Matched: the best known value

Packing 27 unit squares in a square

What is the smallest square that holds 27 squares of side 1, without overlap? The best known answer is a side of 5.7071067812, from Frits Göbel, 1979. Velmar Cut matched it.

27 squares in a square of side 5.7071067812, 25 upright and 2 turned

The numbers

Best known side5.7071067812
Best known side, in full5.70710678118654
Side from Velmar Cut5.7071067812
Side from Velmar Cut, in full5.707106781187605
Difference, Velmar Cut minus best known+1.065E-12
Found byFrits Göbel, 1979
StatusBest known, not proved
Time to reach it0.837 s, one run
Threads used16
MachineIntel Core i5-12600K, 10 cores, 16 threads
Squares25 upright, 2 turned
A plain grid needsside 6

The time to reach this result on one desktop PC.

The problem at 27 squares

Only two squares need to turn here. This layout keeps twenty-five upright and sets the other two at 45 degrees, and the side comes down from the plain grid's 6 to 5 + ½√2. It is the form seen at 5 and 10, and seen again at 38, 52, 67 and 84.

A plain grid: side 6

27 upright squares in rows inside a square of side 6
In upright rows, 27 squares need side 6.

Best known: side 5.7071067812

27 squares in a square of side 5.7071067812, 25 upright and 2 turned
Velmar Cut's layout, at the best known side from Frits Göbel, 1979.

Blue squares stand upright, orange squares are turned. Both pictures are at the same scale.

History

The best known value at this size is the result of Frits Göbel, 1979, and it is their result that Velmar Cut equals.

This side is the best known but not proved optimal; the best lower bound in Friedman's 2009 survey was 5.3918 (Trevor Green), which leaves room for a smaller square.

This is a strip packing by Frits Göbel: a strip of squares one wide at 45 degrees in the centre, between two staircases of upright squares. These strips stay the best known at every step David Ellsworth lists up to a very large size, except the one at 17 squares.

When Side Who What happened
early 1979 5 + ½√2 ≈ 5.70711 Frits Göbel found, best known today
2005 same side David W. Cantrell alternative with the fewest turned squares

Sources

The best known values come from "Squares in Squares", David Ellsworth, from the original by Erich Friedman.

Each size names who holds its value and since when. It is their result that Velmar Cut equals.

Is the packing valid?

Yes. The certificate passes the exact check: 27 pieces, each exactly a unit square, each inside the box, no two overlapping.

How close is it to the best known value?

The side from Velmar Cut minus the best known value is +1.065E-12, within the rule's 1E-11.

A match: the certificate passes the exact check, and |L - best known| <= 1E-11, the difference published unrounded for each size. L is the side of the certificate's box, rounded up at 15 decimals.

You don't have to trust us

With plain Python and no other software, verify_exact.py beside the certificate checks the file above by exact arithmetic, with no rounding.

python verify_exact.py 27-squares-in-a-square.csv --squares=27 --reference=5.70710678118654 --epsilon=1e-11

It does not prove that the packing is optimal, that the reference is the current best known value, or how the layout was found.

The full check and what it covers

Free trial

Seven days with every edition

Install Velmar Cut, enter the parts and stock of a current job and print the cutting schedule. The trial starts on first run and needs no account or card.