Science is a matter of asking for information by specifying the difference between fact and opinion. Fact in a scientific context is a generally accepted reality, but still open to scientific inquiry, as opposed to an absolute truth, which is not a part of science. The hypotheses and theories are generally based on objective inferences, unlike opinions, which are generally based on subjective influences. Therefore and hence we can say ‘the facts versus the opinions’. In determining the factual length of an ancient Egyptian cubit or the true value of a Seqed, as discussed in the Rhind and Moscow Mathematical Papyruses, one will notice confusing differences. Varying opinions have been advanced, e.g., by Carter & Gardiner, Iversen, Hayes, Budge, Noblecourt, Lorenzen, Müller, Gardiner, Stricker, Gay, Legon, Gay & Shute, Naguib, Roik, Shaffer, and the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Possibly, though, also ancient Egyptian sources might have offered different values. The question now is how to measure a Seqed (sQd) in ancient Egypt accurately? And is the value of the Seqed or the angle θ correct applying the rules of modern trigonometry? The question arises as to whether the problems of the Seqed are actually mirrored in the ancient Egyptian architecture methods and construction techniques?

Keywords: Mathematics, Dimensions, Digits, Seqed, Tangent Angle, Cotangent