this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
1219 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

19418 readers
1446 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Since a link to a wiki article does not an explanation make:

The optimal efficiency (zero interstitial space) is achieved when the ratio of the side length of the larger square to the sides of the shorter squares (let's call it the "packing coefficient") is precisely equal to the square root of the number of smaller squares. Hence why the case of n=25, with a packing coefficient of 5, is actually more efficient than the packing of n=17 given in the waffle iron, with a packing coefficient of 4.675. Since sqrt(25)=5, that case is a perfectly efficient packing, equivalent to the case of n=16 with coefficient of 4. Since sqrt(17)=4.123, the waffle packing (represented by the orangutan) above is not perfectly efficient, leaving interstices. However, the packing coefficient of the suboptimal solution (represented by the girl) is actually 4.707, slightly further from sqrt(17), and thus less efficient, leaving greater wasted interstitial space.

[–] cornshark@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Trying to understand what this actually means. Since these two diagrams have the same number of squares, does this mean the inefficient packing squares are actually slightly smaller in a way that's difficult to observe?

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ah, no, it's that the more efficient packing takes up less space, so the less efficient square is actually slightly larger than the other, compared to the smaller squares.

If the smaller squares are identical in both sets, then the larger square in the less-efficient set will be slightly bigger than the larger square in the more efficient set.