Science Memes

15558 readers

2771 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]

828

Cursed (mander.xyz)

submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

100 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

It's important to note that while this seems counterintuitive, it's only the most efficient because the small squares' side length is not a perfect divisor of the large square's.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

this is regardless of that. The meme explains it a bit wierdly, but we start with 17 squares, and try to find most efficient packing, and outer square's size is determined by this packing.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What? No. The divisibility of the side lengths have nothing to do with this.

The problem is what's the smallest square that can contain 17 identical squares. If there were 16 squares it would be simply 4x4.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

And the next perfect divisor one that would hold all the ones in the OP pic would be 5x5. 25 > 17, last I checked.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

He's saying the same thing. Because it's not an integer power of 2 you can't have a integer square solution. Thus the densest packing puts some boxes diagonally.