← Back to context

Comment by yzydserd

7 hours ago

fwiw The prime site for square in square packing is at https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html

The triangular view is most interesting. And a 20 minute video on this view is at https://youtu.be/uL5wuiy34rs

12 comments

yzydserd

Reply
PowerElectronix  3 hours ago

I guess when my parcel arrives all crumbled it's because it was along other 23 parcels instead of 22 and the courier knows his optimal square packing solutions.

NKosmatos  1 hour ago

Thanks for posting this, I remember seeing this some time ago but I had lost the link.

woah  7 hours ago

Can someone explain why 83 and 87 can't get any smaller?

  • entropicdrifter  6 hours ago

    Because the outer perimeter must be a square. 83 and 87 could shrink the outer perimeter in one dimension, but not in both at the same time.

  • sheept  6 hours ago

    It is possible they can; it’s not yet proven that the listed packings for 83 and 87 are optimal.

  • danbruc  7 hours ago

    Which of the blocks do you think you could move to shrink the solution? Or are you thinking of a completely different arrangement?

  • nemomarx  7 hours ago

    They got updated to be smaller this year, so maybe there's still more gains to be had?

Buttons840  7 hours ago

"God is dead and the optimal packing of squares killed him." I will never not think of this meme when looking at these horrors. I see it, but I don't like it. ;)

pinkmuffinere  6 hours ago

This is cool! Something seems broken in the representation for 1850 and 1765, squares are strangely intersecting.

edit: Or maybe something wrong with the way my browser (brave) is rendering it.

ohyoutravel  1 hour ago

I am not a mathematician. Why can a square of s = N not usually fit N * N unit squares? For example S = 4, one would naively (I guess) think it could fit 16 unit squares (4 * 4), but if I’m reading the above correct the actual solution is 15 (with what looks like a unit-square-sized space left over). Same for S = 5, and S = 6, but not for S = 2, which fits the expected 4 unit squares.