586
Efficency (mander.xyz)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 196 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You got nothing on the 17 square packing

[-] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 3 days ago
[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 30 points 3 days ago

We've figured out optimal packing methods for any number of squares inside a big square. When a number is below and near a square number like 15, you just leave an empty box, but when it's far from the next square number, you'll be able to pack them more efficiently than just leaving empty squares around. Turns out this kind of stuff is hilariously hard to prove that it's the most efficient method.

[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 73 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is the most efficient (known) packing of 17 unit squares inside a square. If you're asking why it's like that, that's above my math proficiency level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing

See also: https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html

[-] tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago

Thanks I've lost 30 sanity points now, and I'm now sure with a number of squares sufficently high s is gonna equal to cthulu.

[-] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 7 points 3 days ago

It's like that because the universe wants us to suffer.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.

[-] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

If God was real the boxes would all fit in a nice grid for any square container. But the OP already has the conclusion for that one.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago

No, suffering would be if it were always the same predictable pattern in everything all the time.

[-] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

True. You can't have joy without suffering, light without dark, cars without an extended warranty.

[-] nephs@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 days ago

Mathematics actually hates humanity, and it likes to remind us of it, sometimes. That's why.

[-] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I mean it makes sense when you think about how the circles arrange in an infinte square and e.g. 4r square. There has to be some fuckery between the perfect packing and the small square packing. You can see a triangle of almost perfect packing in the middle of the 49 circle square, surrounded by fault lines in the structure and then some more good packing, and garbage in the bottom.

slightly related Steve Mould video

[-] FiniteBanjo 2 points 3 days ago

Yarr

Neat spacing leave much gap, patterned mess less space between.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

Well-put. One perfect pattern at one scale, another perfect pattern at a different scale, and then there has to be a transition between them of optimal steps along the way. I like that.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Or, they could do 6x8 with one obviously extra at the end. But this is a funny not a rational thing.

[-] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This is the kind of stuff the timber mafia needs to know so that they can efficiently pack trees and send them to IKEA.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 36 points 4 days ago
[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 54 points 4 days ago

This is about the most efficient way to pack that number of circles. By looking at the bottom row of the 49, you can see that it's slightly less wide than 7 diameters, because it has 5 circles at the very bottom (taking up 5 diameters of width), but two are slightly raised, which also means they're slightly inward.

[-] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 35 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

How?

Yes, if you push the circles down a bit, it forms a 7 by 7 matrix. But if pushing the circles into a square matrix is not allowed: how?

Edit: I get it now. It is about (efficient) packing not about counting. I also get the 4th panel now...

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 64 points 4 days ago

7 by 7 matrix isn’t the optimal packing. The square shown is slightly smaller than 7 by 7.

[-] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Thanks. I thought it was about counting. It all makes a lot more sense now. (And it also doesn't.)

[-] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Yeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren't the same squares(or circles)

[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

These are optimal packings of n circles in a square container of the smallest size that will contain them

[-] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 days ago

So it is fitting the 49 in smallest square and not fitting as many circles as possible in given square? Okay that makes sense

[-] apotheotic@beehaw.org 6 points 4 days ago
[-] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 10 points 3 days ago
[-] nephs@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

The bestagons.

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago

That’s what she said 😏

[-] _different_username@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
586 points (95.5% liked)

Science Memes

9169 readers
2455 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS