Response to ``Some comments on R. J. Gillings' analysis of the \(2/n\) table in the Rhind papyrus'' (Q1250806)

[See also the preceding review Zbl 0389.01001.] In a verbose response Gillings declines the responsibility for the wrongly programmed computer \dots which does not serve to refute that Bruckheimer and Salamon state that his results are incorrect. Gillings gives excursions on chapter 7, which have rhyme nor rhythm to the remarks made, even digressing that much as considering completely irrelevant errors on cuneiform tablets, having no relation with the problems of the Rhind-papyrus. The fact remains that the scribe of Rhind's papyrus indicates expressis verbis that ``two thirds of a part uneven'' is obtained as ``two times and six times'' i.e. \(2/3n= 1/2n +1/6n\). This means that no theories are necessary for the 17 threefolds in the \(2/n\)-table. For non prime numbers we exclude the threefolds -- otherwise all threefolds would already have contradicted Gillings on composite numbers! -- and we restrict the discussion to the non-square numbers \(35, 55, 65, 77, 85, 91, 95\). If the method advocated by Gillings was generally applied these seven cases provide a check! According to Gillings's precepts \(2/55 = 1/40 + 1/88\); \(2/65=1/45+1/117\); \(2/77 = 1/63 + 1/99\); \(2/85 = 1/55 + 1/187\); \(2/95=1/60+1/228\) should be present \dots and they are not, for only the composite number following the scheme \(2/pq=1/p(p+q) +1/\tfrac12 q(p+q)\), \(35, 91\) are present \dots the great minority! The reason for the decomposition of \(2/95\) has been given by the reviewer [Indag. Math. 14, 81--91 (1952); Nederl. Akad. Wet., Proc., Ser. A 55, 81--91 (1952; Zbl 0046.00101)]. For primes above 71 automatically a 60-times smaller part has been adopted. This is also done for 95 and leads to \(120=95+25\). As 25 is not a divisor of 60 one has to split into three parts at least: \(95 +15 +10\), leading to the decomposition of the \(2/n\)-table. The reducibility of the last two terms together to 1/228 needs then special research. Gillings is certainly in error assuming a ``nodding Homer''.