Talk:Kummer–Vandiver conjecture

Kummer–Vandiver?

While I understand that Kummer made the conjecture first, I have never heard it called that, so I'm not sure the move to "Kummer–Vandiver conjecture" is warranted. Are there any sources that support the move? Not that one source would be sufficient. RobHar (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kummer%E2%80%93Vandiver+conjecture%22 r.e.b. (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd never heard this naming so I didn't even consider googling, sorry. Still, "Vandiver conjecture" is much more common, so at the very least the article should mention that it's usually referred to as such. Data: google search '"Kummer-Vandiver conjecture"': scholar: 35 hits, books: 18 hits. google search '"Vandiver conjecture" -"Kummer-Vandiver"': scholar: 152 hits, books: 445. This tempts me to suggest a move back, but I'm not going to argue about it (also: it's scary to go against Serge Lang's wishes when it comes naming things...) Cheers. RobHar (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In particular" - misleading?

It seems to me that the statement "In particular... [for regular primes the conjecture holds]" does not use the result Kummer proved at all, just the fact that the class number of the larger field is divisible by that of the smaller field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:240:C400:4B20:7412:3555:617:5CE7 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on evidence?

The article says "As of 2011, there is no particularly strong evidence either for or against the conjecture and it is unclear whether it is true or false, …". Are there any updates since then? Math MisterY (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]