Talk:Gömböc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the origin of the name?[edit]

What is the origin of the name? Rigadoun (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a source for this. "Gombóc" is the Hungarian word for "dumpling", (although the shape seems to be spelt "Gömböc" in Hungarian). --Canley 00:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gömböc" in Hungarian is a folklore figure, rather fat. "Gömb" means sphere, and "Gömböc" refers to a sphere-like object. The mathematical "Gömböc" described in this page appears to have some connection to the sphere. One can define the "flatness" (F) and "thickness" (T) of convex 3D objects. According to the definition given in Várkonyi & Domokos (2007), for both properties the minimal value is 1, the sphere has F=T=1 and the only nondegenerate type of object sharing this property is the "Gömböc". --Domokos 24 February 2007

How does it behave when spun around its vertical axis? Anything like the Flip-over top? Leob 00:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm[edit]

Where can I buy one? Capuchin 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too require one. --NEMT 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I hear, the only way to get one is to download the description (from where?) to your 3D printer. —Tamfang 07:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a site under development at www.gomboc.eu linked from Gábor's Domokos personal homepage. It looks like commercial products are in development. DanBri (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently you can get a numbered model for €1000 and up (depending on the number you choose), or a 3D picture of one embedded in a cube. It ought to be easy to mold, so there ought to be cheaper ones soon. —Tamfang (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the gömböc home page you can now order cheaper versions. But the 'easy to mold'-statement is not entirely right. According to the website, precision of 0.1mm is required to get the perfect shape, even 0.2mm off in the mold and it wouldn't work. - Peipei (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
www.gomboc-shop.com This should also be added to the links part of the page, however if you check the cited sources it will link you to the page. I think for clarity of page and for additional information the link should be added.69.198.39.26 (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

artificial[edit]

What does the word "artificial" mean in the context of the introduction? Is it a specific classification of shapes, or merely meant to indicate that it is a shape specifically designed for a purpose? --Starwed 08:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the latter. Capuchin 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up to similarity they are unique[edit]

This puzzling sentence needs to be made into intelligible English. I have given it a try in the article, "Except for similar figures, it is unique" but am not sure this was meant (as far as I understand, there are probably other, non-similar mono-monostatic bodies). Can anyone improve on this? Hgilbert 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unistable polyhedron[edit]

It is conjectured that there also exist convex polyhedra with just one stable face and one unstable point of equilibrium. The minimum number of faces could be large.

Richard K. Guy and Ken Knowlton found an unistable polyhedron circa 1959, with 19 faces. Or did I misunderstand something? —Tamfang 07:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the unistable polyhedron you talk about has indeed only one stable point of equilibrium but has also three points of unstable equilibrium but what is conjectured is a convex polyhedra with just one stable face and one unstable point of equilibrium. So this polyhedra don't match the challenge.
— Zertrin (blabla) 10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? One is obvious; what are the other two? —Tamfang (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you have the first on the opposed edge of the stable face and the two other are at the both tips the most distant. You can see it there : [1]. Zertrin (blabla) 18:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*forehead slap* —Tamfang (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct Hungarian plural of the word?[edit]

gömbcök? gömböcök? or gömböcek? -andy 78.51.73.91 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, gömböcök. --91.120.99.114 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flatness and thinness[edit]

The article says that they need to be suitably defined, but never gets around to defining them. Neither does the page at gomboc.eu. The Mathematical Intelligencer article defines them in a way that doesn't seem to type-check: we're taking the max and min and ratios of vectors (unless a "position vector" is a scalar). It would be nice to get a good encyclopaedic definition. Bhudson (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one should take the length of the vector. In any case, due to Lemma 1 in the Mathematical Intelligencer article, "F=1" is equivalent to the existence of only one stable equilibrium, and "T=1" is equivalent to the existence of only one unstable equilibrium. If this is true, then "F=T=1" is not an additional restriction on the shape of the gömböc, let alone making it unique. --80.129.69.190 (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious link[edit]

A link at the bottom of the page, to www.gomboc.eu, downloads JS/Downloader.Agent and Win32/Heur viruses. I've removed it. Don't-stop-the-music (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple explanation[edit]

OK, this article provoked me into about 20 minutes of annoyed thought while I worked out what stops objects like eggs, cones and pencils from being Gömböcs. I suggest the following plain-language explanation:

A Gömböc has only two points of equilibrium because, unlike common objects, it can't be balanced on its side.

Which makes me wonder about dinner plates, but I guess they just require a very steady hand.

