Talk:Ostomachion

message: In trying to see how many ways the 14 irregular pieces could be put together to make a square, it now appears that Archimedes anticipated aspects of combinatorics.
:I am sorry, but I fail to see how this follows from the translated text provided in the article. Where does it say Archimedes was specifically trying to see how many ways the square can be constructed? And did he get a result, or even a constraint on the result? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the links provided at the bottom of the article makes oblique reference to some palimpsest or another having words that are suggestive of the combinatorics angle to the original text, but the whole thing seems very conjectural indeed. Very little actual text from archimedes himself is spelled out in that. Mostly it appears that the guy "recreated" archimedes thought processes based on vague clues in the palimpsest, without providing clear connection to the text. It may be that that abstract merely fails to mention the specific textual bits, or that there are none. I don't know. But the linked to abstract is far from conclusive in my view. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I missing something? 

message: Several unstated presumptions to obtain the number 17,152, the most troubling being that we reach for a Stomachion board proposed in a questionable translation of another text which does not match the Archimedes Codex. It is unclear where Dr. Netz ever comes
to grips with this problem. 
Unfortunately the source you are using is not reliable in this
case precisely because of tacit assumptions. To be reliable in combinatorial mathematics you have to state the assumptions.
The point about turning over pieces simply was not mentioned.
The numbers 64 and 4 which you have now edited out were obtained
by Bill Cutler who did the original research back in 2003. 
Somehow, they have just never been mentioned. But why not check
with Bill Cutler at <billcutler@comcast.com>. If you really want
to stick with Dr. Netz, you need to edit out the phrase about
turning over pieces, because he never mentioned it explicitly.
That is why the source is tendentious and so less than reliable.  
I have taken the liberty of undoing your edit in good faith while
accepting your edit itself was in good faith. The problem for
you is that what got formally published in 2003 was selective:
it left out qualifying phrases that make the published counts
precise; and it left out the alternative counts, when the
qualifying phrases do not apply. You will notice that later
on it is mentioned that there are three other boxes for the
Codex board, so there are at least six other counts. Bill
Cutler has those worked out, too, but they are not yet in general
circulation. Naturally, I am encouraging him to publish his
entire suite of results. Then they can be inserted, too. But
the 64 and 4 have been known for six or seven years.
:As the saying goes, I don't make the rules around here. Wikipedia articles have to stick to what has been published and peer reviewed. The material added to Ostomachion is unsourced commentary, which is against guidelines. Other editors are justified in removing material of this kind. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on original research.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs more sourcing, as the "Mathematical problem" section still reads as a commentary. Any criticism of the work on the problem by Reviel Netz would need reliable sourcing. Could you look out some more sourcing in this area?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a reputable source: http://nytimes.com/2003/12/14/us/in-archimedes-puzzle-a-new-eureka-moment.html cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research tag

message: This article has quite a lot of history and recent findings about the ostomachion/stomachion. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the external links in the article and one of the cites in Archimedes. Most of the modern understanding of of Ostomachion is based on the work of Reviel Netz. The article could be expanded with some more detail about his 2003 findings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY Times article 

message: If this is true, it definitely requires inclusion of a source. Mathworld, for example, doesn't mention this at all. AKFJBMA (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the statement that in the Archimedes Palimpsest the puzzle formed a 2x1 rectangle?