Sometimes math can be bullshit...

@GlitterEater edited to set it right, first description was wrong my bad, the size of the uncovered place of the big square compared to the size of the small squares

@SquirrelGirl That number is always the same for 17 squares though.

@GlitterEater yes the size of the square doesnt matter only the comparision between the big and the small squares matters.

@SquirrelGirl So what makes one arrangement of 17 squares better than another? The left over space is A^2 - 17a^2 where A is the side length of the large square and a is the side length of the smaller squares. Since the left over areas are the same, what are you comparing?

@GlitterEater we want A as small as possible compared to a

@SquirrelGirl At least two squares are free to move though, so I can make other arrangements with the same A and a

@GlitterEater in this picture it looks like the top right square could be moved, but the 2 squares on the top right are actually a tiny bit tilted.. you would have to zoom in really hard which we cant do here. on a simple pic

@SquirrelGirl I see. The one to the left of the top right still seems like it could slide though. I don't see what gets in the way.

@GlitterEater btw this is not a solved problem... this is only the best solution anyone has found to this problem yet. if you find a better one you could publish it

@SquirrelGirl Are you in academia?

@GlitterEater finished my first year in college

@SquirrelGirl Cool. Are you studying math?

@GlitterEater computer science, lots of math involved but this one is more of a curiosity

@SquirrelGirl Awesome. I am (was?) a physicist. I like really computers though, currently working on a long term project building a computer with 6502 cpu + 6502 co-processors and basically all my physics work has been writing analysis code.