Comment on Just one more square bro
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
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)
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.
My autistic ass can’t comprehend why anyone would want to arrange a prime number in a square pattern…
I mean, the actual answer is severalfold: “sometimes, when you need to fill a space, you don’t end up with simple compound numbers of identical packages” is one,but really, it’s a problem in mathematics which, were we to have a general solution to find the most efficient method of packing n objects with identical properties into the smallest area, we would be able to more effectively predict natural structures, including predicting things like protein folding, which is a huge area of medical research.
Mathematicians try this with every number
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.
red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 minutes ago
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.