Maybe you couldn’t, I absolutely could. The space just looks smaller because there’s a diagonal square butting into it. Doesn’t matter anyway, making the squares smaller was my original comment that sparked this conversation, so I’m right both ways.
No, you’re not. It’s square packing, this is the optimal arrangement of 17 squares inside another square as far as we’re currently aware with a side length of 4.6756 inner squares. You cannot fit 5 squares in the space of 4.7 squares of the same size.
It’s also a well-known meme and this is a science meme community.
Maybe you couldn’t, I absolutely could. The space just looks smaller because there’s a diagonal square butting into it. Doesn’t matter anyway, making the squares smaller was my original comment that sparked this conversation, so I’m right both ways.
No, you’re not. It’s square packing, this is the optimal arrangement of 17 squares inside another square as far as we’re currently aware with a side length of 4.6756 inner squares. You cannot fit 5 squares in the space of 4.7 squares of the same size.
It’s also a well-known meme and this is a science meme community.