Cursed

Comments

• Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  With straight diagonal lines.

  Image

  source

  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Homophobe!

    source

    • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      hey it’s no longer June, homophobia is back on the menu

      source
  • davidgro@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Why are there gaps on either side of the upper-right square? Seems like shoving those closed (like the OP image) would allow a little more twist on the center squares.

    source

    • Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Image

      source
    • 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      there’s a gap on both, just in different places and you can get from one to the other just by sliding. The constraints are elsewhere so wouldn’t allow you to twist.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • superb@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I think this diagram is less accurate. The original picture doesn’t have that gap

      source
    • Serinus@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You have a point. That’s obnoxious. I just wanted straight lines. I’ll see if I can find another.

      source
• 9point6@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Oh so you’re telling me that my storage unit is actually incredibly well optimised for space efficiency?

  Nice!

  source
• janus2@lemmy.zip ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  if I ever have to pack boxes like this I’m going to throw up

  source

  • Midnitte@beehaw.org ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I’ve definitely packed a box like this, but I’ve never packed boxes like this 😳

    source
• Psaldorn@lemmy.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.

  source
• Squalia@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Here’s a much more elegant solution for 17

  Image

  source
• peteypete420@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Is this confirmed? Like yea the picture looks legit, but anybody do this with physical blocks or at least something other than ms paint?

  source
• a_party_german@hexbear.net ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html

  Image

  Mathematics has played us for absolute fools

  source

  • avattar@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    If you can put the diagonal squares from the 17 solution in a 2-3-2 configuration, I can almost see a pattern. I wonder what other configurations between 17 and 132 have a similar solution?

    source
• CuriousRefugee@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  If there was a god, I’d imagine them designing the universe and giggling like an idiot when they made math.

  source
• LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms why this is the most efficient way?

  source

  • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    These categories of geometric problem are ridiculously difficult to find the definitive perfect solution for, which is exactly why people have been grinding on them for decades, and mathematicians can’t say any more than “it’s the best one found so far”

    For this particular problem the diagram isn’t answering “the most efficient way to pack some particular square” but “the smallest square that can fit 17 unit-sized (1x1) squares inside it.” - with the answer here being 4.675 unit length per side.

    Trivially for 16 squares they would fit inside a grid of 4x4 perfectly, with four squares on each row, nice and tidy. To fit just one more square we could size up to 5x5, and it would remain nice and tidy, but there is then obviously a lot of empty space, which suggests the solution is in-between. But if the solution is in between, then some squares must start going slanted to enable reduction in size, as it is only by doing this we can utilise the unfilled gaps and start poking corners in there.

    So, we can’t answer what the optimal solution is going to look like, but we can certainly demonstrate that it’s going to be very ugly and messy.

    Another similar (but less ugly) geometric problem is the moving sofa problem which has again seen small iterations over a long period of time.

    source

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      All this should tell us is that we have a strong irrational preference for right angles being aligned with each other.

      source
    • DozensOfDonner@mander.xyz ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Lol, the ambidextrous sofa. It’s a butt plug.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Thanks for the explanation

      source
  • Devadander@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Any other configurations results in a larger enclosed square. This is the most optimal way to pack 17 squares that we’ve found

    source

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Source?

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s not necessarily the most efficient, but it’s the best guess we have. This is largely done by trial and error. There is no hard proof or surefire way to calculate optimal arrangements; this is just the best that anyone’s come up with so far.

    It’s sort of like chess. Using computers, we can analyze moves and games at a very advanced level, but we still haven’t “solved” chess, and we can’t determine whether a game or move is perfect in general. There’s no formula to solve it without exhaustively searching through every possible move, which would take more time than the universe has existed, even with our most powerful computers.

    Perhaps someday, someone will figure out a way to prove this mathematically.

    source

    • woodenghost@hexbear.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      They proved it for n=5 and 10.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It crams the most boxes into the given square. If you take the seven angled boxes out and put them back in an orderly fashion, I think you can fit six of them. The last one won’t fit. If you angle them, this is apparently the best solution.

    What I wonder is if this has any practical applications.

    source

    • 7bicycles@hexbear.net ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      yeah it vindicates my approach of packing stuff via just throwing it in there. no I’m not lazy and disorderly, this is optimal cargo space usage

      source
    • fox@hexbear.net ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      There’s very likely applications in algorithms that try to maximize resource usage while minimizing cost

      source
  • a_party_german@hexbear.net ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s a problem about minimizing the side length of the outer rectangle in order to fit rectangles of side length 1 into it.

    It’s somehow the most efficient for 17 rectangles because math.

    This is 20:

    Image

    source
• fargeol@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Bees seeing this: “OK, screw it, we’re making hexagons!”

  source

  • raltoid@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Fun fact: Bees actually make round holes, the hexagon shape forms as the wax dries.

    source
  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Bestagons*

    source

    • EpicFailGuy@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Texagons

      source
  • brown567@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    4-dimensional bees make rhombic dodecahedrons

    source
• JoeTheSane@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I hate this so much

  source
• wise_pancake@lemmy.ca ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Is this a hard limit we’ve proven or can we still keep trying?

  source

  • chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    We actually haven’t found a universal packing algorithm, so it’s on a case-by-case basis. This is the best we’ve found so far for this case (17 squares in a square).

    Image

    source

    • glimse@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Figuring out 1-4 must have been sooo tough

      source
  • rockerface@lemmy.cafe ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    It’s the best we’ve found so far

    source
• selokichtli@lemmy.ml ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Do you know how inspiring documentaries describe how maths are everywhere, telling is about the golden ratio in art and animal shells, and pi, and perfect circles and Euler’s number and natural growth, etc? Well, this, I can see it in the world.

  source
• schnokobaer@feddit.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  That tiny gap on the right is killing me

  source
• Lionel@endlesstalk.org ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Unless I’m wrong, it’s not the most efficient use of space but if you impose the square shape restriction, it is.

  source

  • cooligula@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    That’s what he said. Pack 17 squares into a square

    source

    • Lionel@endlesstalk.org ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      My point was that it doesn’t break my brain at all when considering there’s an artificial constraint that affects efficiency and there’s just not going to be a perfect solution for every number of squares when you consider the problem for more than just 17 squares

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I love when I have to do research just to understand the question being asked.

  Just kidding, I don’t really love that.

  source
• RustyNova@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Not complete with the sounds

  source
• Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  It is one prove more, why it is important to think literally out of the box. But too much people of this type

  i.vgy.me/UVG654.gif

  source
• nebulaone@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  To be fair, the large square can not be cleanly divided by the smaller square(s). Seems obvious to most people, but I didn’t get it at first.

  source

  • Zwiebel@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    The outer square is not given or fixed, it is the result of the arrangement inside. You pack the squares a tightly as you can and that then results in an enclosing square of some size

    source
• Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  But there are 7 squares in the middle with 10 around it, surely that counts for something

  source