this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
798 points (98.8% liked)

Science Memes

15501 readers
2744 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
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours 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.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 0 points 4 hours ago

Did you comment this because you think the people here are stupid?

[–] jeff@programming.dev 9 points 15 hours ago (1 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.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 12 points 15 hours 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.

[–] sga@lemmings.world 3 points 15 hours 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.