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.
OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Can someone explain this?
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
This is the most efficient packing of 17 unit squares inside a square. If you’re asking why it’s like that, that’s above my math proficiency level.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing
tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml 1 week 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 1 week ago
It’s like that because the universe wants us to suffer.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 week ago
No, suffering would be if it were always the same predictable pattern in everything all the time.
Artyom@lemm.ee 1 week 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.
nephs@lemmygrad.ml 1 week ago
Mathematics actually hates humanity, and it likes to remind us of it, sometimes. That’s why.