this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
784 points (99.4% liked)

Science Memes

19388 readers
1379 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] red_bull_of_juarez@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Isn't this only true if the outer square's size is not an integer multiple of the inner square's size? Meaning, if you have to do this to your waffle iron, you simply chose the dimensions poorly.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The optimisation objective is to fit n smaller squares (in this case, n=17) into the larger square, whilst minimising the size of the outer square. So that means that in this problem, the dimensions of the outer square isn't a thing that we're choosing the dimensions of, but rather discovering its dimensions (given the objective of "minimise the dimensions of the outer square whilst fitting 17 smaller squares inside it)

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Specifically, the optimal side length of the larger square for any natural number of smaller squares 'n' is the square root of n (assuming the smaller squares are unit squares). The closer your larger side length gets to sqrt(n), the more efficient your packing.

[–] deus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Or maybe you just want waffles with 17 squares in them.