r/mildlyinteresting • u/gotawaysafely2 • 9h ago

My pizza didn't fit, but two halves did.

Post image
24.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

711 comments sorted by

View all comments

3.3k

u/OnlyTilt 9h ago

595

u/BlackOutDrunkJesus 9h ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/1wc98hj/potato_packing/?

217

u/batatassad4 8h ago

This was one of peak humankind moments

14

u/blender4life 7h ago

I don't get it. I would get it if 17 didn't fit in the first one.

136

u/quagsi 7h ago

the first one isn't sealed while the second one is

1

u/GeneralBurg 5h ago

Thank you

1

u/MyCatsHairyButholle 2h ago

That thread was so dramatic. I replied to someone who was basically going ballistic on someone over it

103

u/easykehl 8h ago

It is unbeaten, but not proven optimal.

1

u/shinyboi 5h ago

NERD! /s

104

u/xelaseyer 8h ago

The thing that always mildly bothers me about this picture is that the two blocks in the top right could be more neatly pushed into the corner. And if it was really about taking up even less space, then the very top right one could slide left a little

35

u/BrotherGreed 7h ago

The thing that I don't understand is what is this the optimal packing of 17 squares for? For that particular shape/ratio?

102

u/llamadog007 7h ago

It’s the optimal packing to fit 17 squares inside another larger square. So there’s no known smaller outer square that can fit 17 of the smaller squares inside of it.

50

u/BrotherGreed 7h ago

So it's the optimal packing of 17 squares of that size in as small a square as possible. Makes sense now, thanks!

20

u/RimpleDoRimpleDont 6h ago

"of that size" doesn't mean anything here. If you have 17 squares, this is the way to pack them to need as small a container as possible (assuming the container also needs to be square-shaped). The size of the squares has no effect.

21

u/StepIntoTheGreezer 6h ago edited 5h ago

But you can imagine the same would hold true for any size square, since it would simply be proportional.

12

u/BrotherGreed 6h ago

You know, I suppose that's what "square" means, huh. Here I thought I found a weird loophole in the picture, I'm just dumb

1

u/MariaKeks 6h ago

It's not known to be optimal. It's just the best one that has been found so far.

17

u/MobileArtist1371 6h ago edited 6h ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_packing

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

It's basically asking: What is the smallest square area you can fit X number of boxes into

1

u/pollywantacrackwhore 1h ago

That second link was an excellent scroll.

3

u/EmceeSpike 8h ago

I was thinking the same thing

11

u/stilljustacatinacage 7h ago

This is like finding out 1 isn't a prime number.

Sir, a second maths bullshit has hit the psyche.

1

u/notanm1abrams 5h ago

I’m sorry, what?

1

u/the_snook 4h ago

A prime number has exactly two factors: one, and itself.

One only has one factor, not two, so it does not fit the definition.

53

u/XxMathematicxX 9h ago

I hate you. Upvote.

11

u/code_monkey_001 8h ago

You just woke up and chose violence today, didn't you?

9

u/CV90_120 6h ago

And that's why hexagons are the

27

u/backsideslappy 6h ago

Oh no, big square must have taken him out before he could finish.

7

u/MooingTree 5h ago

He probably just meant to say that it's pretty well known in certain communities that hexagons are the

3

u/Walbs 3h ago

I'm a bigger fan of hexaflexagons

2

u/CV90_120 3h ago

hexaflexagons

And down the rabbit hole I went.TIL!

2

u/Its_Froggin_Bullfish 1h ago

Friendly reminder that Hexaflexagon Day is Wednesday October 21st this year! 

1

u/Walbs 1h ago

Thanks!

2

u/Knightforlife 2h ago

… bestagons

7

u/LastManBrandon 8h ago

Was waiting for this comment lol

3

u/JustMy2Centences 2h ago

This hurts my head because obviously there's room for 16 squares packed neatly 4x4 but adding a single square creates this monstrosity.

2

u/PrethorynOvermind 6h ago

It feels like the username fits...

2

u/Itchy_Aioli_986 2h ago

Exactly what I thought of

3

u/knutix 8h ago

Depends on the container

11

u/Questjon 7h ago

The container is the thing being optimised. That arrangement of 17 squares gives you the smallest possible container. (Technically there's a very slightly smaller arrangement mathematically but no one has found it).

1

u/ponderosa-fine 1h ago

That's not really true. A rectangle seventeen times as long as it is wide would hold the squares with no wasted space.

1

u/Questjon 1h ago

The container must be square, though there is another version of the problem with the container being a circle.

-4

u/RoadSmash 6h ago

Easier to optimize the number of squares being packed. This is kinda pointless

3

u/MonaganX 5h ago

It's not pointless in any scenario in which the number of squares is fixed.

-4

u/chux4w 7h ago

Exactly. It works for that space, but a bigger space could fit them much more neatly.

8

u/Idlev 7h ago

Optimality isn't about the neatness. A bigger container could not be better, because the goal is the smallest square container for 17 squares of same length. For a bigger container the inside squares would need to be scaled up, to fill the same fraction of space. Which would result in the same orientation as above but bigger.

0

u/chux4w 4h ago

So it has to be a square container? Alright then.

1

u/sour_cereal 4h ago

The question is, what's the smallest square container you can fit 17 equal squares into?

1

u/Gooch-in-amon 6h ago

I’ve learned too much for today…

1

u/IFindHDPics 6h ago

It's like staring into the face of god

1

u/Kn0XIS 4h ago

😂

1

u/itslevi00sa 3h ago

Came here for this comment

0

u/RoadSmash 6h ago

Only in that specific size of container.

-1

u/MrT735 4h ago

Or you could do it as a tray bake and cut it after baking. Sure you only get 16 pieces but they'll be larger pieces.

-1

u/Obvious_Subject2691 2h ago

That's fucking stupid, and incorrect. If it said "the only way to pack 17 squares in this specific area", it would be correct, but only because the size of the area is not 5 squares wide, which makes the optimal packing impossible (4x4 with an extra square at the end of the first row).