You must log in or register to comment.
Took me a while lol
Thanks, I hate it!
Im a dipper. You put the syrup where you want it yourself. Do not rely on some fancy designed skillet to feed you the way you deserve.
More square holes = more surface = more syrup in the dip!
not that different now, are we
TIHI
The solution is to take a bite of waffle and then take a drink of syrup like it’s a chaser
For the uninitiated: this is the current most-efficient method found of packing 17 unit squares inside another square. You may not like it, but this is what peak efficiency looks like.
(Of course, 16 squares has a packing coefficient of 4, compared to this arrangement’s 4.675, so this is just what peak efficiency looks like for 17 squares)
But you can fit 25 squares into the same space. This isn’t efficiency, it’s just wasted space and bad planning.
You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don’t argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.
For 25 squares of size 1x1 you’d need a square of size 5x5. The square into which 17 1x1 squares fit is smaller than 5x5, so you can’t fit 25 squares into it.
You can’t fit 25 squares into a square 4.675x bigger unless you make them smaller. Yes, that will increase the volume available for syrup.
Precisely. That’s why I wrote the parenthetical about the greater efficiency of 16 as a perfect square. As the other commenter pointed out, this is a meme. This is only the most efficient packing method for 17 squares. It’s the packing efficiency equivalent of the spinal tap “this one goes to 11” quote.
My autistic ass can’t comprehend why anyone would want to arrange a prime number in a square pattern…
autistic
surprised at people doing weird shit
???
LOL’ed, but also
experiencing the human condition
surprised at people doing weird shit
I mean, the actual answer is severalfold: “sometimes, when you need to fill a space, you don’t end up with simple compound numbers of identical packages” is one, but really, it’s a problem in mathematics which, were we to have a general solution to find the most efficient method of packing n objects with identical properties into the smallest area, we would be able to more effectively predict natural structures, including predicting things like protein folding, which is a huge area of medical research. Simple, seemingly inapplicable cases can often be generalised to more specific cases, and that’s how you get the entire field of applied math, as well as most of scientific and engineering modeling
Even when it can’t be generalized, you still often learn something by trying. You may invent a new way to look at a set of problems that no one’s done before, or you may find a solution to something totally unrelated. There’s a lot to learn even when it looks like you’ll gain nothing.
(this is the part where you tack on a silly harmless lie at the end, like - “this specific packing optimization improvement was actually discovered accidentally, through a small mini-game introduced into Candy Crush in 2013. Players discovered the novel improvement, hundreds of individual times, within the first several minutes of launch. Scholars pursuing novel packing algorithms even colloquially call this event ‘The Crushening’”)
Mathematicians try this with every number
Yeah, it’s not at all an optimal waffle. It’s more a cool math meme waffle. ;3
– Frost
Thank you I was very lost lmao
Does coefficient in this context mean the length of the side of the big square?
Exactly. It is the length of the side of the bigger square, relative to the sides of the smaller identical squares.
Who tf uses a 56 years old collectible for breakfast?
This makes me so angry for reasons I can’t articulate
This actually makes me unreasonably happy, kinda like knowing the secrets of the number 37, which is coincidentally your current number of upvotes.
Now it’s 42
Now its more than 42. How do you feel about being wrong on the internet, genius?
Now then, let’s not go mixing up then with now, then.
How inefficient, I could fit 100 squares in there easily.
Right? Wake me up when we reach a 7 nm lithographic waffle process.
Gate all around. I expect my waffle and syrup to hug each other. No one likes a lethargic partner.
Only 100? Pathetic, with my improved algorithm I could get at least 121 squares.
Psh I could fit like 1 square in there. Tryhards
The most interesting part is that you can make 0 squares and still have a square
Yeah, but you still have 4 edges in a circle. Just make a circle in the circle. Now you basically have an edible plate.
Like what, a platewaffle? Are you some kind of breakfast wizard?
Related:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing
Nature is a lot more elegant with spheres:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres
I forget what this shape is actually a solution for but it is very funny
It’s the square packing in a square for n = 17.
yeah that’s a wild rabbit hole to go down, the shaprs are either extremely satisfying or extremely distressing, there is no in-between.
Mathematicians: makes something with zero practical applications
Waffles:
THERE IS CLEARLY ROOM FOR 25 SQUARES… sorry just so unreasonably upset by this image
There isn’t. The sides are 4.675 long.
To fit more squares, youd need to use smaller squares but by that logic you could fit any number of squares.
Is this the new loss?
no this is a gain
