Talk:Pollock's conjectures

Merge

I propose the two conjectures (Pollock octahedral numbers conjecture and Pollock tetrahedral numbers conjecture) be merged into a single article, probably here. The articles have only one paragraph each, and are unlikely to be significantly expanded (unless proved). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Joule36e5 (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dodecahedral and icosahedral conjectures

Both of these appear to be false, with 79 as the lowest counterexample to the dodecahedral case and 47 as the lowest counterexample to the icosahedral case. Found using some functions made with Python [1]. Unsure if these conjectures need to be included in this article as they do not seem to be noteworthy. LightEdiand (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Further to the above, based on this article [2], his conjectures were not clear to his contemporaries, with the papers containing such not being published beyond the abstracts. These two proposed conjectures may be a misunderstanding, as evident by the small counterexamples noted. LightEdiand (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You are likely right, and I agree that we should remove them to avoid confusion. Thanks for researching and bringing these points. Saung Tadashi (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)