Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?Box stacking problemPlacing Axis-parallel rectangles on 2-D planeUpper bound for tetrahedron packing?A circle packing conjectureDoes list of distances define points uniquely?rational rotation vector and closed curvesSpace packing fraction of tetrahedron and octahedronTranslative packing constant strictly larger than lattice packing constantTiling a square with rectanglesCompose/decompose rotation matrix from/to plane of rotation and angleSome inequalities on chain of circle packing

Packing rectangles: Does rotation ever help?


Box stacking problemPlacing Axis-parallel rectangles on 2-D planeUpper bound for tetrahedron packing?A circle packing conjectureDoes list of distances define points uniquely?rational rotation vector and closed curvesSpace packing fraction of tetrahedron and octahedronTranslative packing constant strictly larger than lattice packing constantTiling a square with rectanglesCompose/decompose rotation matrix from/to plane of rotation and angleSome inequalities on chain of circle packing













10












$begingroup$


Dominic van der Zypen posed an interesting Box stacking problem.
This is a spin-off question.



Let a collection of rectangles $r_1,ldots,r_n$ be given by their side lengths in $mathbbR$.
Let $R$ be a rectangle of minimum area enclosing the rectangles arranged
in the plane without overlap (i.e., with disjoint interiors).




Q. Is there an example where not all the rectangles have sides aligned with
the sides of $R$?




In other words, where at least one rectangle's sides are not parallel to the
sides of $R$? Is it ever advantageous to "tilt" one or more rectangles to
achieve a minimal area?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 17




    $begingroup$
    I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
    $endgroup$
    – Yosemite Stan
    Apr 27 at 19:06










  • $begingroup$
    There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Apr 27 at 19:09















10












$begingroup$


Dominic van der Zypen posed an interesting Box stacking problem.
This is a spin-off question.



Let a collection of rectangles $r_1,ldots,r_n$ be given by their side lengths in $mathbbR$.
Let $R$ be a rectangle of minimum area enclosing the rectangles arranged
in the plane without overlap (i.e., with disjoint interiors).




Q. Is there an example where not all the rectangles have sides aligned with
the sides of $R$?




In other words, where at least one rectangle's sides are not parallel to the
sides of $R$? Is it ever advantageous to "tilt" one or more rectangles to
achieve a minimal area?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 17




    $begingroup$
    I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
    $endgroup$
    – Yosemite Stan
    Apr 27 at 19:06










  • $begingroup$
    There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Apr 27 at 19:09













10












10








10


1



$begingroup$


Dominic van der Zypen posed an interesting Box stacking problem.
This is a spin-off question.



Let a collection of rectangles $r_1,ldots,r_n$ be given by their side lengths in $mathbbR$.
Let $R$ be a rectangle of minimum area enclosing the rectangles arranged
in the plane without overlap (i.e., with disjoint interiors).




Q. Is there an example where not all the rectangles have sides aligned with
the sides of $R$?




In other words, where at least one rectangle's sides are not parallel to the
sides of $R$? Is it ever advantageous to "tilt" one or more rectangles to
achieve a minimal area?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Dominic van der Zypen posed an interesting Box stacking problem.
This is a spin-off question.



Let a collection of rectangles $r_1,ldots,r_n$ be given by their side lengths in $mathbbR$.
Let $R$ be a rectangle of minimum area enclosing the rectangles arranged
in the plane without overlap (i.e., with disjoint interiors).




Q. Is there an example where not all the rectangles have sides aligned with
the sides of $R$?




In other words, where at least one rectangle's sides are not parallel to the
sides of $R$? Is it ever advantageous to "tilt" one or more rectangles to
achieve a minimal area?







mg.metric-geometry plane-geometry






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Apr 27 at 18:44









Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke

86.8k16241717




86.8k16241717







  • 17




    $begingroup$
    I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
    $endgroup$
    – Yosemite Stan
    Apr 27 at 19:06










  • $begingroup$
    There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Apr 27 at 19:09












  • 17




    $begingroup$
    I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
    $endgroup$
    – Yosemite Stan
    Apr 27 at 19:06










  • $begingroup$
    There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
    $endgroup$
    – Gerhard Paseman
    Apr 27 at 19:09







17




17




$begingroup$
I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
$endgroup$
– Yosemite Stan
Apr 27 at 19:06




$begingroup$
I think this should work. Consider 2 rectangles with r1 having dimensions 1x11 and r2 having area 10x100. Then the packings that have aligned sides have enclosing areas at least 1100, but if you "lean" r1 against the end of r2 then you can get an enclosing rectangle with area around 1025.
$endgroup$
– Yosemite Stan
Apr 27 at 19:06












$begingroup$
There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Apr 27 at 19:09




$begingroup$
There was mention of some research showing how one could pack (1+ delta)n^2 unit squares in a square of side (1 + epsilon)n. Consider searching "Packing squares in a square. There is also "shipping a pool cue" in the diagonal of a packing box. Gerhard "Can't Name Any Names Yet" Paseman, 2019.04.27.
$endgroup$
– Gerhard Paseman
Apr 27 at 19:09










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















15












$begingroup$




         
RectTilted

         

@YosemiteStan's example.


         
enter image description here

         

Detail: Tilt angle $=sin ^-1left(5
sqrtfrac261right) approx 65^circ$
.





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor Protsak
    Apr 27 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 27 at 19:55










  • $begingroup$
    The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Apr 29 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 29 at 11:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
    $endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Apr 29 at 12:43


















12












$begingroup$

The classic answer to this is a paper of Erdos and Graham 'On packing squares with equal squares'. Given a square of side $n+varepsilon$, where $0<varepsilon<1$, we can obviously fit in $n^2$ unit squares, and it's fairly trivial to check that if the squares are axis aligned this is best possible (count the squares intersecting vertical lines on the integers). Obviously, this means about $2varepsilon n$ area is going to waste.



But Erdos and Graham show one can cover asymptotically all but $n^7/11$ area, using skew angles - this is maybe more surprising than Yosemite Stan's example (which also works perfectly well).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Meyerowitz
    Apr 28 at 7:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
    $endgroup$
    – Brady Gilg
    Apr 30 at 6:06











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330129%2fpacking-rectangles-does-rotation-ever-help%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









15












$begingroup$




         
RectTilted

         

@YosemiteStan's example.


         
enter image description here

         

Detail: Tilt angle $=sin ^-1left(5
sqrtfrac261right) approx 65^circ$
.





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor Protsak
    Apr 27 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 27 at 19:55










  • $begingroup$
    The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Apr 29 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 29 at 11:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
    $endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Apr 29 at 12:43















15












$begingroup$




         
RectTilted

         

@YosemiteStan's example.


         
enter image description here

         

Detail: Tilt angle $=sin ^-1left(5
sqrtfrac261right) approx 65^circ$
.





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor Protsak
    Apr 27 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 27 at 19:55










  • $begingroup$
    The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Apr 29 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 29 at 11:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
    $endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Apr 29 at 12:43













15












15








15





$begingroup$




         
RectTilted

         

@YosemiteStan's example.


         
enter image description here

         

Detail: Tilt angle $=sin ^-1left(5
sqrtfrac261right) approx 65^circ$
.





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$






         
RectTilted

         

@YosemiteStan's example.


         
enter image description here

         

Detail: Tilt angle $=sin ^-1left(5
sqrtfrac261right) approx 65^circ$
.






share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 29 at 11:51


























community wiki





3 revs
Joseph O'Rourke








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor Protsak
    Apr 27 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 27 at 19:55










  • $begingroup$
    The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Apr 29 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 29 at 11:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
    $endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Apr 29 at 12:43












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
    $endgroup$
    – Victor Protsak
    Apr 27 at 19:51










  • $begingroup$
    @VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 27 at 19:55










  • $begingroup$
    The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Jeppe Stig Nielsen
    Apr 29 at 10:07










  • $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
    $endgroup$
    – Joseph O'Rourke
    Apr 29 at 11:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
    $endgroup$
    – Tony Huynh
    Apr 29 at 12:43







2




2




$begingroup$
Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
$endgroup$
– Victor Protsak
Apr 27 at 19:51




$begingroup$
Actually, in the first packing the smaller rectangle should lie on the top of the larger one, giving the intended area of 11*100=1100.
$endgroup$
– Victor Protsak
Apr 27 at 19:51












$begingroup$
@VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
$endgroup$
– Joseph O'Rourke
Apr 27 at 19:55




$begingroup$
@VictorProtsak: Thanks; corrected.
$endgroup$
– Joseph O'Rourke
Apr 27 at 19:55












$begingroup$
The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Apr 29 at 10:07




