What is the perimeter of the smallest rectangle that can contain all the squares with side length of n 1 .
Note: n ∈ N and n = 1
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Let S 1 and S 2 be the sides of the rectangle
Then S 1 is the sum of largest two squares sides summed together
S 1 = 2 1 + 3 1 = 6 5
and area A is the sum of the area of all the squares
A = n = 2 ∑ ∞ n 2 1 = 6 π 2 − 1
The side S 2 = S 1 A = 6 5 6 π 2 − 1 = 5 π 2 − 6
So, the perimeter = 2 ( S 1 + S 2 ) = 5 2 π 2 − 1 5 1 1 ≈ 3 . 2 1 4
Relevant .
Your question didn't say that the squares mustn't overlap. And why must S 1 be the sum of the largest TWO squares only? Why not three? Or four, and so on?
And even if you're right, you have not shown that such a rectangle exist. How do you confine these squares into a fixed dimensions? Do you arrange them like in Fibonacci Blocks ?
Log in to reply
One bound to the answer is dependent on one rectangle side, S 1 , to be the sum of the largest two squares sides summed together
The other rectangle side, S 2 , depends on the order of remaining squares. However, we know the total area, A, of the squares
So the other ideal rectangle side length can be found
Log in to reply
You didn't answer my question, I asked "why must it be sum of largest TWO squares only?"
Just because you said it exist does not mean it exist. I could say I can fit seven squares of sides 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 , 1 3 inside a rectangle, but I still need to show a geometric construction of the arrangements. Do you have a rough sketch of a geometric figure to that shows the arrangements of such squares in the fixed rectangle?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Would you please check the last section of this
Log in to reply
@Digvijay Singh – Wow, interesting! Do you have the visual proof of the arrangements of the blocks?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – nah... I don't... but, if there is no arrangment of such squares, why would they post such question on wikipedia?
Log in to reply
@Digvijay Singh – Yea, Wikipedia is pretty much reliable. I'm under the impression that you can construct the rectangle.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Like Fibonacci Blocks?
Log in to reply
@Digvijay Singh – I doubt it. Fibonacci sequence is the subset of of harmonic sequence.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – umm.. okay... now what..? Is this question good to be posted? Or still faulty?
Log in to reply
@Digvijay Singh – Nope. It's all good. But I think a complete solution is very difficult to write out.
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – all right.. I've posted a similar question - Packin' Squares . Check it out
Log in to reply
@Digvijay Singh – Yay! Now I'm gonna spend hours on that problem!
@Pi Han Goh – I have to believe that there must be some infinite subset of the natural numbers A such that i = 0 ∑ ∞ a i 2 1 = 6 π 2 − 1 , leading to a minimal perimeter of 4 6 π 2 − 1 ≈ 3 . 2 1 2
Log in to reply
@Garrett Clarke – I'm certain that I would like to see your proof! ⌣ ¨
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Haha what I wouldn't give to be able to supply it!
@Digvijay Singh – @Digvijay Singh Which last section??? Could you please check again??? There are only Series and Integral representations of zeta(2) in the last section...............
@Pi Han Goh – @Pi Han Goh I still have a doubt so as to why it must be the sum of largest TWO squares??? Could you please explain it sir???
Log in to reply
@Aaghaz Mahajan – You just reiterated what I said.
I asked the author why if the two sides of the rectangle be S 1 ≤ S 2 , then S 2 must have the sum of lengths of the 2 largest squares.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
1) The problem should ask for the perimeter of the rectangle with the smallest area, instead of the ambiguously worded, "smallest rectangle".
2) Again, to reduce ambiguity, it should be stated that this is a packing problem where one of each such square must fit inside the rectangle of least area without overlapping.
3) The answer is the lower limit, but proof is lacking that all such squares with sides n 1 can actually fit inside a rectangle with this area. Lacking such proof, maybe the problem should be reworded to ask for the lower limit?
I gave my answer by taking the chance that the correct answer is the lower limit, without knowing how I could pack all those squares inside such a rectangle.