Another Better Lower Bound for n=17 Square Packing
- The idea is to improve a recent result and prove that 4.5058(?)≤s(17) using these weights: But let’s first define s(17).
- Quoting the old article about the topicLet s(n) be the side of the smallest square into which we can pack n unit squares.
- For n=16, the best is obviously a 4x4 array, so s(16)=4.
Unverified
- The idea is to improve a recent result and prove that 4.5058(?)≤s(17) using these weights: But let’s first define s(17).
- Quoting the old article about the topicLet s(n) be the side of the smallest square into which we can pack n unit squares.
- For n=16, the best is obviously a 4x4 array, so s(16)=4.
Sources: Blogspot