$begingroup$
The first packing is $100cdot (10+1) = 1100$, but I think the second packing is $left( frac1061(11+6sqrt22)+100 right)cdot 10approx 1064.2$, so the example is valid, but $1025$ from the original comment is not so precise. To me, it is hard to estimate visually by staring at the figure, which packing is better, but I can see that the "leaning" thin box is more upright than $45^circ$.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Apr 29 at 10:07












$begingroup$
@JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
$endgroup$
– Joseph O'Rourke
Apr 29 at 11:52




$begingroup$
@JeppeStigNielsen: "more upright": Yes, about $65^circ$. See added detail.
$endgroup$
– Joseph O'Rourke
Apr 29 at 11:52




1




1




$begingroup$
@JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
$endgroup$
– Tony Huynh
Apr 29 at 12:43




$begingroup$
@JeppeStigNielsen: You can increase the length from $100$ to an arbitrarily large length, in which case it is clear that the bottom picture covers less area.
$endgroup$
– Tony Huynh
Apr 29 at 12:43











12












$begingroup$

The classic answer to this is a paper of Erdos and Graham 'On packing squares with equal squares'. Given a square of side $n+varepsilon$, where $0<varepsilon<1$, we can obviously fit in $n^2$ unit squares, and it's fairly trivial to check that if the squares are axis aligned this is best possible (count the squares intersecting vertical lines on the integers). Obviously, this means about $2varepsilon n$ area is going to waste.



But Erdos and Graham show one can cover asymptotically all but $n^7/11$ area, using skew angles - this is maybe more surprising than Yosemite Stan's example (which also works perfectly well).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Meyerowitz
    Apr 28 at 7:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
    $endgroup$
    – Brady Gilg
    Apr 30 at 6:06















12












$begingroup$

The classic answer to this is a paper of Erdos and Graham 'On packing squares with equal squares'. Given a square of side $n+varepsilon$, where $0<varepsilon<1$, we can obviously fit in $n^2$ unit squares, and it's fairly trivial to check that if the squares are axis aligned this is best possible (count the squares intersecting vertical lines on the integers). Obviously, this means about $2varepsilon n$ area is going to waste.



But Erdos and Graham show one can cover asymptotically all but $n^7/11$ area, using skew angles - this is maybe more surprising than Yosemite Stan's example (which also works perfectly well).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Meyerowitz
    Apr 28 at 7:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
    $endgroup$
    – Brady Gilg
    Apr 30 at 6:06













12












12








12





$begingroup$

The classic answer to this is a paper of Erdos and Graham 'On packing squares with equal squares'. Given a square of side $n+varepsilon$, where $0<varepsilon<1$, we can obviously fit in $n^2$ unit squares, and it's fairly trivial to check that if the squares are axis aligned this is best possible (count the squares intersecting vertical lines on the integers). Obviously, this means about $2varepsilon n$ area is going to waste.



But Erdos and Graham show one can cover asymptotically all but $n^7/11$ area, using skew angles - this is maybe more surprising than Yosemite Stan's example (which also works perfectly well).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The classic answer to this is a paper of Erdos and Graham 'On packing squares with equal squares'. Given a square of side $n+varepsilon$, where $0<varepsilon<1$, we can obviously fit in $n^2$ unit squares, and it's fairly trivial to check that if the squares are axis aligned this is best possible (count the squares intersecting vertical lines on the integers). Obviously, this means about $2varepsilon n$ area is going to waste.



But Erdos and Graham show one can cover asymptotically all but $n^7/11$ area, using skew angles - this is maybe more surprising than Yosemite Stan's example (which also works perfectly well).







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Apr 27 at 20:51









user36212user36212

1,169810




1,169810







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Meyerowitz
    Apr 28 at 7:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
    $endgroup$
    – Brady Gilg
    Apr 30 at 6:06












  • 4




    $begingroup$
    However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Meyerowitz
    Apr 28 at 7:42






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
    $endgroup$
    – Brady Gilg
    Apr 30 at 6:06







4




4




$begingroup$
However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Meyerowitz
Apr 28 at 7:42




$begingroup$
However the question allows any rectangle and one can get pack a bunch of unit cubes in a rectangle with no wasted space.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Meyerowitz
Apr 28 at 7:42




2




2




$begingroup$
Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
$endgroup$
– Brady Gilg
Apr 30 at 6:06




