this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
596 points (95.7% liked)

Science Memes

11047 readers
3063 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.

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



Research Committee

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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 202 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

You got nothing on the 17 square packing

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

Mathematics actually hates humanity, and it likes to remind us of it, sometimes. That's why.

[–] [email protected] 78 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

If God was real the boxes would all fit in a nice grid for any square container. But the OP already has the conclusion for that one.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

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

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