fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 months agoCursedmander.xyzexternal-linkmessage-square26fedilinkarrow-up1389arrow-down15
arrow-up1384arrow-down1external-linkCursedmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square26fedilink
minus-squarebitjunkie@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·2 months agoIt’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.
minus-squarejeff 👨💻@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down2·2 months agoWhat? 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.
minus-squarebitjunkie@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 months agoAnd the next perfect divisor one that would hold all the ones in the OP pic would be 5x5. 25 > 17, last I checked.
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.
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.
And the next perfect divisor one that would hold all the ones in the OP pic would be 5x5. 25 > 17, last I checked.