Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Now, there is a puzzle that is quite well known as far as I know, concerning the packing of rectangular boxes in 3-dimensional space. You also have a measurement of a box as the sum of the hight, width and length.

Now, I have read a proof that a bigger box, using this measurement, can be packed inside a smaller box. I do, however, remember that proof to be quite abstract. Is there a known example? Or is it just that I do not remember correctly, and it is actually impossible.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The problem statement is somewhat unclear. I interpret it as follows: To every rectangular box, you assign the sum of its three dimensions as a measure of its "size". You then ask whether a box of greater "size" can be packed inside a box of lesser "size".

If you allow cutting up the box of greater "size", the answer is yes. For instance, a box with dimensions $3\times3\times3$ has "size" $9$ and volume $27$, whereas a box with dimensions $1\times4\times5$ has "size" $10$ and volume $20$, so you can cut the "bigger" one up, for instance into $20$ unit cubes, and pack it into the "smaller" one.

If cutting isn't allowed, this isn't possible. This is proved rather elegantly in Section 9 of this article. The basic idea is to consider the volume of space at a distance at most $\epsilon$ from the box. This has contributions in various powers of $\epsilon$, stemming from the various rounded bits surrounding the box, and the leading contribution that depends on the box dimensions is due to the quarter-cylinders parallel to each of the edges. This goes as $\epsilon^2$ times the sum of the box dimensions. Since for any given $\epsilon$ the inner box augmented by $\epsilon$ lies within the outer box augmented by $\epsilon$, this leading contribution can't be bigger for the inner box than for the outer box, and thus the "size" of the inner box can't exceed that of the outer box.

share|improve this answer

It is impossible, even when tilting the interior box.

This is question 70 (Airline Luggage) of The art of mathematics: coffee time in Memphis by Béla Bollobás, where he proves twice over two pages the assertion

Let $l(B)=a+b+c$ be the linear measure of an $a\times b\times c$ box (rectangular parallelepiped). This linear measure is monotone in the sense that if a box $B$ is contained in a box $C$ then $l(B) \le l(C).$

A superficially similar question, with a different answer, is Prince Rupert's Cube, where a cube of side 1.06 can pass through a hole in a cube of side 1.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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