You got nothing on the 17 square packing
I mean it makes sense when you think about how the circles arrange in an infinte square and e.g. 4r square. There has to be some fuckery between the perfect packing and the small square packing. You can see a triangle of almost perfect packing in the middle of the 49 circle square, surrounded by fault lines in the structure and then some more good packing, and garbage in the bottom.
slightly related Steve Mould video
Yarr
Neat spacing leave much gap, patterned mess less space between.
Well-put. One perfect pattern at one scale, another perfect pattern at a different scale, and then there has to be a transition between them of optimal steps along the way. I like that.
Or, they could do 6x8 with one obviously extra at the end. But this is a funny not a rational thing.
?
This is about the most efficient way to pack that number of circles. By looking at the bottom row of the 49, you can see that it’s slightly less wide than 7 diameters, because it has 5 circles at the very bottom (taking up 5 diameters of width), but two are slightly raised, which also means they’re slightly inward.
How?
Yes, if you push the circles down a bit, it forms a 7 by 7 matrix. But if pushing the circles into a square matrix is not allowed: how?
Edit: I get it now. It is about (efficient) packing not about counting. I also get the 4th panel now…
This is the kind of stuff the timber mafia needs to know so that they can efficiently pack trees and send them to IKEA.
Should have used hexagons
That’s what she said 😏
deleted by creator
HCP FTW.
