This Mathematical Packing Tip Has Twitter Divided

Moving homes is one of the most difficult and stressful life events to go through, according to about 45% of survey-takers (via The New York Post). Moving out of a home is about more than just organizing your belongings and sorting them into boxes; sometimes it can feel like a math puzzle when you have to load those boxes into a van as tightly as possible.  

Packing 16 identical boxes together can be a breeze — you can align them four by four or two by eight, but what should you do when you have more to pack? — Leave it to the internet to come up with a mathematical formula for everyday issues. 

The brain-teasing challenge, in this case, is to fit 17 identical square boxes into a square area while taking up as little space as possible. The rules are that you can't stack boxes, remove them, or force them to fit (try as you might). In a recent Twitter post, user Daniel Piker shared the solution — and it's an intensely frustrating configuration. Next time you're feeling stumped on how to pack boxes into a tight space, you might want to give this awkward arrangement a try.

There you have it: the most unsatisfying way in the world to pack 17 square boxes — and yet this is the most mathematically ideal method for saving space. According to this solution, ten boxes should line the perimeter of the square area, with six boxes set diagonally in the center. The final box is then stuffed into the spare space left behind. If you try to rearrange them, you'll find that more pleasing, symmetrical designs will actually require more space.  

While the arrangement makes mathematical sense, our human brains still seem to hate it. In response to the solution, Twitter users have taken to the comments with pitchforks and torches, stating that, "offensive content like this shouldn't be allowed on Twitter". Other users said that they would rather toss out whatever is in the 17th box than concede to a mind-boggling arrangement like this. Although the space-saving layout is uncomfortable, some users still acknowledged the mathematical brilliance behind the pattern, noting that efficient design isn't always beautiful design, and "maybe Roomba knew what it was doing after all."