Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Puzzle time - cover the square with circles

Puzzle time - cover the square with circles

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
4 Posts 3 Posters 32 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • jon-nycJ Online
    jon-nycJ Online
    jon-nyc
    wrote on last edited by
    #1

    Suppose you have a unit square. If you also have four identical circles that can overlap, they would need to have a radius of 0.25·√2 to completely cover the square, as shown:

    BDCD6468-20D9-4D65-9391-99C973FC0490.jpeg

    Now suppose that, instead of four identical circles, you have five identical circles that can overlap. What is the minimum radius they would need to completely cover a unit square?

    Extra credit: Suppose you have six identical circles that can overlap. What is the minimum radius they would need to completely cover a unit square?

    "You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
    -Cormac McCarthy

    1 Reply Last reply
    • MikM Offline
      MikM Offline
      Mik
      wrote on last edited by
      #2

      Fucking geometry.

      “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

      1 Reply Last reply
      • KlausK Offline
        KlausK Offline
        Klaus
        wrote on last edited by
        #3

        Hm, I don't find it obvious that the fifth circle even helps.

        So let me put out the null hypothesis that the needed radius is still 0.25·√2

        1 Reply Last reply
        • KlausK Offline
          KlausK Offline
          Klaus
          wrote on last edited by
          #4

          OK, I accidentally stumbled upon the solution in a 1997 math paper...

          1 Reply Last reply
          Reply
          • Reply as topic
          Log in to reply
          • Oldest to Newest
          • Newest to Oldest
          • Most Votes


          • Login

          • Don't have an account? Register

          • Login or register to search.
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • Users
          • Groups