[amne]

if, like me, you're a non-native english and speaker don't immediately understand what this is about: the page shows for each `n` what's the minimum `s` such that `n` squares with side of length 1 fit in a square with side of length `s`.

what I'm curious about though is what a proof for something like this looks like. and why does it need a proof? not to mention the randomness of some of the `n`s. Math is most of the time beatiful and whenever I see something like `n=11` I think "it looks wrong so it must be wrong" yet it has a proof.

[javier_e06]

Same here. Non native English speaker. The first rule is that inner squares are of size 1. Always.

Yet, in each example the inner squares shrink. Uh?

It know it was a convention to better show the arrangement, normalizing, yadda yadda.

Yet, Uh?

[nuancebydefault]

The total image size is scaled each time such that each solution takes up the same amount of space. It is easier to browse that way.

[zamadatix]

Would you also argue it's odd graphs don't all use the same scale as each other?

[charlesrice]

Do you want the graphs with 300 squares to be bigger than your screen, or do you want the graph with 1 square to be 30x30 px for no reason? They're just zoomed.

[zamadatix]

That's what I mean, I can't imagine why anyone would argue the same thing of graphs in general so I'm curious what the difference makes it so they find it so odd in this specific case.