Submitted 8 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/0835c7d1-73b0-4594-a826-427144f2fd2b.webp
For the uninitiated: this is the current most - efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.
(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement’s 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)
Isn’t this only true if the outer square’s size is not an integer multiple of the inner square’s size? Meaning, if you have to do this to your waffle iron, you simply chose the dimensions poorly.
But you can fit 25 squares into the same space. This isn’t efficiency, it’s just wasted space and bad planning.
You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don’t argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.
Precisely. That’s why I wrote the parenthetical about the greater efficiency of 16 as a perfect square. As the other commenter pointed out, this is a meme.
For 25 squares of size 1x1 you’d need a square of size 5x5. The square into 17 squares of size 1x1 fit is smaller than 5x5, so you can’t fit 25 squares into it.
You can’t fit 25 squares into a square 4.675x bigger unless you make them smaller. Yes, that will increase the volume available for syrup.
Yeah, it’s not at all an optimal waffle. It’s more a cool math meme waffle. ;3
– Frost
Thank you I was very lost lmao
Does coefficient in this context mean the length of the side of the big square?
Exactly. It is the length of the side of the bigger square, relative to the sides of the smaller identical squares.
This makes me so angry for reasons I can’t articulate
This actually makes me unreasonably happy, kinda like knowing the secrets of the number 37.
Im a dipper. You put the syrup where you want it yourself. Do not rely on some fancy designed skillet to feed you the way you deserve.
Thanks, I hate it!
How inefficient, I could fit 100 squares in there easily.
Right? Wake me up when we reach a 7 nm waffle lithographic process.
Gate all around. I expect my waffle and syrup to hug each other. No one likes a lethargic partner.
Took me a while lol
The solution is to take a bite of waffle and then take a drink of syrup like it’s a chaser
and this is why I can no longer go to cocktail bars
TIHI
Is this the new loss?
no this is a gain
Who tf uses a 56 years old collectible for breakfast?
Mathematicians: makes something with zero practical applications
Waffles:
I forget what this shape is actually a solution for but it is very funny
It’s the square packing in a square for n = 17.
yeah that’s a wild rabbit hole to go down, the shaprs are either extremely satisfying or extremely distressing, there is no in-between.
Pfft, let me know when “Big Waffle” develops its own proprietary 6-nanometer syrup squares. Until then I will defer to the Belgians and their superior waffle technology.
Those fat Belgian waffles have nothing on the Dutch stroopwafel technology coming out of asml
THERE IS CLEARLY ROOM FOR 25 SQUARES…. sorry just so unreasonably angry right now
There isn’t. The sides are 4.675 long (as far as i understand)
To fit more squares, youd need to use smaller squares but by that logic you could fit any number of squares.
About damn time. #WaffleOptimizationCrew
Decrease the size of the squares and you could get waaaay more surface area.
This comes from a math problem where the squares size is fixed and you try to minimize the area they fit in
Yeah I know, but it’s terrible waffle design, there’s big flat chunks without syrup squares. It’s a huge amount of wasted area unable to hold syrup in any meaningful volume. It’s sad, really.
It’s really volume you care about, for filling with syrup.
Good point. Pesky square-cube law gets me again. Having done three minutes of research on Wikipedia pages I didn’t fully understand, I think changing the square divots to spherical ones will give us the smallest surface area-to-volume ratio.
slice-of-pie-from-just-off-center-and-carved-out-comma-but-worse.bmp
SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Image
blx@piefed.zip 1 hour ago
I wonder how many people would have understood both references just a few years ago. Yet today, not only someone made a meme out of this, but it also gets a good deal of updates. That’s the internet culture I love!