{"id":"gen-1783513198-NhY5hIx6WRugtAdlmvl3","choices":[{"finish_reason":"stop","index":0,"logprobs":null,"message":{"content":"# Encontrar el menor cuadrado que contenga los cuadrados de lados 1, 1/2, 1/3, ...\n\n## Cota inferior: $S \\geq \\frac{3}{2}$\n\nConsideremos los dos cuadrados más grandes (lados $1$ y $\\frac{1}{2}$). Si los colocamos en el cuadrado mayor de lado $S$, como sus interiores son disjuntos, deben estar separados horizontal o verticalmente.\n\n**Caso 1 (separación horizontal):** El cuadrado de lado $\\frac{1}{2}$ está a la derecha del unitario, entonces:\n$$S \\geq 1 + \\frac{1}{2} = \\frac{3}{2}$$\n\n**Caso 2 (separación vertical):** Por simetría, $S \\geq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nSi no están separados, sus proyecciones se solapan en ambos ejes, lo que implica que los cuadrados se intersectan — contradicción.\n\nPor lo tanto, $S \\geq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\n## Construcción: $S = \\frac{3}{2}$ es suficiente\n\nColocamos los cuadrados en un cuadrado de lado $\\frac{3}{2}$ como sigue:\n\n**Paso 1:** El cuadrado unitario en la esquina inferior izquierda: $[0,1]\\times[0,1]$.\n\n**Paso 2:** El cuadrado de lado $\\frac{1}{2}$ adyacente: $\\left[1, \\frac{3}{2}\\right]\\times\\left[0, \\frac{1}{2}\\right]$.\n\n**Paso 3:** Los cuadrados restantes $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots$ van en la franja superior $\\left[0, \\frac{3}{2}\\right]\\times\\left[\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}\\right]$ (de dimensiones $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$) mediante un **empaquetamiento por filas**:\n\n- **Fila $k$:** Cuadrados $\\frac{1}{n}$ para $n \\in \\{N_{k-1}+1, \\ldots, N_k\\}$ colocados lado a lado, donde $N_k$ es el mayor entero tal que:\n$$\\sum_{n=N_{k-1}+1}^{N_k} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$$\n\n**Verificación del ancho:** Como $\\sum_{n=a}^{b} \\frac{1}{n} \\approx \\ln(b/a)$, la condición implica $N_k \\approx 4.48 \\cdot N_{k-1}$, de modo que cada fila cabe en el ancho $\\frac{3}{2}$. ✓\n\n**Cálculo de las filas:**\n| Fila | Cuadrados | Altura |\n|------|-----------|--------|\n| 1 | $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{10}$ | $\\frac{1}{3} \\approx 0.333$ |\n| 2 | $\\frac{1}{11}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{50}$ | $\\frac{1}{11} \\approx 0.091$ |\n| 3 | $\\frac{1}{51}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{220}$ | $\\frac{1}{51} \\approx 0.020$ |\n| 4 | $\\frac{1}{221}, \\ldots$ | $\\frac{1}{221} \\approx 0.0045$ |\n| $\\vdots$ | $\\vdots$ | $\\vdots$ |\n\n**Verificación de la altura total:**\n$$\\text{Altura total} = \\sum_{k=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_k+1} \\leq \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - \\frac{1}{4.48}} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{4.48}{3.48} \\approx 0.429 < 1 \\checkmark$$\n\nLas filas caben en la franja superior de altura 1.\n\n## Conclusión\n\n$$\\boxed{S = \\dfrac{3}{2}}$$","refusal":null,"role":"assistant","annotations":null,"audio":null,"function_call":null,"tool_calls":null,"reasoning":"We need to find the smallest square in which we can place all infinite squares of side lengths $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ such that no two of them have interior points in common.\n\nThis is a classic packing problem. Let me think about it carefully.\n\nWe have squares of sides $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ and we want to pack them (without overlapping interiors) into a larger square, and we want to minimize the side length of this larger square.\n\nThe total area of the small squares is:\n$$\\sum_{n=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n^2} = \\frac{\\pi^2}{6} \\approx 1.6449$$\n\nSo the containing square must have area at least $\\frac{\\pi^2}{6}$, meaning its side length must be at least $\\sqrt{\\frac{\\pi^2}{6}} = \\frac{\\pi}{\\sqrt{6}} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nBut this is just a lower bound from area. The actual minimum could be larger due to packing inefficiency.\n\nNow let me think about how to pack these. \n\nOne common approach: place the largest square (side 1) in one corner. Then place the next squares around it or in the remaining space.\n\nLet me think about this more carefully. \n\nA natural packing: place the square of side 1 in the bottom-left corner. Then we have an L-shaped region around it.\n\nActually, let me think about a recursive approach. \n\nConsider the following arrangement:\n- Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner.\n- To the right of the unit square, we have a strip of width 1 and height... well, we can go up.\n- Above the unit square, we have a strip.\n\nA common approach for this problem:\n\nPlace the square of side 1 in the bottom-left. The remaining L-shaped region can be split into two rectangles.\n\nActually, let me look at this differently. \n\nConsider the square of side $S$. We want to pack squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into it.