• lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Here you go. 22 16:9 monitors.

        I chose 22 monitors, because all other numbers have very expected results:

        spoiler

        17 monitors:

          • lemmyartistforhire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            You are right, actually. I blindly trusted the computer to figure this one out, but just looking at it I found a better solution by hand. Maybe there really are some better solutions for the 22 monitors problem.

            spoiler

            This better not end up in any scientific papers, ever.

            To answer your question: fitting more monitors into these gaps would not result in the optimal placement for that amount of monitors. 23, 24, and 25 monitors all have “expected” results. And closing the remaining gap would not result in a smaller bounding box square.