With straight diagonal lines.
Why are there gaps on either side of the upper-right square? Seems like shoving those closed (like the OP image) would allow a little more twist on the center squares.
there’s a gap on both, just in different places and you can get from one to the other just by sliding. The constraints are elsewhere so wouldn’t allow you to twist.
Oh, I see it now. That makes sense.
I think this diagram is less accurate. The original picture doesn’t have that gap
You have a point. That’s obnoxious. I just wanted straight lines. I’ll see if I can find another.
Homophobe!
hey it’s no longer June, homophobia is back on the menu
If there was a god, I’d imagine them designing the universe and giggling like an idiot when they made math.
if I ever have to pack boxes like this I’m going to throw up
I’ve definitely packed a box like this, but I’ve never packed boxes like this 😳
Oh so you’re telling me that my storage unit is actually incredibly well optimised for space efficiency?
Nice!
Here’s a much more elegant solution for 17
https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html
Mathematics has played us for absolute fools
Why can’t it be stacked up normally? I don’t understand.
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 thanexactly 12. (1 = the length of one side of the smaller squares.)
Is this a hard limit we’ve proven or can we still keep trying?
We actually haven’t found a universal packing algorithm, so it’s on a case-by-case basis. This is the best we’ve found so far for this case (17 squares in a square).
Figuring out 1-4 must have been sooo tough
