Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Take one square of side p⁻ᵗ for every prime p, where t > 1/2 is a real parameter.How small can a square box be and still hold all of them, without overlaps and without rotatingany square? The two largest squares, for p = 2 and p = 3, already force the box to have sideat least 2⁻ᵗ + 3⁻ᵗ, and the total area forces side at least √︁P(2t), where P is the prime zetafunction. These two bounds cross exactly once, at t_A = 0.6295834492..., which we locate withcertified interval arithmetic. Below tA the box of side 2⁻ᵗ + 3⁻ᵗ is too small. Our main resultis that above this point the first bound is in fact the right answer for every t ∈ [0.632,1]: thesquares can be packed into a box of side exactly 2⁻ᵗ + 3⁻ᵗ. The proof is computer-assistedand fully certified. It uses a guillotine packing for the squares with p < 2 · 10^4, shelf packingup to p < 10^7, the Rosser–Schoenfeld bound on π(x) for all remaining primes, and a simplemonotonicity argument that turns nine finite checks into a statement valid for all t in theinterval. This leaves open only a window of width less than 0.0025 above tA, and we conjecturethat the box 2⁻ᵗ + 3⁻ᵗ works all the way down to t_A. For t = 1 the answer 5/6 also follows fromthe classical Meir–Moser theorem on the squares 1/n. In this case we give short hand-madepackings for the primes and for the prime powers, which use nothing more than telescopingsums.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pronoy Chakraborty (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: