greatest number of balls in a box
$begingroup$
What is the greatest number of balls of radius $1/2$ that can be placed within a rectangular box of size $10*10*1$ ?
I start considering that
(1) I can reduce the problem in 2D
(2) The centres of the balls must lie in a square $9*9$
Now I think I have to find a tassellation for this square in order to find the greatest number of centres I can place in it but I don't know how to proceed...
geometry
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the greatest number of balls of radius $1/2$ that can be placed within a rectangular box of size $10*10*1$ ?
I start considering that
(1) I can reduce the problem in 2D
(2) The centres of the balls must lie in a square $9*9$
Now I think I have to find a tassellation for this square in order to find the greatest number of centres I can place in it but I don't know how to proceed...
geometry
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the greatest number of balls of radius $1/2$ that can be placed within a rectangular box of size $10*10*1$ ?
I start considering that
(1) I can reduce the problem in 2D
(2) The centres of the balls must lie in a square $9*9$
Now I think I have to find a tassellation for this square in order to find the greatest number of centres I can place in it but I don't know how to proceed...
geometry
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
$endgroup$
What is the greatest number of balls of radius $1/2$ that can be placed within a rectangular box of size $10*10*1$ ?
I start considering that
(1) I can reduce the problem in 2D
(2) The centres of the balls must lie in a square $9*9$
Now I think I have to find a tassellation for this square in order to find the greatest number of centres I can place in it but I don't know how to proceed...
geometry
geometry
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
asked Dec 30 '18 at 15:39
LanceLance
10112
10112
1
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
1
1
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A rectangular pack would allow $10 times 10=100$ balls. Packing problems are hard. Packomania shows how to pack $106$ balls of radius greater than $0.05$ in a unit square.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056941%2fgreatest-number-of-balls-in-a-box%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A rectangular pack would allow $10 times 10=100$ balls. Packing problems are hard. Packomania shows how to pack $106$ balls of radius greater than $0.05$ in a unit square.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rectangular pack would allow $10 times 10=100$ balls. Packing problems are hard. Packomania shows how to pack $106$ balls of radius greater than $0.05$ in a unit square.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A rectangular pack would allow $10 times 10=100$ balls. Packing problems are hard. Packomania shows how to pack $106$ balls of radius greater than $0.05$ in a unit square.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
$endgroup$
A rectangular pack would allow $10 times 10=100$ balls. Packing problems are hard. Packomania shows how to pack $106$ balls of radius greater than $0.05$ in a unit square.
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
answered Dec 30 '18 at 15:47
Ross MillikanRoss Millikan
302k24201375
302k24201375
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
$begingroup$
How can I prove 106 is the best? It can't be so hard, it's an old IMO longlist problem
$endgroup$
– Lance
Dec 30 '18 at 15:54
2
2
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
Many of the configurations on packomania are not proven to be the best. $106$ is not listed in boldface, so the site does not consider it proven. Many of them are just the result of a lot of trying different starting patterns, then "shaking" the circles trying to improve the radius. That is why the problems are hard. There might be a better configuration out there that we have not found yet.
$endgroup$
– Ross Millikan
Dec 30 '18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
$begingroup$
105 is not difficult to find - alternate rows with 10 balls and rows with 9 balls. This occupies $1+5sqrt 3$ from the height. The remaining place of width $0.34$ is encouraging ... the packing from Packomania is better :)
$endgroup$
– user376343
Dec 31 '18 at 0:38
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3056941%2fgreatest-number-of-balls-in-a-box%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
1
$begingroup$
Of interest may be en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_packing_in_a_square
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Dec 30 '18 at 15:47