@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agoEfficencymander.xyzimagemessage-square49fedilinkarrow-up1599arrow-down128
arrow-up1571arrow-down1imageEfficencymander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 5 months agomessage-square49fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish31•edit-25 months 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_partylinkfedilink62•5 months ago7 by 7 matrix isn’t the optimal packing. The square shown is slightly smaller than 7 by 7.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish6•edit-25 months agoThanks. I thought it was about counting. It all makes a lot more sense now. (And it also doesn’t.)
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish8•edit-25 months 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)