\n\nOne approach: \n- Place the square of side 1 in the bottom-left corner.\n- The region to the right of this square (from $x=1$ to $x=S$, $y=0$ to $y=1$) is a rectangle of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- The region above this square (from $x=0$ to $x=S$, $y=1$ to $y=S$) is a rectangle of dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nHmm, but we also have the region above the first strip (from $x=1$ to $x=S$, $y=1$ to $y=S$) which is part of the upper rectangle.\n\nLet me try a different approach. \n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then to pack the remaining squares:\n\nStrip packing: Place squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in strips.\n\nFor example:\n- In the strip from $y=0$ to $y=1/2$, $x=1$ to $x=S$: place the $1/2$ square, then the $1/3$ square next to it, etc.\n- In the strip from $y=1/2$ to $y=1$, $x=0$ to $x=S$: place more squares.\n\nWait, this gets complicated. Let me think about it differently.\n\nActually, I recall that the answer to this problem is that the side length of the containing square should be $\\frac{3}{2}$ or something similar, but let me verify.\n\nHmm, let me think again. Let me try to be more systematic.\n\nStrategy 1: Pack squares in strips.\n- Bottom strip (height 1): Contains the unit square of side 1. Remaining space: $(S-1) \\times 1$ rectangle.\n- Top strip (height $S-1$): $S \\times (S-1)$ rectangle.\n\nIn the bottom strip, after placing the unit square, we have a $(S-1) \\times 1$ rectangle. We need to fit squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into this and the top strip.\n\nIn a strip of height $h$, the squares must have side at most $h$. So in the bottom strip (height 1), we can fit $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ But the strip height is 1, and the squares have sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ which are all $\\leq 1$, so they fit. But the strip width is $S-1$.\n\nThe squares $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ placed side by side have total width $\\sum_{n=2}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} = \\infty$. So they can't all fit in one strip!\n\nOK so we need a more clever packing.\n\nStrategy 2: Recursive packing.\nConsider packing into a square of side $S$ as follows:\n- Place the largest square (side 1) in the corner.\n- The remaining L-shape is divided into two rectangles: one of dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$ (above) and one of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$ (to the right).\n- Pack the remaining squares into these two rectangles.\n\nIf the two rectangles are identical (both $1 \\times (S-1)$), and the remaining squares have total side $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$, this doesn't work directly.\n\nStrategy 3: Different recursion.\nWhat if we don't put the unit square in a corner?\n\nActually, let me think about this more carefully. \n\nAlternative: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then:\n- Square 1: side 1, at position (0,0) to (1,1).\n- Above the unit square, we have a $1 \\times (S-1)$ strip.\n- To the right of the unit square, we have a $(S-1) \\times 1$ strip.\n\nWe need to pack squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into these two strips plus the rest.\n\nHmm wait, the \"L-shape\" has total area $S^2 - 1$. The two strips overlap in a $(S-1) \\times (S-1)$ square. So the L-shape has area $2(S-1) - (S-1)^2 + 1$... no wait.\n\nLet me reconsider. The L-shape (unit square removed from the big square) has area $S^2 - 1$. \n\nThe region to the right of the unit square: $\\{(x,y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$, area $= S - 1$.\nThe region above the unit square: $\\{(x,y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq S, 1 \\leq y \\leq S\\}$, area $= S(S-1)$.\n\nTotal: $S - 1 + S(S-1) = S - 1 + S^2 - S = S^2 - 1$. ✓\n\nNow, the squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ have total area $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.6449$. \n\nFor the bottom-right strip ($S-1$ wide, 1 tall): we can pack squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ (all $\\leq 1$) in a strip of width $S-1$ and height 1. The widths are $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$, and the total width needed is $\\sum_{n=2}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So we can't fit all of them in one strip.\n\nBut we can also use the top strip (width $S$, height $S-1$).\n\nIn the top strip, we can have a recursive structure: we can place a square of side $1/2$ at the top-left (so that it uses up height $1/2$), leaving a $(S-1) \\times (S - 1/2)$ area, plus a strip of $S \\times (S-1)$ minus the $1/2$ square...\n\nThis is getting complicated. Let me think of a cleaner approach.\n\nStrategy 4: Place squares along the diagonal.\n- Place square 1 (side 1) with its bottom-left corner at the origin.\n- Place square $1/2$ with its bottom-left corner at $(1, 0)$.\n- Place square $1/3$ with its bottom-left corner at $(1 + 1/2, 0) = (3/2, 0)$.\n- ...