$begingroup$
Square packing was my first thought as well, some nice pictures are available at www2.stetson.edu/~efriedma/squinsqu. However on second thought it's apparent that square packing is not relevant to this question. The minimal area rectangle for any collection of equal sized squares is trivially realized simply by stacking them all in a single line.
$endgroup$
– Brady Gilg
Apr 30 at 6:06

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f330129%2fpacking-rectangles-does-rotation-ever-help%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Wikipedia:Vital articles Мазмуну Biography - Өмүр баян Philosophy and psychology - Философия жана психология Religion - Дин Social sciences - Коомдук илимдер Language and literature - Тил жана адабият Science - Илим Technology - Технология Arts and recreation - Искусство жана эс алуу History and geography - Тарых жана география Навигация менюсу

Club Baloncesto Breogán Índice Historia | Pavillón | Nome | O Breogán na cultura popular | Xogadores | Adestradores | Presidentes | Palmarés | Historial | Líderes | Notas | Véxase tamén | Menú de navegacióncbbreogan.galCadroGuía oficial da ACB 2009-10, páxina 201Guía oficial ACB 1992, páxina 183. Editorial DB.É de 6.500 espectadores sentados axeitándose á última normativa"Estudiantes Junior, entre as mellores canteiras"o orixinalHemeroteca El Mundo Deportivo, 16 setembro de 1970, páxina 12Historia do BreogánAlfredo Pérez, o último canoneiroHistoria C.B. BreogánHemeroteca de El Mundo DeportivoJimmy Wright, norteamericano do Breogán deixará Lugo por ameazas de morteResultados de Breogán en 1986-87Resultados de Breogán en 1990-91Ficha de Velimir Perasović en acb.comResultados de Breogán en 1994-95Breogán arrasa al Barça. "El Mundo Deportivo", 27 de setembro de 1999, páxina 58CB Breogán - FC BarcelonaA FEB invita a participar nunha nova Liga EuropeaCharlie Bell na prensa estatalMáximos anotadores 2005Tempada 2005-06 : Tódolos Xogadores da Xornada""Non quero pensar nunha man negra, mais pregúntome que está a pasar""o orixinalRaúl López, orgulloso dos xogadores, presume da boa saúde económica do BreogánJulio González confirma que cesa como presidente del BreogánHomenaxe a Lisardo GómezA tempada do rexurdimento celesteEntrevista a Lisardo GómezEl COB dinamita el Pazo para forzar el quinto (69-73)Cafés Candelas, patrocinador del CB Breogán"Suso Lázare, novo presidente do Breogán"o orixinalCafés Candelas Breogán firma el mayor triunfo de la historiaEl Breogán realizará 17 homenajes por su cincuenta aniversario"O Breogán honra ao seu fundador e primeiro presidente"o orixinalMiguel Giao recibiu a homenaxe do PazoHomenaxe aos primeiros gladiadores celestesO home que nos amosa como ver o Breo co corazónTita Franco será homenaxeada polos #50anosdeBreoJulio Vila recibirá unha homenaxe in memoriam polos #50anosdeBreo"O Breogán homenaxeará aos seus aboados máis veteráns"Pechada ovación a «Capi» Sanmartín e Ricardo «Corazón de González»Homenaxe por décadas de informaciónPaco García volve ao Pazo con motivo do 50 aniversario"Resultados y clasificaciones""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, campión da Copa Princesa""O Cafés Candelas Breogán, equipo ACB"C.B. Breogán"Proxecto social"o orixinal"Centros asociados"o orixinalFicha en imdb.comMario Camus trata la recuperación del amor en 'La vieja música', su última película"Páxina web oficial""Club Baloncesto Breogán""C. B. Breogán S.A.D."eehttp://www.fegaba.com

What should I write in an apology letter, since I have decided not to join a company after accepting an offer letterShould I keep looking after accepting a job offer?What should I do when I've been verbally told I would get an offer letter, but still haven't gotten one after 4 weeks?Do I accept an offer from a company that I am not likely to join?New job hasn't confirmed starting date and I want to give current employer as much notice as possibleHow should I address my manager in my resignation letter?HR delayed background verification, now jobless as resignedNo email communication after accepting a formal written offer. How should I phrase the call?What should I do if after receiving a verbal offer letter I am informed that my written job offer is put on hold due to some internal issues?Should I inform the current employer that I am about to resign within 1-2 weeks since I have signed the offer letter and waiting for visa?What company will do, if I send their offer letter to another company