Talk:Illumination problem

Tokarsky solution

This entry is copied from the Wolfram Research page. But the process of cutting and pasting left out all reference to the Tokarsky solution. What this article says about the Penrose elliptical solution is not true, and contradicts the caption to the illustration of this solution. The description in the text is true of the Tokarsky's polygonal solution. Colin McLarty (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

24-sided room

Mathworld cites D. Castro for the 24 sided room. But outside of Mathworld, I can't find any evidence that the paper, the author or even the journal exists. Pwrong (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Peter Ungar

I (Peter Ungar) replaced the material copied from Mathworld by a reference to that page. Instead, I put in a reference to Roger Penrose's original publication of his non-illuminable smooth 2 and 3 dimensional regions, which can be accessed without charge. Penrose's explanation is sketchy, so I added details he left out. When it comes to verifiability, I did not quote a source of statements such as that the equation of a circular cone is quadratic or that the intersection of a quadratic surface and a plane is a quadratic curve or that a finite quadratic curve is an ellipse or that an axis of symmetry of an ellipse is its major or minor axis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterungar (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Peter Ungar, please stop edit warring to replace the article with your version. Check the page history: the article was not just material copied from Mathworld, but instead the collaboration of multiple users over a period of many years. The article's previous version had proper wikiformatting, images, and many references.

You've replaced all that with a version that is a wall of text with original research, with improper wikiformatting, with no images, and almost no references other than a YouTube video and a link to Mathworld's front page which doesn't even discuss this problem. You've been reverted by User:Jni , by User:ReyHahn , and by myself , but despite being reverted by three different users, you've repeatedly reinstated your version that completely replaces the collaborative work of other users on this article.

—Lowellian (reply) 23:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Issue resolved at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive426. —Lowellian (reply) 13:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ergodic hypothesis

The question of ergodicity in a perfectly collisionless ideal gas with specular reflections.

The article on the ergodic hypothesis currently has the figure at right. From what I can tell, after having watched umpteen youtube videos of unilluminable rooms, the figure labelled "Maxwell's tunnel" is illuminable, and therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative. However, the Penrose rooms would be an example where the ergodic hypothesis is false ... for a "perfectly collisionless" particles. i.e. for illumination. If collisions are allowed, then every part of Penrose's room can be (easily) reached. I give some reasons why on the talk page there. The question for this page is: are there any theorems, results or demonstrations for "Maxwell's tunnel" as an illumination problem? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)