772
Cursed (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Is this confirmed? Like yea the picture looks legit, but anybody do this with physical blocks or at least something other than ms paint?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    It is confirmed. I don't understand it very well, but I think this video is pretty decent at explaining it.

    https://youtu.be/RQH5HBkVtgM

    The proof is done with raw numbers and geometry so doing it with physical objects would be worse, even the MS paint is a bad way to present it but it's easier on the eyes than just numbers.

    Mathematicians would be very excited if you could find a better way to pack them such that they can be bigger.

    So it's not like there is no way to improve it. It's just that we haven't found it yet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Proof via "just look at it"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I feel like the pixalation on the rotated squares is enough to say this picture is not proof.

    Again I am not saying they are wrong, just that it would be extremely easy make a picture where it looks like all the squares are all the same size.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •