Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
October 24 Information
The Great Pyramid of Giza: 8 sides, or 4?
I find a lot of sites, claiming that the pyramid have 8 sides (observable at equinoxes only), even from "authorized" sources. But I also find sites, still fiercely claiming it has 4 sides. Like, for example, put question "how many sides does the great pyramid have" in Google and Google will answer "eight".
Now, if it have 8 sides: it would be the only pyramid having that, so it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia page, right? That would be a very significant fact (if it is true).
I want to settle this conundrum once and for all and reveal the truth, please help me to do so!
Petrie noted in 1880 that the sides of the pyramid, as we see them today, are "very distinctly hollowed" and that "each side has a sort of groove specially down the middle of the face", which he reasoned was a result of increased casing thickness in these areas.[118] A laser scanning survey in 2005 confirmed the existence of the anomalies, which can be, to some degree, attributed to damaged and removed stones.[119] Under certain lighting conditions and with image enhancement the faces can appear to be split, leading to speculation that the pyramid had been intentionally constructed eight-sided.
The outside was originally "cased entirely in white limestone", so what we see today are only the backing stones and don't necessarily follow the shape of the original exterior.
Alansplodge (
talk)
08:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Question then regarding the mentioning on existing Wiki page about possible 8-sided shape, is it then considered to be 8-sided, having this 8-sided shape today, or is it 4-sided? I mean, it can't be both, and either it is a True pyramid shape, or it is not. Given the referenced research (Flinders Petrie and the Researchgate paper by Professor Khaled M. Dewidar), there is a strong argument for 8 sides, and not 4. What would be the counter-argument? There is photographic evidence and there is evidence from laser scan. If this effect of 8 sides was intentional (or not) by the pyramid builders, does it have any consequence, if it in fact have 8 sides today? Thanks, Per C — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.112.112.13 (
talk)
11:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agreed. There's an element of the
coastline paradox to this. If people really want to get picky about the number of sides, surely it should include every facet of every surface block, which would bring the number into the hundreds or thousands, if not millions.
Matt Deres (
talk)
18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
They give different but equivalent descriptions. So they are not at odds with each other – which the adjective inconsistent might suggest. If you ask three people to define the rules of any game, assuming they know these rules well and can explain things well, they are bound to come up with different descriptions unless they copy them from somewhere. So, I think, the fact that they are different needs no explanation, Our article
Chess has this definition: "A knight moves to any of the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal." That is the longest of all. It is clearly equivalent to the shortest one, that involving the queen, provided that ... one is already familiar with how a queen can move. So in explaining the moves of the various pieces to an absolute neophyte, it imposes an order on how these pieces are introduced. It may also be conceptually more challenging to understand what one piece can do in terms of what another piece cannot do. In general, though, the choice between alternative but equivalent descriptions seems to boil down to a matter of taste. --
Lambiam22:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That last definition is essentially the same one as in the
FIDE's official
Laws of Chess.
The first two definitions may be viewed as easier for novices to understand than the other two—certainly the book I learned from described the move as L-shaped, i.e. the second definition—but they suggest that the knight passes through one or two other squares on the way to its destination, so additional words are required to make it clear that it actually goes directly to the destination. Pedagogically speaking, it's a trade-off. --
184.144.99.72 (
talk)
23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem with the first definition (one along a rank or file and then one along a diagonal) is that if you take it literally, it lets you move to a square adjacent to the starting square (a one-square rook move). For example, your first move might be from e3 to e4, then your diagonal move is from e4 to d3, making the full move from e3 to d3. But that's not a knight move.
I'd say the second of these descriptions would be the best advice for a newbie. The reason for inconsistncy is that chess is very ancient and evolved with time; it's not like someone came up with it in their back room one Wednesday. So while FIDE does govern international chess, it doesn't govern chess sets you might buy in a shop or books or amateur play, all of which may come up with their own descriptions of things. --
Dweller (
talk)
Old fashioned is the new thing!11:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
For your amusement, here is a description from an 18th-century treatise on chess:
The move of the knight is peculiar to himself, and difficult to explain. It is two squares at once (three, including his own) in a direction partly diagonal and partly strait. The house he goes into, is always of a different colour from that which he leaves. It may likewise be said to be uniformly next but one to the latter, although in his passage to it he passes obliquely over the corners of two.[1]
In
The Queen's Gambit (TV show; I don't have the book with me) I think I remember young Beth described it as something like "one up or across then one diagonal". I remember thinking I'd never heard of any description or thought of it as anything other than an "L" shape.
Hayttom (
talk)
17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Something to bear in mind is that, in moving from the starting to the destination square, the knight does not move through any of the squares in between, or along a particular route, or else it would be blocked by any other pieces on the intervening squares; it "jumps" from start to destination (as Lambian's quote says in archaic language). The various "path" descriptions are merely aids to visualization, not proscriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.200.65.29 (
talk)
17:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
My bad. I was answering hurridly shortly before leaving for a prior engagement, and hence was preoccupied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.200.65.29 (
talk)
07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
October 24 Information
The Great Pyramid of Giza: 8 sides, or 4?
I find a lot of sites, claiming that the pyramid have 8 sides (observable at equinoxes only), even from "authorized" sources. But I also find sites, still fiercely claiming it has 4 sides. Like, for example, put question "how many sides does the great pyramid have" in Google and Google will answer "eight".
Now, if it have 8 sides: it would be the only pyramid having that, so it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia page, right? That would be a very significant fact (if it is true).
I want to settle this conundrum once and for all and reveal the truth, please help me to do so!
Petrie noted in 1880 that the sides of the pyramid, as we see them today, are "very distinctly hollowed" and that "each side has a sort of groove specially down the middle of the face", which he reasoned was a result of increased casing thickness in these areas.[118] A laser scanning survey in 2005 confirmed the existence of the anomalies, which can be, to some degree, attributed to damaged and removed stones.[119] Under certain lighting conditions and with image enhancement the faces can appear to be split, leading to speculation that the pyramid had been intentionally constructed eight-sided.
The outside was originally "cased entirely in white limestone", so what we see today are only the backing stones and don't necessarily follow the shape of the original exterior.
Alansplodge (
talk)
08:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Question then regarding the mentioning on existing Wiki page about possible 8-sided shape, is it then considered to be 8-sided, having this 8-sided shape today, or is it 4-sided? I mean, it can't be both, and either it is a True pyramid shape, or it is not. Given the referenced research (Flinders Petrie and the Researchgate paper by Professor Khaled M. Dewidar), there is a strong argument for 8 sides, and not 4. What would be the counter-argument? There is photographic evidence and there is evidence from laser scan. If this effect of 8 sides was intentional (or not) by the pyramid builders, does it have any consequence, if it in fact have 8 sides today? Thanks, Per C — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.112.112.13 (
talk)
11:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agreed. There's an element of the
coastline paradox to this. If people really want to get picky about the number of sides, surely it should include every facet of every surface block, which would bring the number into the hundreds or thousands, if not millions.
Matt Deres (
talk)
18:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
They give different but equivalent descriptions. So they are not at odds with each other – which the adjective inconsistent might suggest. If you ask three people to define the rules of any game, assuming they know these rules well and can explain things well, they are bound to come up with different descriptions unless they copy them from somewhere. So, I think, the fact that they are different needs no explanation, Our article
Chess has this definition: "A knight moves to any of the closest squares that are not on the same rank, file, or diagonal." That is the longest of all. It is clearly equivalent to the shortest one, that involving the queen, provided that ... one is already familiar with how a queen can move. So in explaining the moves of the various pieces to an absolute neophyte, it imposes an order on how these pieces are introduced. It may also be conceptually more challenging to understand what one piece can do in terms of what another piece cannot do. In general, though, the choice between alternative but equivalent descriptions seems to boil down to a matter of taste. --
Lambiam22:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
That last definition is essentially the same one as in the
FIDE's official
Laws of Chess.
The first two definitions may be viewed as easier for novices to understand than the other two—certainly the book I learned from described the move as L-shaped, i.e. the second definition—but they suggest that the knight passes through one or two other squares on the way to its destination, so additional words are required to make it clear that it actually goes directly to the destination. Pedagogically speaking, it's a trade-off. --
184.144.99.72 (
talk)
23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
The problem with the first definition (one along a rank or file and then one along a diagonal) is that if you take it literally, it lets you move to a square adjacent to the starting square (a one-square rook move). For example, your first move might be from e3 to e4, then your diagonal move is from e4 to d3, making the full move from e3 to d3. But that's not a knight move.
I'd say the second of these descriptions would be the best advice for a newbie. The reason for inconsistncy is that chess is very ancient and evolved with time; it's not like someone came up with it in their back room one Wednesday. So while FIDE does govern international chess, it doesn't govern chess sets you might buy in a shop or books or amateur play, all of which may come up with their own descriptions of things. --
Dweller (
talk)
Old fashioned is the new thing!11:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply
For your amusement, here is a description from an 18th-century treatise on chess:
The move of the knight is peculiar to himself, and difficult to explain. It is two squares at once (three, including his own) in a direction partly diagonal and partly strait. The house he goes into, is always of a different colour from that which he leaves. It may likewise be said to be uniformly next but one to the latter, although in his passage to it he passes obliquely over the corners of two.[1]
In
The Queen's Gambit (TV show; I don't have the book with me) I think I remember young Beth described it as something like "one up or across then one diagonal". I remember thinking I'd never heard of any description or thought of it as anything other than an "L" shape.
Hayttom (
talk)
17:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Something to bear in mind is that, in moving from the starting to the destination square, the knight does not move through any of the squares in between, or along a particular route, or else it would be blocked by any other pieces on the intervening squares; it "jumps" from start to destination (as Lambian's quote says in archaic language). The various "path" descriptions are merely aids to visualization, not proscriptions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.200.65.29 (
talk)
17:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)reply
My bad. I was answering hurridly shortly before leaving for a prior engagement, and hence was preoccupied. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
90.200.65.29 (
talk)
07:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)reply