Does a better packing of 17 squares into a square exist?

Plus

Ṁ2341

2101

42%

chance

ALL

this is, as far as I can find, the most efficient known packing of 17 squares into a larger square, discovered in 1998 but not proven to be optimal

I find the asymmetry really upsetting and unsettling, and really want there to be a better one. Does one exist?

Resolved YES if a better packing is found, NO if the above packing is proven to be optimal

This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.

#Math

Get

1,000

and

3.00

10 Comments

29 Holders

43 Trades

Sort by:

I find the asymmetry really upsetting and unsettling, and really want there to be a better one.

I feel the same way 😕

bought Ṁ10 NO

Will you resolve this to "no" if no proof is found before 2100?

@Jono3h we'll see if I'm still alive at 105 years old ;)

current plan is that I want a decisive resolution one way or another

Does the xckd solution counts? https://xkcd.com/2740/

If 4chan solved super mutations, manifold can solve packing problems

bought Ṁ10 YES

I don't need it... I don't need it... I NEED IT

Can someone in masters league offer a huge bounty to whoever solves this please? I beg you

Unless you would've donated the mana otherwise

what bothers me is that the square second from the top right is not fixed in place, it can move around a bit without changing the packing…

Interesting problem

What are the dimensions of the smaller squares and the bigger square? How is packing quantified?

@EstMtz The smaller squares are taken to be unit squares, the goal is to produce the arrangement with the smallest enclosing square. The side length of the enclosing square for this solution is about 4.6755

https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html

Related questions

Related questions