fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 5 days agoEfficencymander.xyzimagemessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up1590arrow-down128
arrow-up1562arrow-down1imageEfficencymander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 5 days agomessage-square46fedilink
minus-squarehsdkfr734r@feddit.nllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up31·edit-25 days agoHow? 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…
minus-squaremagic_lobster_party@kbin.runlinkfedilinkarrow-up60·5 days ago7 by 7 matrix isn’t the optimal packing. The square shown is slightly smaller than 7 by 7.
minus-squarehsdkfr734r@feddit.nllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·edit-25 days agoThanks. I thought it was about counting. It all makes a lot more sense now. (And it also doesn’t.)
minus-squaremexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·edit-25 days agoYeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren’t the same squares(or circles)
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…
7 by 7 matrix isn’t the optimal packing. The square shown is slightly smaller than 7 by 7.
Thanks. I thought it was about counting. It all makes a lot more sense now. (And it also doesn’t.)
Yeah it can fit almost 7 in a line in the last panel so theese definitely aren’t the same squares(or circles)