New sphere-packing record stems from an unexpected source

Post by Gregaros » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 7:46 PM UTC

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #9

Neat. I spent a month trying to use sphere packing approaches for a better compression algorithm (I had a large amount of vectors, they were grouped through clustering). Turned out that theoretical approaches only really work for uniform data and not any sort of real-world data. EDIT: groped -> grouped

Post by Jaxan » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 7:53 PM UTC

fiforpg wrote: post #6

theteapot wrote: post #4

Noob question: Is the optimal sphere packing correlated with a regular lattice? I.e. that's the case for 2D,3D right? If so does this extend to ND?

Not necessarily—in 3d there are uncountably many non-lattice packings. They all have the same density as the FCC lattice though. To construct these packings, shift horizontal layers of FCC horizontally with respect to each other. It is conjectured that in higher dimensions, the densest packing is always non-lattice. The rationale being that there is just not enough symmetry in such spaces.

Post by tomrod » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 7:59 PM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #12

clickety_clack wrote: post #7

I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

Post by doubledamio » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:03 PM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #12

clickety_clack wrote: post #7

I have trouble explaining to my parents how my job is a real thing. I can only imagine trying to explain ‘I study shapes, but only ones that don’t jut inwards’.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jul 07, 2025, 8:10 PM UTC

doubledamio wrote: post #17

dkarl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found it's best to explain my job using unintelligible jargon. There are three choices, really: You can give a quick explanation in terms they understand, which makes your job sound easy and makes them wonder how anybody gets paid to do it. You can explain what you do and why it's important in terms they understand, but it'll take so long they'll get bored and wish they hadn't asked. Or you can give a quick expl…

If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it well enough