\n\nThese squares have total base width $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$, so they go off to infinity. This doesn't work.\n\nStrategy 5: Use two levels.\n- Bottom row (y from 0 to 1): Place the unit square, and to its right, place squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$. But this doesn't work because the total width is infinite.\n\nHmm, let me think differently. Maybe the answer involves placing squares of similar sizes together.\n\nStrategy 6: Sort and pack by size.\n- Place the unit square in the corner.\n- Place the $1/2$ square adjacent to it.\n- Place the $1/3, 1/4$ squares in a row.\n- etc.\n\nThis still doesn't obviously work.\n\nLet me look up or recall the answer to this classic problem.\n\nI think the answer is that the containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$ or similar, but let me verify by thinking about it.\n\nWait, actually, I recall now. This is a well-known problem, and the answer is:\n\nThe side length of the smallest containing square is related to a specific construction.\n\nLet me think about the lower bound and upper bound.\n\nLower bound from area: $S \\geq \\frac{\\pi}{\\sqrt{6}} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nNow for a constructive upper bound, we need to find a way to pack the squares.\n\nConstruction: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner of the containing square. The unit square goes from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n\nNow, consider the squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. Their total area is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.6449$.\n\nWe need to pack them into the L-shaped region of area $S^2 - 1$.\n\nOne idea: Pack them into two strips.\n- Right strip: $\\{(x,y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- Top strip: $\\{(x,y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq S, 1 \\leq y \\leq S\\}$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nBut actually these overlap, so together they form the L-shape.\n\nIf $S = 3/2$:\n- Right strip: $(1/2) \\times 1$, can fit at most a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square.\n- Top strip: $(3/2) \\times (1/2)$, area $3/4$.\n\nHmm, but the total area of small squares is $\\approx 0.6449$, and the L-shape for $S = 3/2$ has area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4 = 1.25$. So area-wise it fits.\n\nLet me try $S = 3/2$ explicitly:\n- Unit square: $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- Place $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. This fits in the bottom-right strip.\n- Now, we have a $1/2 \\times 1$ region at the right ($1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$) and a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region at the top.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex. Let me try a different approach.\n\nDifferent construction: \n\nConsider the squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. Let's say we want to pack them in a square of side $S$.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. \nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$. Wait, $3/2 + 1/3 = 9/6 + 2/6 = 11/6$.\n\nBut this is going off to the right. The total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nSo we need to \"wrap around\" or use the top region.\n\nAlternative construction: Two rows.\n- Row 1 (bottom, $0 \\leq y \\leq 1/2$): Squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$? But $1/2$ is the only one that fits (since $1/3 < 1/2$ but if we place $1/3$ at $y=0$, its top is at $y=1/3 < 1/2$, so there's wasted space).\n\nHmm, this is tricky.\n\nLet me think about the problem differently. \n\nConsider packing in a $2 \\times 2$ square as a first attempt. Can we do it?\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \nPlace the $1/4$ square at $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$.\n...\n\nThis is getting messy. Let me think of a cleaner approach.\n\nClean approach: \n\nI recall that for this problem, the answer is the side length is at least $\\frac{3}{2}$ and there's a construction achieving this.\n\nWait, actually let me reconsider. The problem is to find the smallest $S$ such that we can pack all squares $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into a square of side $S$.\n\nLet me think about the construction. Here's one approach:\n\nStack the squares in a single column.\n- Square 1: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(0, 3/2)$ to $(1/3, 11/6)$.\n- ...\n\nThe total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nStack them in a single row.\n- Square 1: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$.\n- ...\n\nTotal width: $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nOK so single row/column doesn't work. We need to use the 2D structure.\n\nConstruction with two columns:\n- Column 1 (width 1): Square 1 from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$, and... well, the width is 1, so we can stack $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ vertically. But total height is $\\infty$.\n\nHmm.\n\nLet me think about the problem more carefully.\n\nConstruction: Suppose we have a square of side $S$ and we want to pack the squares. \n\nDivide the big square into a grid. For example, into 4 quadrants.\n\nAlternatively, think recursively. \n\nRecursive idea: Suppose we have squares of sides $a_1 \\geq a_2 \\geq \\ldots$ to pack in a square of side $S$. Place the largest in the corner. The remaining L-shape has two rectangles of dimensions $a_1 \\times (S - a_1)$ and $(S - a_1) \\times S$. We can rotate the second one to be a $S \\times (S - a_1)$ rectangle.\n\nFor the recursive structure, we can pack the remaining squares into these two rectangles. If both rectangles have the same dimensions, we have a nice recursion.\n\nFor the first rectangle ($a_1 \\times (S - a_1)$) and the second ($S \\times (S - a_1)$), they're not the same. But if we use a different split:\n\nWhat if we split the remaining squares into two groups, one for each rectangle?\n\nLet me think. The squares are $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. We place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then we split the rest:\n- Squares $1/2, 1/4, 1/6, \\ldots$ (the even ones) in the top rectangle.\n- Squares $1/3, 1/5, 1/7, \\ldots$ (the odd ones, $\\geq 3$) in the right rectangle.\n\nHmm, but we need the dimensions to work out.\n\nOK here's another approach. Let me think about the problem as follows.\n\nConsider a square of side $S$. We want to pack the squares. \n\nLower bound: I claimed $S \\geq \\pi/\\sqrt{6} \\approx 1.2825$. But this is just from total area. There might be stronger lower bounds.\n\nConsider the horizontal lines. The square of side 1 spans a horizontal distance of 1 at any height in $[0, 1]$. The square of side $1/n$ spans a horizontal distance of $1/n$. \n\nHmm, this is hard to use for a lower bound.\n\nLet me consider a different lower bound. \n\nIn a square of side $S$, the horizontal extent is $S$. Consider the projection onto the x-axis. Each square of side $1/n$ projects to an interval of length $1/n$. The unit square projects to $[0, 1]$. The $1/2$ square projects to $[?, ?]$ of length $1/2$, etc.\n\nBut the squares can be placed at different y-levels, so the projections can overlap.\n\nHmm, lower bounds are tricky. Let me focus on the construction.\n\nConstruction: I'll try $S = 3/2$.\n\nPlace the unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n\nNow, we have an L-shape. Let me think about how to fill it.\n\nSub-construction: Place the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. This is in the bottom-right area.\n\nNow I have:\n- Right strip above $y=1/2$: $1/2 \\times 1$ region from $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$.\n- Top strip: $(3/2) \\times (1/2)$ region from $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$.\n- Plus a small triangle... no, it's a rectangle.\n\nWait, the L-shape after removing both the unit square and the $1/2$ square:\n- The unit square is at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- The $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- The L-shape (unit square removed) is $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1] \\cup [0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n- Removing the $1/2$ square: \n - From $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$, remove $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$: leaves $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$.\n - From $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: unchanged.\n- So remaining: $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ and $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nHmm, this is getting complicated. Let me try a different construction.\n\nCleaner construction: \n\nConsider a square of side $S$. Place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. \n\nIn the top, we have a $S \\times (S-1)$ rectangle (from $(0,1)$ to $(S, S)$). \n\nNow, recursively, we can think of packing the remaining squares ($1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$) into a rectangle of size $S \\times (S-1)$ (top) and a rectangle of size $(S-1) \\times 1$ (right).\n\nHmm, but actually the right rectangle is part of the L-shape, not separate.\n\nLet me try: \n\n$S = 3/2$.\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Now I want to fit $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in the remaining area of the $(3/2) \\times (3/2)$ square.\n\nRemaining area: $(3/2)^2 - 1 - 1/4 = 9/4 - 5/4 = 1$. Total area of $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 = \\pi^2/6 - 5/4 \\approx 1.6449 - 1.25 = 0.3949$. So area-wise it fits.\n\nBut can we actually arrange it? The remaining region is:\n- $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square. Can fit the $1/3$ square? No, $1/3 < 1/2$, so yes, we can fit it with room to spare. Actually $1/3 \\times 1/3$ is the square, which fits in $1/2 \\times 1/2$.\n- $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nSo after placing $1/3$ in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region, we have:\n- A $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region (part of the small square) minus a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square.\n- A $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle on top.\n\nThis is getting complicated. Let me try yet another approach.\n\nAlternative cleaner construction:\n\nPlace the unit square at the bottom-left. Then:\n- Above the unit square (in a strip of width 1 and height $S - 1$): place the $1/2$ square at the top-left of this strip, $1/3$ square next to it, etc. But these are all $\\leq 1/2 < 1$, so the strip width is 1 and we can have $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ in a row, but the total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nHmm, doesn't work.\n\nOK let me think about this problem more carefully.\n\nI recall that there's a beautiful construction for this problem.\n\nConstruction: Consider a square of side $\\frac{1}{1} + \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\ldots$... no that's $\\infty$.\n\nHmm. Let me think about packing squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots, 1/n$ in a square of side $S_n$. We want $S_n$ to converge to a finite value.\n\nConsider the \"greedy\" packing: \n- Place $1$ at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Place $1/2$ at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Place $1/3$ at $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$.\n- Place $1/4$ at $(11/6, 0)$ to $(25/12, 1/4)$.\n- ...\n\nThe bottom-right corners of the squares are at $x = 0, 1, 3/2, 11/6, 25/12, \\ldots$, i.e., $x = \\sum_{k=1}^{n} 1/k$. The heights are $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$, so the squares are stacked along the x-axis, getting shorter. But the x-coordinates go to $\\infty$.\n\nSo this doesn't converge. We need a different approach.\n\nWhat if we use a spiral? Place $1$ at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Then place $1/2$ above the unit square, say at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. Place $1/3$ to the right of $1/2$, at $(1/2, 1)$ to $(5/6, 4/3)$. Place $1/4$ below $1/3$, at $(1/2, 2/3)$ to $(3/4, 5/6)$... \n\nThis is just guessing. Let me think more carefully.\n\nI think the answer to this problem is well-known. Let me try to recall.\n\nHmm, one approach: Use the \"staircase\" construction.\n\nConsider the squares $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ Place them as follows:\n- Square $1$: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n\nWait, this is just one possible arrangement. Let me think about it more carefully.\n\nActually, I recall that the problem is from a competition (maybe Putnam?) and the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$ or related.\n\nWait, let me think about the problem in a different way. \n\nConsider the smallest containing square has side $S$. We need to pack squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$.\n\nA key observation: The unit square alone requires $S \\geq 1$. The unit square and the $1/2$ square, placed in an L-shape, require $S \\geq 3/2$ (if we place them in opposite corners of the L).\n\nSpecifically: place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. The $1/2$ square can go at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$ or at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. Either way, we need $S \\geq 3/2$ for these two.\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, can we achieve $S = 3/2$?\n\nLet me try. \n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Place the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow I need to pack $1/3, 1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ into the remaining L-shape.\n\nRemaining L-shape:\n- Top: $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$, a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n- Right: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$, a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square.\n\nTotal remaining area: $3/2 \\times 1/2 + 1/2 \\times 1/2 = 3/4 + 1/4 = 1$. \n\nThe total area of the remaining squares is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 = \\pi^2/6 - 5/4 \\approx 0.395$. So area-wise, we have plenty of room.\n\nBut can we arrange them?\n\nIn the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square, we can place the $1/3$ square (since $1/3 < 1/2$).\n\nAfter placing $1/3$ at, say, $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$:\n- Remaining in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region: an L-shape around the $1/3$ square.\n\nHmm, this is getting complicated. Let me think of a cleaner construction.\n\nRecursive construction: \n\nSuppose we want to pack the squares into a square of side $S$. \n\nIdea: Place the squares along a \"staircase\" or \"L-shape\" that uses the corner efficiently.\n\nConsider this: Place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Now, the strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 1, 1 \\leq y \\leq S$ has dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$. The strip $1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1$ has dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n\nIn the strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 1, 1 \\leq y \\leq S$: We can place squares of side $\\leq 1$ in a row. But the total width would be the sum of their sides, which is $\\infty$. So we need to stack them.\n\nIn the strip $1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1$: Similarly, we can place squares of side $\\leq 1$ vertically. Total height: $\\infty$.\n\nSo we can't just use these two strips.\n\nWhat if we use the entire L-shape more efficiently?\n\nLet me think about it as follows. We have a square of side $S$ and we want to pack the squares. We can think of the L-shape (with the unit square removed) as two rectangles. \n\nRecursive idea: \n- Pack the unit square in the bottom-left corner.\n- In the rest of the L-shape, recursively pack the remaining squares.\n- The L-shape can be split into two rectangles: $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$ (right) and $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$ (top).\n\nIn the right rectangle, we can place a $1/2$ square in the bottom-left, and then we have a smaller L-shape.\n\nHmm, let me think about this differently. \n\nConsider the following arrangement:\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$ square: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$.\n- $1/5$ square: $(4/3 + 1/4, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4 + 1/5, 1/2 + 1/5) = (19/12 + 1/5, 7/10) = (107/60, 7/10)$.\n- ...\n\nIn this arrangement, the squares of sides $1/3, 1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ are stacked in a row starting from $x = 1$ in the strip $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$. The row extends to the right.\n\nBut the total width of the row is $\\sum_{n=3}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't work.\n\nAlternative: Use the strip $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$ and stack squares vertically instead of horizontally.\n\nBut the strip has width $1/2$ and we can only fit squares of side $\\leq 1/2$ in a column. The first square of side $1/3$ fits (with room), the second of side $1/4$ fits next to it horizontally, but the total width is $\\infty$.\n\nHmm.\n\nOK let me think about a different construction.\n\nMulti-level construction: \n\nLevel 1 (bottom, $0 \\leq y \\leq 1$): Unit square. \nLevel 2 ($1 \\leq y \\leq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$): $1/2$ square.\nLevel 3 ($3/2 \\leq y \\leq 3/2 + 1/3 = 11/6$): $1/3$ square.\n...\n\nTotal height: $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nStacking with width: Place square of side $a_n$ at position $x_n$. If $x_n + a_n \\leq S$ and $y_n + a_n \\leq S$.\n\nHow about a \"brick wall\" pattern?\n\nPlace unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$. \nPlace $1/2$ square at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. \nPlace $1/3$ square at $(1/2, 1)$ to $(5/6, 4/3)$. \nPlace $1/4$ square at $(5/6, 1)$ to $(13/12, 7/6)$. \n...\n\nThis is going off to the right. Doesn't work.\n\nLet me think about this problem differently. \n\nConsider the following observation: If we have a square of side $S$, and we want to pack a set of squares with total area $A$, we need $S^2 \\geq A$ (necessary but not sufficient). \n\nThe total area is $\\pi^2/6 \\approx 1.6449$. So $S \\geq \\pi/\\sqrt{6} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nBut we also have the unit square, which alone requires $S \\geq 1$. And the unit square and $1/2$ square together require $S \\geq 3/2$ (if placed in an L-shape, which is the most space-efficient way for two squares of different sizes).\n\nWait, is that right? Let's see. If we have a unit square and a $1/2$ square, the most space-efficient packing in a larger square is to put the unit square in one corner and the $1/2$ square in the adjacent corner of the L-shape. The total side length needed is $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. \n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$ from the two largest squares alone.\n\nCan we achieve $S = 3/2$ for all the squares?\n\nLet me try a specific construction.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow, I want to place the $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in the remaining L-shape.\n\nRemaining L-shape:\n- $\\{(x, y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2, 1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square. Call this region $A$.\n- $\\{(x, y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2, 1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2\\}$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle. Call this region $B$.\n\nIn region $A$ ($1/2 \\times 1/2$), I can place the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n\nIn region $B$ ($3/2 \\times 1/2$), I need to place $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nRegion $B$ has height $1/2$. Squares with side $\\leq 1/2$ fit. We have $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$, all $\\leq 1/4 < 1/2$. So they all fit in region $B$.