Incidentally, is it really true that "The Gömböc mimics the 'self-righting' abilities of shelled animals such as turtles", given that turtles weren't discovered to use Gömböc-like shapes until after the invention of the shape? It's only some kinds of turtles, and besides, turtles doesn't have uniform density, and their geometry is only "close to optimal". Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Shelled animals such as turtles mimic the self-righting ability of the Gömböc", considering the form of the Gömböc to have always existed in an objective sense. Then again I suppose the form of a turtle has also always existed in an objective sense. Maybe "Some shelled animals can self-right in almost the same way as a Gömböc" is best. 213.122.18.143 (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point about mimicry. (Is objective really the word you want? How about Platonic?) We could say: "The shells of certain turtles resemble the Gömböc, and thus tend to right themselves." —Tamfang (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dinner plates, of course, have two stable points of equilibrium, gravy up and gravy down. Rich Farmbrough, 09:40 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Tolerance[edit]

I am taking out the "mm" defn of tolerance since this is size dependent. Rich Farmbrough, 09:40 24 February 2009 (UTC).

did you bring enough gum for the class to share?[edit]

This shape represents a class (i.e., it is not unique); the shape has very fine tolerances, outside which it is no longer mono-monostatic.

Does this mean that the shape can vary in some ways without losing monomonostasis but not in other ways? Or that there are other monomonostatic shapes, but they cannot be continuously deformed to the Gömböc without losing monomonostasis? If the latter, what are they? or have they only been proven to exist without showing what they are?

Or does the first clause mean that the Gömböc is one of a class of shapes defined by some property other than monomonostasis? and if so, what property (and why mention it here)? —Tamfang (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that there is more than one mono-monostatic shape, (which can be very different each others) but that for one given shape the deformation tolerance without losing monomonostasis is very thin.
The photo in the article shows a solution shape that does differ from a spherical shape, because it is possible to find an monomonostatic shape which looks like a sphere. (hardly distinguishable from the sphere). I does obtain a 3D-representation of the spherical-like solution from the equations given by the two researchers with the software Maple. If you are interested in looking at it : email me
If you want more information I advise you to read the publications of the two reseachers (the second in particular) :
(sorry for the bad english) — Zertrin (blabla) 15:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Sentence?[edit]

Does anyone else believe that the phrase "gömböc refers to a sphere-like object. (It is mostly known in the folk culture as kis gömböc, a round creature in the loft that remained from a killed pig, which swallows everyone one after the other who goes to see what happened to the previous ones. They are eventually rescued by a young pigman that was swallowed last.[4])" is not needed? Seriously, a folk monster doesn't contribute to our knowledge of Gombocs. Especially since the sentence is so long Occamsrazorwit (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be unclearly written, but I think it's important to know where the name comes from. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

This article is crying out for an animated gif to show the shape at work and the rising c of gVictuallers (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling : initial capital, use of article (the/a)[edit]

If I understand the definition correctly, a Gömböc is something of the same class as a cube or a sphere. In the beginning of this Talk page, I read something about a Hungarian folklore figure "Gömböc" that lent its name to the object. I have the following questions:

  • Is the word Gömböc really spelled with an initial capital?
  • If so, why? We usually don't write cube or sphere with capitals, so why is that other shape's name written with a capital.

And a related question:

  • Should the article 'a' be omitted as if Gömböc were a proper name?
  • If so, why?

For example, somewhere in the article it says:

  • "The shape of the Indian Star Tortoise resembles Gömböc. "
  • "The balancing properties of Gömböc were associated with..."
  • "...one stable and unstable point in Gömböc ..."
  • "No other practical applications of Gömböc are known, probably because Gömböc is ..."

We don't speak of "the balancing properties of Cube," do we?

Or have I completely misunderstood the word? Is there actually only one 'real' individual phenomenon that goes by the name of Gömböc, and is kept in an undisclosed place somewhere in the world?

To be honest, I have the presumption that the above example sentences really should have been written as:

  • "The shape of the Indian Star Tortoise resembles a gömböc. "
  • "The balancing properties of gömböcs were associated with..."
  • "...one stable and unstable point in a gömböc ..."
  • "No other practical applications of gömböcs are known, probably because gömböcs are ..."

Johan Lont (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of articles is often sign that writer's first language is not English. —Tamfang (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And that he was sleepy and in rush :-D Seriously, the term was probably coined by a person who admitted being not fluent in English, thus this is the case when native speakers with minor knowledge of geometry might decide better on capitalization, single/plural and article issues. Sorry for not making enough time. One more note, the discovered shape refers not to a unique body, such as sphere, but to a class of bodies. Even the commercial replicas are officially produced in different shapes, but under the same name. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same questions. Thank you for starting the thread, Johan. I have uncapitalized most instances and changed some "a"s and "the"s. Here are some related thoughts.

