Annoying that the headline writer went for the cheap "Einstein" as reference to clever human, ignoring that the guy (his name is Smith) found an "ein stein" (German: "one shape") that tiles aperiodically.
Words you might use for these shapes instead would be Form (meaning shape) or Kachel (meaning tile).
Source: native speaker.
> (The term “einstein” comes from the German “ein stein,” or “one stone” — more loosely, “one tile” or “one shape.”)
I'm mostly reacting to the use of "Einstein" as a label, which I always dislike. The article seemed to hint at a reason for the pun/reference (Smith found a "one shape") but there no was justification for bringing Albert into the discussion.
...
Edit: In retrospect, there's another way to read the article headline. If you ignore the capital E (or forgive it because of German Noun capitalization Rules), you might argue that the "Elusive 'einstein' (tile) answers/resolves a longstanding question in tile geometry".
I think this would be too generous though. They did capitalize the E, and the verb makes more sense as a human action.
Might be the result of multiple edits. NYT headline telephone game.
As I said, that "loose" meaning doesn't exist, but either way it would be "ein Stein". I guarantee that no one at the NYT bothered to ask a German speaker.
However, I did check the German Wikipedia entry on tilings, which to my surprise does confirm that the word "einstein" is an established synonym for an aperiodic monotile. It also states that this usage isn't widespread in Germany itself. I presume that's because it doesn't actually make any sense in German.
By now, we've probably spent more time thinking about it than anyone at NYT did. Thanks for the authoritative view.
"Elusive 'einstein' solves long-standing math problem"
which is certainly true -- aperiodic monotiles have been _very_ elusive. Not sure if the author was trying for a double meaning... if so, it does seem like the incorrect secondary meaning has overtaken the primary meaning in a lot of people's minds.