Talk:Kepler conjecture

description of Hale's proof
The following description is not correct:

"If a lower bound could be found for every one of these configurations that was greater than the value for the cubic close packing arrangement, then the Kepler conjecture would be proved."

If a lower bound could be found for JUST one of these configurations that is GREATER than the value for the cubic close packing arrangement, than that would definetly mean that Kepler's conjecture would be wrong!

Ths sentence should probably read:

"If an upper bound could be found for every one of these configurations that was smaller than the value for the cubic close packing arrangement, then the Kepler conjecture would be proved."

84.245.187.49 09:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (jbulling: see the german page for my user id)


 * The article says that Hales proof uses a function whose minimum value corresponds to the maximum density for a given arrangement. So a lower bound for the function value gives an upper bound for an arrangement's density. If the lower bound of the function value for a given arrangement is greater than the value of the function for the cubic close packing arrangement then this arrangement cannot achieve a packing density as high as that of cubic close packing. I have added some clarifications to the explanation in the article itself. Gandalf61 13:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures?
This article seems to be crying out for some diagrams showing how the spheres stack up, if anyone has the skills and knowledge to produce them. (Or enough cannonballs.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.133.45 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree. I have added a diagram borrowed from the sphere packing article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

REcommend you remove the first picture of face centered cubic for it looks like a lump of jello 216.16.54.57 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)General

R. Buckminster Fuller
No R. Buckminster Fuller here? I'm not exaggerating to estimate his Synergetics referred hundreds of times to the closest packing of spheres. No doubt thousands if you include synonyms like omni–directional–vector–equi–confabulalalafofum... just kidding, all luv for B–Meister–F. I couldn't do justice to his mad genius if I tried. Perhaps you can?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler conjecture. 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/20160422151301/http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.556,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx to http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.556,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

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) 00:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Kepler theorem
Is it appropriate to create a redirection page called "Kepler theorem" that redirects to this page? Blahhmosh (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

kissing
What, no mention of kissing number? —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)