Talk:Polyomino

message: Major Problem:
"Polyomino" is a trademark owned by Professor Solomon Golomb.
The mathematically correct word to be used instead is
"polysquare". All references to polyominoes in Wikipedia, especially the title of this article, should read "polysquare", not "polyomino".
Any use of the word 'Polyomino' should be with the high-'TM'
trademark sign only.
Authors of this article, please read the Wikipedia conventions on copyright!
Editors of Wikipedia, please change all references accordingly.
Thank you. Karl Scherer
Cheers, Karl Scherer
:You say that there's a trademark problem, and that this violates Wikipedia's copyright conventions. Please make up your mind. Thank you. Arvindn 11:46, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: trademark

message: Is the -omino suffix Greek or Latin?? 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 are named with Greek numerical prefixes and 9 and 11 are Latin. Is any set rule being followed here?? 66.245.90.209 00:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek or Latin?? 

message: I have attempted a clean up of the article. The main things I have modified are:
* structure of the text, headings
* made more consistent the different definitions of polyominoes: fixed and free, with or without holes
* added some stats for fixed polyominoes
* more involved discussion of the group of symmetries between free and fixed polyominoes
I think a few things still need some work:
* It would be nice to have more details about the generating functions of the special classes of polyominoes. If it is possible, give expressions of the generating functions, or give the asymptotic growth of the number of polyominoes in those classes
* The explanation of Conway's method and Jensen's method could be more precise. How are generating functions used?
--Bernard Helmstetter 01:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  article clean up 

message: The terminology on this page seems to be pretty mixed up. By my understanding, free polyominoes can be flipped or rotated, so mirror images and rotations don't count as distinct objects, while fixed polyominoes can not be flipped or rotated. But the table seems to have them the other way round. I'm not sure what the middle column, that say "fixed polyominoes with holes" is actually counting.
:Yes, I messed it up badly when attempting to clean the article. I think it is corrected now.--Bernard Helmstetter 01:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology - free/fixed? 

message: I think we should remove the page "pentominoes" since there is already a page called "pentomino". Having two articles on the same subject is redundant and not necessary. I moved some of the information in the original "pentominoes" page to the "polyomino" and "pentomino" pages. What are your thoughts on the page deletion? HappyCamper 02:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: . Now pentominoes is a redirect to pentomino. --DavidCary (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete page "pentominoes" 

message: I've reversed the cut-and-paste move to polysquare, as I disagree with the given reason - that it apparently violates a trademark. A web search for polyomino shows that it is used frequently as a generic noun - not that this is conclusive evidence against a move, but it most definitely needs discussion first. Anyway, there's a move button for doing moves properly, for crying out loud.
I haven't merged anything new back into polyomino, as the articles seemed virtually identical to me. sjorford →•← 15:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed move to [[polysquare]] 

message: Please be aware that Karl Scherer is not a reliable editor. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3 for further information. ~~~~ 12:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Scherer 

message: The article states the following:
:This method can be optimized so that it counts each polyomino only once, rather than n times. Starting with the initial square, declare it to be the lower-left square of the polyomino. Simply do not number any square which is on a lower row, or left of the square on the same row. With this improvement, the running time is divided by n, so it only takes about 1 second to enumerate the dodecominoes.
While it seems like a good idea, I think it would fail in the case of any polyomino which did not have any corner squares.  The most obvious example would be the cross-piece pentomino.  No matter how you rotate it, no square of that will ever occupy the lower-left corner (or any other corner) of the field.  Obviously, the greater the value of n, the more polyominos will be omitted using this shortcut.  I would hope and assume that anyone who researches this seriously would have taken that drawback into account... Lurlock 04:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "lower-left square" is the leftmost square on the bottom row; in the case of the cross, the (only) square on the bottom square is the lower-left square of the polyomino.  This algorithm is that given by Redelmeier (though he has a more efficient method of counting free polyominoes than checking for symmetries after creating each n-omino), and parallel variants have been discussed by other authors; unfortunately the whole article is missing any references, and the figures for time taken are probably original research, as may be the inefficient "Inductive exhaustive search" method (possibly too trivial to have been worth publishing). Joseph Myers 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth Method issue 

message: The Oxford English Dictionary cite goes to the wiki article on the dictionary, as opposed to anything showing the eytomology  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.50.160 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oxford cite 

message: The concept of polyomino is intuitively simple.  This article's lead paragraph gets bogged down in complications.  I'm going to try to simplify the introduction. Sicherman (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free. The article certainly needs it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Done.  Later I may clean up the references if no one beats me to it. Sicherman (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Complicated 

message: In this article, the order refers to the number of cells of a polyomino. This does not match with the "standard" definition of the order as the smallest needed number of copies of the polyomino for tiling a rectangle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.127.250 (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird. Any objections to changing it everywhere to size? —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Seven years whiz by ... I'd really like to see some discussion on this. —Tamfang (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Making the change now. I'm a mathematician and this is my field of study. This has gotten to the point that web AI (chatgpt/bing) will give out blatantly false information just because a wikipedian mistakenly assumed Order meant Size (no literature supports this idea). 152.117.43.163 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  order of a polyomino 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Polyomino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126083002/http://historical.ncstrl.org/litesite-data/stan/CS-TR-72-263.pdf to http://historical.ncstrl.org/litesite-data/stan/CS-TR-72-263.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a link directory, we're not a place to dump links to related applications. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, after reading the source you provided, it is still not clear to me what WP rule it violates. Let's open a section and see what is the opinion of other wikipedians. Pan-wiki-tsik (talk) Pan-wiki-tsik (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Resta and Zucca references have been reformatted to use the web page reference template.  On the whole, this is good, because it gives dates for archival and verification.  But the references render with extra quotation marks.  Can this be corrected? Sicherman (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misformatted Web References