AI-assisted proof of optimal packing for 11 squares

(github.com)

65 points | by bluepeter 3 hours ago

13 comments

  • dkural 33 minutes ago
    It is not as arbitrary or ugly as it may seem at first - see the image here and the explanation: https://x.com/davidmbudden/status/2107646435659481548
    • Varelion 8 minutes ago
      Not clicking an x link, but good to hear
    • mplewis 18 minutes ago
      Is there an explanation for this that isn't on X?
  • yzydserd 2 hours ago
    fwiw The prime site for square in square packing is at https://kingbird.myphotos.cc/packing/squares_in_squares.html

    The triangular view is most interesting. And a 20 minute video on this view is at https://youtu.be/uL5wuiy34rs

    • pinkmuffinere 16 minutes ago
      This is cool! Something seems broken in the representation for 1850 and 1765, squares are strangely intersecting.

      edit: Or maybe something wrong with the way my browser (brave) is rendering it.

    • schiffern 1 hour ago
    • woah 1 hour ago
      Can someone explain why 83 and 87 can't get any smaller?
      • sheept 52 minutes ago
        It is possible they can; it’s not yet proven that the listed packings for 83 and 87 are optimal.
      • entropicdrifter 1 hour ago
        Because the outer perimeter must be a square. 83 and 87 could shrink the outer perimeter in one dimension, but not in both at the same time.
      • danbruc 1 hour ago
        Which of the blocks do you think you could move to shrink the solution? Or are you thinking of a completely different arrangement?
      • nemomarx 1 hour ago
        They got updated to be smaller this year, so maybe there's still more gains to be had?
    • Buttons840 1 hour ago
      "God is dead and the optimal packing of squares killed him." I will never not think of this meme when looking at these horrors. I see it, but I don't like it. ;)
  • WithinReason 2 hours ago
    A list of many square packings, with images:

    https://jlevy.github.io/squares/

    • aunty_helen 2 hours ago
      I like geometry. These packings show there are ugly numbers, like 51.
  • dekhn 37 minutes ago
    One of the greatest classes I ever took was "Cybernetics", taught by David Huffman ("the" Huffman). he started out the very first day talking about information theory, into sphere packing, and on to applications of sphere packing to communications.

    I distinctly remember him concluded with something like "Sphere packing is hard, except in 11 dimenions" or something like that, but when I look at the history, I can't see how he knew that in 1994?

  • agnishom 3 hours ago
    The readme has no figures :( describing the packing?
  • derektank 9 minutes ago
    So this is a proof that the Walter Trump packing is the optimal packing?
  • mlmonkey 2 hours ago
    • brabel 56 minutes ago
      It’s unintuitive that a messy configuration of squares can be more optimal than neatly arranging them aligned. And by looking at all the current best solutions it does appear that the neat configurations are usually the best , but not always. How does one explain the messy cases?? Is that about how division can result in irrational numbers, and when the number of optimal squares approach one you end up with the messy squares?
  • kevinwang 58 minutes ago
    Wow, I never would have imagined one could prove optimality for that accursed beautiful thing.
  • coppercrisp62 3 hours ago
    Did an interval-arithmetic branch and bound once, getting the rounding modes right took me weeks.
  • reader9274 1 hour ago
    Another interesting video related to these types of problems: https://youtu.be/mVH7OPx4QZU
  • sehw 1 hour ago
    [dead]
  • rfgplk 2 hours ago
    Isn't this obvious? Why do you need a proof for it, just stack the cubes next to each other? If we're talking infinitesimally thin squares, then stack them on top of each other? Am I missing something?
    • raincole 1 hour ago
      It takes less time for you to try to read about the question than to type this comment. I know the link doesn't contain visualization, but... come on.
    • 233mhz 2 hours ago
      The whole point is that you can fit more than by naively stacking them...
    • AlexandrB 1 hour ago
      Look at some of the other links people have posted for optimal packings. The optimal 11 square packing looks nothing like what you're describing ("just stack the cubes next to each other").