<p>Given a large (generally non-integer) length <i>x</i>, the well-studied square packing problem asks how efficiently one can pack a square of side length <i>x</i> by non-overlapping unit squares. Let <InlineEquation ID="IEq1122"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="454_2025_767_Article_IEq1122.gif" Format="GIF" Height="19" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="42" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(W(x)\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation> be the minimum area “wasted” in such a packing. Chung and Graham (Discrete Comput Geom 64(3):690–699, 2019. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-019-00088-9">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-019-00088-9</a>) claimed a proof that <InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <InlineMediaObject> <ImageObject Color="BlackWhite" FileRef="454_2025_767_Article_IEq1.gif" Format="GIF" Height="20" Rendition="HTML" Resolution="72" Type="Linedraw" Width="114" /> </InlineMediaObject> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(W(x) = O(x^{0.6})\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>. This note identifies a calculation error in that paper that invalidates the claimed result. We illustrate the error in two ways: by directly analyzing where the mistake arose in an angle computation, and by checking against a simple geometric argument using the triangle inequality.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Note on “Efficient Packings of Unit Squares in a Large Square”

  • Marat Z. Arslanov,
  • Hong Duc Bui

摘要

Given a large (generally non-integer) length x, the well-studied square packing problem asks how efficiently one can pack a square of side length x by non-overlapping unit squares. Let \(W(x)\) be the minimum area “wasted” in such a packing. Chung and Graham (Discrete Comput Geom 64(3):690–699, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00454-019-00088-9) claimed a proof that \(W(x) = O(x^{0.6})\) . This note identifies a calculation error in that paper that invalidates the claimed result. We illustrate the error in two ways: by directly analyzing where the mistake arose in an angle computation, and by checking against a simple geometric argument using the triangle inequality.