this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
596 points (95.6% liked)

Science Memes

10940 readers
1702 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
596
Efficency (mander.xyz)
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [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)

Can someone explain this?

[–] [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] 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)

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.

[–] [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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [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] 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] 37 points 4 months ago (2 children)

?

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago

This is about the most efficient way to pack that number of circles. By looking at the bottom row of the 49, you can see that it's slightly less wide than 7 diameters, because it has 5 circles at the very bottom (taking up 5 diameters of width), but two are slightly raised, which also means they're slightly inward.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

How?

Yes, if you push the circles down a bit, it forms a 7 by 7 matrix. But if pushing the circles into a square matrix is not allowed: how?

Edit: I get it now. It is about (efficient) packing not about counting. I also get the 4th panel now...

[–] [email protected] 65 points 4 months ago (1 children)

7 by 7 matrix isn’t the optimal packing. The square shown is slightly smaller than 7 by 7.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Thanks. I thought it was about counting. It all makes a lot more sense now. (And it also doesn't.)

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren't the same squares(or circles)

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

These are optimal packings of n circles in a square container of the smallest size that will contain them

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So it is fitting the 49 in smallest square and not fitting as many circles as possible in given square? Okay that makes sense

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Correct!

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I mean it makes sense when you think about how the circles arrange in an infinte square and e.g. 4r square. There has to be some fuckery between the perfect packing and the small square packing. You can see a triangle of almost perfect packing in the middle of the 49 circle square, surrounded by fault lines in the structure and then some more good packing, and garbage in the bottom.

slightly related Steve Mould video

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Or, they could do 6x8 with one obviously extra at the end. But this is a funny not a rational thing.

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

Well-put. One perfect pattern at one scale, another perfect pattern at a different scale, and then there has to be a transition between them of optimal steps along the way. I like that.

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

Yarr

Neat spacing leave much gap, patterned mess less space between.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Should have used hexagons

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The bestagons.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

HCP FTW.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This is the kind of stuff the timber mafia needs to know so that they can efficiently pack trees and send them to IKEA.

load more comments
view more: next ›