We are witnessing the introduction of a new word into the English language (and also into Hungarian and every other language). Since the new English word is coming from a foreign language you may want to review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms.

Wikipedia is likely to be one of the main ways in which people are introduced to the word. While recognizing that it is not normally Wikipedia's place to create conventions but rather to cite them, let me suggest that in this case we nip in the bud a mistaken, nascent "convention", emerging out of ignorance, of capitalizing "gömböc" in English. Supporting arguments:

  1. The inventors of the word are ambivalent about capitalization. Note the capitalization at the "official gömböc shop", and note on the navigation bar at that site the uncapitalized links "what is a gömböc" and "usage of a gömböc".
  2. While the gömböc was at first treated as an artificial shape that was invented ("the Gömböc"), it has shifted and will continue to shift toward being treated as a natural shape that was discovered ("a gömböc").
  3. I even uncapitalized the two instances of "kis gömböc" in the word origin explanation because "kis gömböc" is not capitalized in the Hungarian folk tale reference.

See the next thread for related issues regarding the plural, spelling with 'ö' versus 'o', and pronunciation. IOLJeff (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conventions: pronunciation, spelling with ö versus o, and plural form[edit]

These three issues are interrelated. Per my arguments in the previous thread regarding capitalization, let me suggest that Wikipedia take a gentle leadership role in establishing some sensible conventions since clear conventions have not yet emerged. Remember, Wikipedia articles are not set in stone.

pronunciation - Whatever conventional English pronunciation has emerged is likely not the Hungarian pronunciation. In Hungarian "gömböc" rhymes with "room puts" (same vowel sound in both words). The conventional English pronunciation, especially based on the spelling "gomboc" (to be discussed next) more likely rhymes with "bomb clock". This is the way Stephen Fry pronounces it at 3:12 in the QI reference video.

ö versus o - Several of the references, including the New York Times Magazine Anglicize the spelling to "gomboc". This is how English speakers are likely to type it on their computers.

plural - A thread above explains that the plural in Hungarian is "gömböcök". The English references cited do not use this (thank goodness), but rather "gömböcs", "gombocs", or "gömböc" as a non-count noun. The Hungarian pronunciation of the singular "gömböc", ending with an s sound, sounds plural to an English speaker. (Perhaps this is why some references use the non-count "gömböc" for the plural.)

If the conventional English pronunciation ends with a k sound rather than s, and especially if the conventional English spelling uses o instead of ö, then it is natural for English speakers to use "one gomboc, two gombocs", rhyming with "bomb clock" and "bomb clocks". Therefore, I will change the content page along these lines and await other editors' feedback. IOLJeff (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should Wikipedia endorse a pronunciation which is plain wrong? What really bothers me is that it actually has an IPA transcription of what an English-only speaker with no idea how to pronounce this would say when shown the spelling. WP is one of the first sites people will look at when researching the topic, and it explicitly confirms that "Yes, you should say /ˈɡɒmbɒk/". I think this is wrong (especially considering the international audience of the English-only Wikipedia) and the IPA transcription should be removed. BarroColorado (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if we spell it with ‹ö›, who is harmed? (The steadily shrinking set of users of pre-Unicode software, I guess.) Those who can't be bothered with diacritics will write ‹o› no matter what we do. Those who don't care about funny foreigner-talk will say /ɡɒmbɒk/ no matter what we do.
Maybe the English spelling ought to be gimberts.
I do have a bit of concern for those who can't find the article because they come looking for Gomboc. If only Wikipedia had a way to steer them here! —Tamfang (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct English plural is "gömböces" (/gømbøtsəz/). If a word ending in a sibilant is pluralized by adding a sibilant, a schwa is inserted between the sibilants, e.g. "boxes". I've found only one occurrence of "gömböces" in English though. "Gömböcs" sounds like /gømbøtʃ/ to me. phma (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

Could we trim back the "Numbered Gömböcs" section advertising for the gomboc-shop.com? Perhaps just a single reference to the commercial venture? 214.4.238.180 (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While in 2010 this trim was done, it has been added back and expanded by none other than the probably not so impartial User:Gdomokos. Therefore I will trim again. --Murata (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Numbered Gömböces are not commercial products, most of them were given as a gift. They are exhibited at universities, research institutes, museums etc. The list provides useful information on that where Gömböces are exhibited and where anyone can see one (without purchasing one).
The reason of why Gdomokos is editing the list most frequently (although not always) is that he has up to date knowledge on numbered Gömböces. By trimming this, in my opinion non-commercial, list information would not be publicly available, although it belongs to the story of Gömböc. Bozoki (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

spammy article[edit]

