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

Science Memes

15524 readers
2989 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Why doesn’t he just make the square bigger? That’d be more efficient.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 2 points 8 hours ago

That's not more efficient because the big square is bigger

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day 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.

[–] jeff@programming.dev 9 points 1 day 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.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours 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.

[–] Natanael@infosec.pub 13 points 23 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 1 day 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.

the line of man is straight ; the line of god is crooked

stop quoting Nietzsche you fucking fools

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 183 points 2 days ago (7 children)

With straight diagonal lines.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 74 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago

hey it's no longer June, homophobia is back on the menu

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 151 points 2 days ago

Oh so you're telling me that my storage unit is actually incredibly well optimised for space efficiency?

Nice!

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Now, canwe have fractals built from this?

[–] Lemmisaur@lemmy.zip 17 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Say hello to the creation! .-D

(Don't ask about the glowing thing, just don't let it touch your eyes.)

[–] SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Good job. It'skinda what I expected, except for the glow. But I won't ask about that.

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago

The glow is actually just a natural biproduct of the sheer power of the sq1ua7re

[–] mEEGal@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"fractal" just means "broken-looking" (as in "fracture"). see Benoît Mandelbrot's original book on this

I assume you mean "nice looking self-replicating pattern", which you can easily obtain by replacing each square by the whole picture over and over again

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 hour ago

Fractal might have meant that when Mandelbrot coined the name, but that is not what it means now.

[–] Squalia@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 day ago

Here's a much more elegant solution for 17

[–] Psaldorn@lemmy.world 53 points 1 day ago

You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.

[–] janus2@lemmy.zip 79 points 2 days ago (1 children)

if I ever have to pack boxes like this I'm going to throw up

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] a_party_german@hexbear.net 61 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Why can't it be stacked up normally? I don't understand.

[–] bilb@lemmy.ml 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

You could arrange them that way, but the goal is to find the way to pack the small squares in a way that results in the smallest possible outer square. In the solution shown, the length of one side of the outer square is just a bit smaller than 12. If you pack them normally, the length would be larger than 12. (1 = the length of one side of the smaller squares.)

load more comments (1 replies)

If there was a god, I'd imagine them designing the universe and giggling like an idiot when they made math.

[–] fargeol@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Bees seeing this: "OK, screw it, we're making hexagons!"

[–] raltoid@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Fun fact: Bees actually make round holes, the hexagon shape forms as the wax dries.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

come on now, let them cook, trust the process

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

But fear not, bees are still smart! Mfs can do math!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml 38 points 2 days ago (17 children)

Can someone explain to me in layman's terms why this is the most efficient way?

[–] tiramichu@sh.itjust.works 145 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

These categories of geometric problem are ridiculously difficult to find the definitive perfect solution for, which is exactly why people have been grinding on them for decades, and mathematicians can't say any more than "it's the best one found so far"

For this particular problem the diagram isn't answering "the most efficient way to pack some particular square" but "what is the smallest square that can fit 17 unit-sized (1x1) squares inside it" - with the answer here being 4.675 unit length per side.

Trivially for 16 squares they would fit inside a grid of 4x4 perfectly, with four squares on each row, nice and tidy. To fit just one more square we could size the container up to 5x5, and it would remain nice and tidy, but there is then obviously a lot of empty space, which suggests the solution must be in-between. But if the solution is in between, then some squares must start going slanted to enable the outer square to reduce in size, as it is only by doing this we can utilise unfilled gaps to save space by poking the corners of other squares into them.

So, we can't answer what the optimal solution exactly is, or prove none is better than this, but we can certainly demonstrate that the solution is going to be very ugly and messy.

Another similar (but less ugly) geometric problem is the moving sofa problem which has again seen small iterations over a long period of time.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›