this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
581 points (95.5% liked)

Science Memes

9992 readers
1189 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 198 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

You got nothing on the 17 square packing

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 77 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

This is the most efficient (known) packing of 17 unit squares inside a square. If you're asking why it's like that, that's above my math proficiency level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing

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

[–] tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month 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 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's like that because the universe wants us to suffer.

[–] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If God was real / or is real and cared, we would have a perfect 336 day year.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No, suffering would be if it were always the same predictable pattern in everything all the time.

[–] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

True. You can't have joy without suffering, light without dark, cars without an extended warranty.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 34 points 1 month 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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 55 points 1 month 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.

[–] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

How?

Yes, if you push the circles down a bit, it forms a 7 by 7 matrix. But if pushing the circles into a square matrix is not allowed: how?

Edit: I get it now. It is about (efficient) packing not about counting. I also get the 4th panel now...

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] hsdkfr734r@feddit.nl 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren't the same squares(or circles)

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

These are optimal packings of n circles in a square container of the smallest size that will contain them

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So it is fitting the 49 in smallest square and not fitting as many circles as possible in given square? Okay that makes sense

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago
[–] datelmd5sum@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I mean it makes sense when you think about how the circles 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 almost perfect packing in the middle of the 49 circle square, surrounded by fault lines in the structure and then some more good packing, and garbage in the bottom.

slightly related Steve Mould video

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

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

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Yarr

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

That’s what she said 😏

[–] _different_username@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago
[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›