Efficency

Comments

• Zehzin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  You got nothing on the 17 square packing

  source

  • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Can someone explain this?

    source

    • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Artyom@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source
    • nephs@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    xkcd.com/2740

    source
• jordanlund@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  ?

  Image

  source

  • lemmyng@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing

    source
  • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
• hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  How?

  source

  • magic_lobster_party@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source

    • hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

      source
  • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren’t the same squares

    source

    • apotheotic@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      These are optimal packings of n circles in a square shaped container

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• datelmd5sum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I mean it makes sense when you think about how the spheres 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 perfect packing in the middle of the 49 sphere square, surrounded by garbage.

  source

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yarr

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

    source
  • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
• helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Should have used hexagons

  source

  • nephs@lemmygrad.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The bestagons.

    source
  • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That’s what she said 😏

    source
• sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Maths is a science now?

  source

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Science is applied math, engineering is applied science, manufacturing is applied engineering, etc. it’s math all the way down.

    source

    • zarlin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Relevant XKCD: xkcd.com/435/

      source
    • fossilesque@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Image

      Math and philosophy are basically interchangeable here.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • ogeist@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    always_has_been.jpg

    source
  • The_Che_Banana@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    yes… www.britannica.com/science/mathematics

    and no… …stackexchange.com/…/is-mathematics-considered-a-…

    source
  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • smeg@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    We’ve got !mathmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone for maths but it’s a bit quiet compared to here

    source

    • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Quality over quantity! 😉

      source
  • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think you forgot the /s

    source
  • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The study and discovery of mathematics is, yes.

    source
  • Bertuccio@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Always has been.

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

    source
• veganpizza69@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

  source
• _different_username@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  HCP FTW.

  source
• boatswain@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • Enkers@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I think you skipped a row.

    Also, 6*6+7=???

    source

    • boatswain@infosec.pub ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I did yeah; deleted my content almost immediately after posting it because I went to double check. Counting is hard!

      source