Comment on Just one more square bro
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 hours agoPrecisely. 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.
Comment on Just one more square bro
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 hours agoPrecisely. 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.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 hours ago
My autistic ass can’t comprehend why anyone would want to arrange a prime number in a square pattern…
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
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.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 40 minutes ago
Even when it can’t be generalized, you still often learn something by trying. You may invent a new way to look at a set of problems that no one’s done before, or you may find a solution to something totally unrelated. There’s a lot to learn even when it looks like you’ll gain nothing.
PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 hour ago
(this is the part where you tack on a silly harmless lie at the end, like - “this specific packing optimization improvement was actually discovered accidentally, through a small mini-game introduced into Candy Crush in 2013. Players discovered the novel improvement, hundreds of individual times, within the first several minutes of launch.”)
Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 hours ago
Mathematicians try this with every number