3 ms·
After thinking for a while, the title should have been a "Another better higher lower bound for n=17 square packing" to avoid confusion with "Another better low
by gus_massa 2mo ago
After thinking for a while, the title should have been a "Another better higher lower bound for n=17 square packing" to avoid confusion with "Another better lower upper bound for n=17 square packing". But I was copying the title of the previous post, because it heavily builds on it.
- dooglius 2mo agoIt's tricky because even if you've seen the pictures before, it's not obvious whether the formal problem is defined in terms of minimizing the size of the big square or maximizing the size of the little squares (which are equivalent as far as the pictures are concerned).