Real-World question i can't get my head around.

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoshMaths
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Head
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around arranging 16 rectangular pieces of paper (2x1) into the smallest possible area while keeping them vertical for readability. The total area of the papers is 32, which is not a perfect square, making it impossible to form a perfect square arrangement. Various rectangle configurations are suggested, including 1x16, 2x8, and 4x4, with the possibility of mixing orientations. A notable arrangement is 3 vertical and 6 horizontal papers, resulting in a 6x6 square pattern with four empty spots. Ultimately, the challenge lies in optimizing the layout while adhering to the vertical constraint.
JoshMaths
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I am going to feel silly when you guys give me the answer in 2 seconds but here we go.

Imagine there are 16 rectangular pieces of paper with length 2 and width 1.

You want to organise them in a big square or make them fit the smallest area possible.

How many columns do you have and how many rows?

If you need a pitiful attempt then i would say...
Let x be the total length and y be the total width then x=2y and r*c = 16 where r = rows and c = columns and we want to find min xy = min 3y2

given x = 2r and y = c then 3y2 = 32 yet this minima gives y = 0 obviously, so i am stuck.

Yes i know this is year 8 maths, yes i am in University, any help much appreciative.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
No matter how you arrange them the area will be 32. Since 32 is not a perfect square you can't make a square. You can make rectangles of any shape (1 x 16, 2 x 8, 4 x 4) where either direction can be all 1's or all 2's. It is also possible to mix 1's and 2's.
 
Thanks, one constraint i might have forgot to mention is that all the pages must be vertical so you can read them.
 
mathman's solution can be done with vertical pages. Another nice arrangement could be 3 vertical, 6 horizontal. It requires 36 tiles instead of 32, but it gives a nice 6x6-pattern (with 4 empty spots) - the smallest possible square.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top