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.
Comment on Efficency
OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months agoCan someone explain this?
Artyom@lemm.ee 7 months ago
nephs@lemmygrad.ml 7 months ago
Mathematics actually hates humanity, and it likes to remind us of it, sometimes. That’s why.
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 months 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
Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 7 months ago
It’s like that because the universe wants us to suffer.
MisterFrog@lemmy.world 7 months ago
If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.
Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 7 months 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 7 months ago
No, suffering would be if it were always the same predictable pattern in everything all the time.
Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 7 months ago
True. You can’t have joy without suffering, light without dark, cars without an extended warranty.
tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml 7 months 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.