← Back to context Comment by woah 7 hours ago Can someone explain why 83 and 87 can't get any smaller? 4 comments woah Reply 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?
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?
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.
It is possible they can; it’s not yet proven that the listed packings for 83 and 87 are optimal.
Which of the blocks do you think you could move to shrink the solution? Or are you thinking of a completely different arrangement?
They got updated to be smaller this year, so maybe there's still more gains to be had?