The "production" and "media" sections read (in part) like sales brochures, and there's way too many links to the manufacturer's shopping site and general site. Articles are supposed to be cited to sources independent of the subject. I inserted an advert tag but Materialscientist reverted.[2] I'll leave it out for now but the article needs cleanup. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the point of that tag first. Cleaned up now. Unfortunately, science, its popularization, and notable cultural events on one side and business initiatives of the Gomboc inventor on the other side got mixed up, but I think it is Ok now, i.e. I would tolerate that small bit of "ads" which is left. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error for tolerance?[edit]

This edit changed "Their published solution was less sensitive; yet it has a shape tolerance of 10−4, that is 0.1 mm for a 10 cm size." to "...a shape tolerance of 10−3...". The cited source supports 0.1 mm and 10 cm, but the 10-x is Wikipedia's. Shouldn't the tolerance actually be 10-2, given by 0.1 mm / 10 cm? I'd have changed it myself but I'm worried I'm missing something...


Note the tolerance figure is given in both the Mathematical solution and Production sections. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0.1 mm is 0.01 cm, so the ratio is 0.01 cm / 10 cm = 0.01/10 = 10-3 24.250.22.118 (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Not sure what was going through my head a month ago. Thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Countless varieties[edit]

The term "countless varieties" in the intro paragraph seems like jargon. Is there a number? Is it infinite? It seems like this phrasing should be more specific. Yosho27 (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help to fix ref?[edit]

I added a sentence referring to the recently installed 4.5m statue of a gömböc in Budapest, but cannot get the ref to work (there's an error in the reflist, ref 7). Can someone help me see what's not correct? Kicsinyul (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tayste (edits) 18:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to add animated GIF[edit]

I created an animated GIF of a gömböc returning to its stable equilibrium. Does anyone have any concerns about this being added to the article? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6c.gif Kicsinyul (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea to me. The only MOS guidance I could find about including animations is on considering the file size and 331K is fine. Tayste (edits) 19:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failed link 15[edit]

At present, the link in "A kis gömböc, a folk tale in Hungarian. sk-szeged.hu" appears not found. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to rocks, pebbles, and Plato's Cube[edit]

This section is a bit wanting. I suggest getting rid of this --

"This is well reflected in the allegory of the cave, where Plato explains that the immediately visible physical world (in the current example, the shape of individual natural fragments) may only be a distorted shadow of the true essence of the phenomenon, an idea (in the current example, the cube)."

This doesn't make sense and seems to be the author pontificating about something that he doesn't understand. He even gets the metaphor backwards. The immediately visible world would be not seeing the world as a cube and the true reality would be that sedimentary fragments are on average cuboid. Why this opinion is relevant in an article about the gomboc is beyond me.

And this --

"This result was broadly reported on by leading popular science journals, including Science,[22] Popular Mechanics,[23] Quanta,[24] Wired,[25] Futura-Sciences, [26] the Italian edition of Scientific American [27] and the Greek daily journal To Vima.[28] In 2020, Science put this research among the top 10 most interesting articles of the year [29] and in the "Breakthrough of the Year, top online news, and science book highlights" podcast [30] news editor David Grimm discussed it with host Sarah Crespi among the 4 most notable research items, calling it the most philosophical paper, by far.[31]"

Unnecessary. No one wants to hear about how a bunch of news outlets reported on some study about sediments being cube shaped in an article about an entirely different shape. Keep the citations and just focus on this bit from the study the articles are all citing (which actually relates to what this section is about!):

"The life cycle of sedimentary particles is a remarkable expression of geometry in nature. Born by fragmentation as statistical shadows of an invisible cube, and rounded during transport along a universal trajectory (56), pebble shapes appear to evolve toward the likewise invisible gömböc—albeit without reaching that target." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:702:4950:2DF3:74DA:999:91F3 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the name Gomboc[edit]

A gomboc is a Hungarian dessert, a peach-filled pastry, or potato mash, that looks like, well... a Gomboc! Can some original Hungarian (I'm not) add this to the page? 2.53.157.47 (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgy promo references[edit]

Hi @Hipal: What references are you talking about specifically. Some clue would be idea, so I can make a start. scope_creepTalk 20:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the current version, reference 1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 34, 36, 37, and 38 are all primary (publications or web sites by the inventors of this shape, including some that are straight-up links to an online shop). 5 is a spammy exposition promo piece, and 6 appears to be a deadlink. 7 and 8 are about a folk tale with the same name, not about this shape. 15 is an unreliable blog. 23, 24, and 26 are reliable, but really only one source and its reprints. 25 and 27 are translations of the same piece into other languages, used here only for citation overkill. 28, 29, and 30 are all the same listicle of links to science stories, one of which is that same one. 31-33 are primary sources about unrelated research that happen to mention self-righting behavior in different contexts and cite the work on Gömböcs in passing. 34 is a company with the same name but otherwise unrelated. 39-41 are unreliable IMBD/Vimeo links. 42 is a novel that happens to use the word once (on what page, we are not told). 45 is a link to a Wikipedia article used as a source (a forbidden circular reference), and 47 also looks like a link to another wiki. In short, there are a few good-looking references scattered here and there, but most of them are a disaster. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @David Eppstein: That looks like a goodly amount of the article. I figured it would be few or perhaps a range or two. I'll look at it tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 22:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Gömböc models[edit]

Dear User, yesterday I added the table to the english wikipedia entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6c&oldid=1087136155. Could you please verify why you deleted it? It is a very specific list that in my opition completes this article perfectly and should stay on this page. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuer Autor Mr. Right (talk • contribs) 08:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuer Autor Mr. Right: All the references are primary to the inventors own website and a lot of it reads like an promotional brochure. scope_creepTalk 09:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an example https://gomboc.eu/en/gomboc-108-in-kalimpong/ Many of the entries on the list, link to the Gomboc site, the majority of them. Wikipedia is not a webhost where it can host random images, its forbidden by policy and on top of that, it would break Wikipedia Terms of Use to host such images on links to the companies own website, as its a form of advertisement. scope_creepTalk 09:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the entries could probably go back in, if proper WP:SECONDARY sources were used to validate per WP:V each entries, for example a news stories, but not in the current form. I would suggest building the list your own WP:SANDBOX and then putting it into the article. The article itself has underwent a deep copyedit by several people and its not going back to the form it was in before, which was an advertisement for the product. scope_creepTalk 10:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Neuer Autor Mr. Right is a WP:SPA restoring the work of previous editor Gdomokos rather than making the sort of edits that new editors do, it is natural to suspect that they might be the same person. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think that as well. It went in,verbatim, with no interest in changing it to follow policy. scope_creepTalk 16:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPI initiated. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @David Eppstein: There seems to be somebody edit warring to bring their favourite table back. Again its went back in back, verbatim. They are really keen to move it back. @Theroadislong: has reverted on it. scope_creepTalk 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the past SPI and blocks, I blocked them as well. It's either the same sock farm or someone else here only to stir up trouble. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: Thanks for swift action. Could be. I suspect there will be other attempts. I think it is probably hitting their bottom-line, less web traffic to their shop. scope_creepTalk 20:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism and Mathematical proof[edit]

I do not understand how it does not have 2 more unstabe equilibria at the sides. Can someone explain? Hank the Sniper (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can A 3D Model Of It Be In Other Model Stores[edit]

I'd Suggest A 3D Model That Can Be In Sketchfab And Other 3D Model Stores So People Can Preview The Model In 3D Space 136.158.100.186 (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is for discussion of improvements to the Wikipedia article, not for discussion of content on other sites. And there are intellectual property issues (whether you consider them valid or not) that could be obstacles to such a plan. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to rocks, pebbles and Plato's cube[edit]

Hi @Lemondoge: How goes it? I took that section out. I've looked at that section months ago and thought it was really very poorly written. When you commented on it, it made me more sure that it is junk really, so I've removed it. scope_creepTalk 00:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Doing well! Thanks for deleting the section - I'm glad that my tagification was able to convince someone slightly braver than me to take the leap. {{Lemondoge|Talk|Contributions}} 00:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steinmetz Bicylinder?[edit]

Other than a lack of symmetry, and with or without gravity or balance, I don't understand how this sort of object is any more novel or interesting geometrically than a Steinmetz Bicylinder. If you simply wish it to have a prefer way it rolls, this can easily be accomplished by inserting a denser material pin of appropriate geometry to one of its faces.

I don't think it rates inclusion in encyclopedic text unless it has mechanical or mathematical application to problems that demand it be taught to mechanical engineers who might be able to actually use it. Some common stones or pebbles have shapes that are more interesting than this, much less rate the distinction of a name in an encyclopedic index to remember them by. Danshawen (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Steinmetz solid, so arguments saying that it's similar in notability aren't really a convincing reason not to have this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gömböc&oldid=1207304586"