4 ms·
And yet still some point arrangements make that triangle size zero, others make the area 1/2 (assuming unit square). Most something in between. It's a problem s
by usrusr 3y ago
And yet still some point arrangements make that triangle size zero, others make the area 1/2 (assuming unit square). Most something in between. It's a problem similar to sphere packing, just not quite as close to practical application. My brain refuses to auto-resolve already at n=5. Is the obvious distribution (four corners, one in the center) the best according to size of the smallest triangle? I think it is, but no quick answers from me on that one, sorry.
I love this story, it reads like a description of academic arcadia: scientists who when the day's work of teaching is over don't Netflix'n'chill (or go maximise their share of administrative leakage) but gang up on odd mindbenders.
- xnorswap 3y agoThat "obvious" distribution is actually the worst, three points are in a line so have area of zero.
- usrusr 3y agoOh, that line (well, one of those two lines), ouch! All that is left to debate is wether a non-solution with two size zero triangles can be considered worse than variations that have only one of those or not. But I'll better leave that to others (hopefully, for their sanity, that group of others is am empty set)