You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.
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.
You have a point. That’s obnoxious. I just wanted straight lines. I’ll see if I can find another.
I hate this so much
Oh so you’re telling me that my storage unit is actually incredibly well optimised for space efficiency?
Nice!
Bees seeing this: “OK, screw it, we’re making hexagons!”
Fun fact: Bees actually make round holes, the hexagon shape forms as the wax dries.
Bestagons*
Texagons
Can someone explain to me in layman’s terms why this is the most efficient way?
Any other configurations results in a larger enclosed square. This is the most optimal way to pack 17 squares that we’ve found
Source?
Bidwell, J. (1997)
Seriously?
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
Do you know how inspiring documentaries describe maths are everywhere, telling us about the golden ratio in art and animal shells, and pi, and perfect circles and Euler’s number and natural growth, etc? Well, this, I can see it really happening in the world.
Not complete without the sounds
It is one prove more, why it is important to think literally out of the box. But too much people of this type
To be fair, the large square can not be cleanly divided by the smaller square(s). Seems obvious to most people, but I didn’t get it at first.In other words: The size relation of the squares makes this weird solution the most efficient (yet discovered).Edit: nvm, I am just an idiot.
