is given d = 4 + 1/2, so the radius is half of that. The formula shown will give area of 64 units, which is twice the amount one wanted. Thus, presented is not the correct method for calculating the area (= 32 units).

Probably the Egyptians have counted the area of Exercise 10 with a very different calculation mechanism. The basis of this calculation mechanism is no longer known. Iota~fiwiki (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)