Science Memes

11047 readers

2881 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

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

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander 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

[email protected]

596

Efficency (mander.xyz)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

55 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 42 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Because it's a smaller area than 7x7.

If you consider the regular packing in an infinite plane, tri/hex packing is the most space efficient (least wasted space), so I'd assume larger packings would tend towards that. But in smaller packings, the efficiency loss from the extra size needed to offset the circles outweighs the efficiency gained by hex packing.

7x7 is the boundary where those efficiency tradeoffs switch.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trying to think how tri/hex is more efficient than any regular tiling, say squares.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Want a hint? Think about a circle bound by an n-sided polygon. What happens to the space between the bounding polygon and the circle as n increases? And when n is infinite?

So of three possible regular tilings, which will be most and least efficient?

(Btw, strictly speaking, I shouldn't have said tri/hex before, as it's really just hex tiling.)

You could also use some fancy trig to calculate the efficiency %, but that's way too much work for me. :)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Thank you for this explanation!