6
$\begingroup$

This is about layering boxes, not about slaying them. We have 1,830 2×5 boxes to stack safely as 10 alternating contiguous layer patterns of 183 boxes each. Layers have identical silhouettes that fit squarewise on a rectangular 2,000-square floor. The pair of layer patterns is to be solved along with the floor’s dimensions.

Background and guidelines

Once upon a time in packing to move we had a supply of identical boxes. One challenge was, in a land of earthquakes and elbows, to stack full boxes stably on the garage floor. As width and length of a box had some irrational ratio, we came up with an amusing pattern of alternating layers (that turns out to be suboptimal). This layer pair is exemplified with 2×3 boxes.

We defined safe stacking as similar to bricklaying, where no internal abutments align between layers.

Back to 2×5 boxes of the present puzzle, here are safe layer pairs of 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 boxes. Each pair is annotated with how efficiently it uses rectangular floor space. Bounty to anyone who improves on these efficiencies or finds a safe layer pair of 5 boxes.

As an example of what to avoid as unsafe, a tempting pair of 6-box layers has internal abutments that align between layers.

How can safely alternating contiguous 183-box layers fit onto a 2,000 square-unit rectangular area?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ugh... I have only 182 boxes per layer, though I managed that in a rectangular area of 1,980 square units. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Mathias
    Commented Mar 11, 2023 at 23:21
  • $\begingroup$ You're well on the way, @Daniel Mathias! 183 boxes and 2,000 squares is where one (surprisingly in the long run) efficient pattern overtakes another. Guessing that your approach of comment could fit 183 boxes onto a 2,002-square floor. Feel free to show and tell in any case. Don't have to render the entire solution as long as a pattern is demonstrated. $\endgroup$
    – humn
    Commented Mar 12, 2023 at 0:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe all your proposed constructions are optimal, assuming that a layer has to have a single connected component. $\endgroup$
    – user1502040
    Commented Mar 12, 2023 at 1:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The layer pattern I referred to is expandable with up to 96.97% efficiency. Another expandable pattern has up to 97.22% efficiency and allows for 184 boxes in an area of 2001 square units. Unfortunately, neither of these work with an odd number of boxes per layer. I will eventually share details, but for now here are 12- 14- and 16-box layers: image $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Mathias
    Commented Mar 12, 2023 at 17:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DanielMathias I get a slightly better solution ($11 \times 15$) for $n=16$. $\endgroup$
    – RobPratt
    Commented Mar 13, 2023 at 2:55

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8
$\begingroup$

Here is one way to do it, showing the pattern along with its mirror image. The rectangular area is 83 x 24 units, or 1992 square units.

enter image description here

And the two combined, to show that this is a safe stacking pattern.

enter image description here

I had to be carefully inefficient, as the base pattern had 180 boxes in an area of 1909 square units, and I was able to layer 186 boxes within the 1992 square unit area before hitting the magic number of 183 boxes.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ F yeah! More beautiful than the intended solution. $\endgroup$
    – humn
    Commented Mar 14, 2023 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ Gotta double check.@Daniel Mathias, which usually comes up positive. Hang in there and enjoy the well deserved +1s. $\endgroup$
    – humn
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 4:48
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Daniel Mathias , had to take leave and might again, still reeling from solutions. Stay tuned. (Same to Retudin.) $\endgroup$
    – humn
    Commented Mar 24, 2023 at 9:54
2
$\begingroup$

(This is not an answer to the 183 problem asked here)

High efficiency packing (arbitrary close to 100%) for far larger numbers of boxes

enter image description here

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand what this diagram is depicting. What does level 2 look like? $\endgroup$
    – AxiomaticSystem
    Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ All horizontal are not shown (the inside white is filled, as well as the blue with orange layer horizontal blocks, and the orange with blue layer horizontal blocks ) , i.e. of the 20 rows, odd layers form a massive block of 5x10 in row 5..14 , while even layers have 4 10x2 massive subblocks in row 1..19 (in column 3..2, 15..24, 27..36 and 39..48) $\endgroup$
    – Retudin
    Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, like this? $\endgroup$
    – AxiomaticSystem
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 4:04
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, like that $\endgroup$
    – Retudin
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Retudin , had to take leave and might again, still reeling from solutions. Stay tuned. (Same to Daniel Mathias.) $\endgroup$
    – humn
    Commented Mar 24, 2023 at 9:53

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.