I love when I have to do research just to understand the question being asked.
Just kidding, I don't really love that.
Now, canwe have fractals built from this?
"fractal" just means "broken-looking" (as in "fracture"). see Benoît Mandelbrot's original book on this
I assume you mean "nice looking self-replicating pattern", which you can easily obtain by replacing each square by the whole picture over and over again
Fractal might have meant that when Mandelbrot coined the name, but that is not what it means now.
It is one prove more, why it is important to think literally out of the box. But too much people of this type
~~To be fair, the large square can not be cleanly divided by the smaller square(s). Seems obvious to most people, but I didn't get it at first.~~
~~In other words: The size relation of the squares makes this weird solution the most efficient (yet discovered).~~
Edit: nvm, I am just an idiot.
The outer square is not given or fixed, it is the result of the arrangement inside. You pack the squares as tightly as you can and that then results in an enclosing square of some size. If someone finds a better arrangement the outer square will become smaller
Unless I’m wrong, it’s not the most efficient use of space but if you impose the square shape restriction, it is.
Why doesn’t he just make the square bigger? That’d be more efficient.
That's not more efficient because the big square is bigger
See, that’s the problem with people nowadays?They want to minimalise everything.
They should just slow down and breathe.
I think people have a hard time wrapping their heads around it because it's very rare to have this sort of problem in the real world. Typically you have a specific size container and need to arrange things in it. You usually don't get to pick an arbitrary size container or area for storage. Even if you for something like shipping, you'd probably want to break this into a 4x4 and a separate single box to better fit with other things being shipped as well. Or if it is storage you'd want to be able to see the sides or tops. Plus you have 3 dimensions to work with on the real world.
Initially I thought 4x4 square but this is a square of 4.675 sides. Reasonable. Clever maths though.
But there are 7 squares in the middle with 10 around it, surely that counts for something
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