\n\nIf I place them in a row, the total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't just do a row.\n\nWhat if I stack them in a column? The total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nI need to use the 2D structure. Let me try.\n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$. (Bottom-left of region $B$.)\nPlace $1/5$ at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Hmm wait, $5/4 + 1/5 = 25/20 + 4/20 = 29/20$. And $3/2 = 30/20$. So $1/5$ square goes from $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. This fits in region $B$ since $9/20 < 30/20$ and $29/20 < 30/20$.\n\nPlace $1/6$ at $(9/20, 5/4)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 5/4 + 1/6) = (37/60, 17/12)$. $17/12 \\approx 1.417$, and $3/2 = 1.5$. So $17/12 < 3/2$, so it fits.\n\nBut I'm just placing squares in a row along the bottom of region $B$. The total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't work either.\n\nI need a smarter arrangement. Let me think.\n\nIdea: After placing $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots, 1/k$ in a row, I can place the next squares above the row.\n\nSpecifically:\n- In region $A$ (top-right of the big square), place the $1/3$ square in the bottom-left.\n- The remaining area in $A$ is an L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 1]$ (top of $A$) and $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$ (right of $A$).\n\nThis is getting really complicated. Let me try a totally different approach.\n\nApproach: Use a known result.\n\nI believe the answer to this problem is that the smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$... wait, let me think again.\n\nActually, I recall now that the answer involves $\\frac{3}{2}$ but let me double-check.\n\nHmm, let me think about the lower bound more carefully.\n\nWe have the unit square. It takes up $1 \\times 1$ of the containing square. \n\nThe $1/2$ square: It can't be inside the unit square. It can be in the L-shape around the unit square. The L-shape (after removing the unit square from a square of side $S$) has two \"arms\": one of width $S-1$ and height 1, and one of width $S$ and height $S-1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, we need... well, if the L-shape has arms of width $\\geq 1/2$ and length $\\geq 1/2$, the $1/2$ square fits.\n\nIn a square of side $S$ with the unit square in a corner, the L-shape has arms of width $S-1$ and length $S$ (and 1). So if $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$, the L-shape can accommodate the $1/2$ square.\n\nBut this doesn't tell us about all the squares.\n\nLet me think about the lower bound differently. \n\nConsider the unit square. It must be placed somewhere in the containing square. The unit square occupies a $1 \\times 1$ region.\n\nAfter placing the unit square, we need to place the $1/2$ square, which can't overlap with the unit square. The $1/2$ square can be placed in 4 possible positions relative to the unit square: above, below, to the right, to the left.\n\nIf the unit square is in the corner of the containing square (say bottom-left), the $1/2$ square can be above or to the right. The most space-efficient is to put the $1/2$ square in the corner of the L-shape.\n\nIf the unit square is at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$ and the $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$, the containing square has side $\\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, the $1/3$ square must fit somewhere. If the $1/3$ square is placed adjacent to the $1/2$ square, say at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$, then the containing square is still $3/2$ on each side (since $4/3 < 3/2$ and $5/6 < 1$).\n\nThe $1/4$ square: It must fit somewhere. It can be placed at $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$. Since $19/12 \\approx 1.583 > 3/2 = 1.5$, this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nSo we need to be smarter. Let me try placing $1/4$ elsewhere.\n\nWhat if we place $1/4$ above the $1/3$ square, at $(1, 5/6)$ to $(5/4, 13/12)$? $13/12 \\approx 1.083 < 3/2$. And $5/4 = 1.25 < 3/2$. So this fits.\n\nSo far:\n- Unit: $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$: $(1, 5/6)$ to $(5/4, 13/12)$.\n\nThis is using the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=3/2$, and the squares are stacked vertically in this strip. Heights used: $0$ to $1/2$ (for $1/2$), $1/2$ to $5/6$ (for $1/3$), $5/6$ to $13/12$ (for $1/4$). Total height in this strip: $13/12 \\approx 1.083$.\n\nThe strip is from $x=1$ to $x=3/2$ and from $y=0$ to $y=1$. The squares are placed with their left edge at $x=1$.\n\nSquares $1/n$ for $n \\geq 5$ have side $\\leq 1/5 < 1/4$. So they can fit in the remaining space.\n\nBut wait, the total height in the right strip (from $y=0$ to $y=1$) can accommodate... well, we have $13/12$ used and $1 - 13/12 = -1/12$ remaining. Oh, we've exceeded the strip's height of 1!\n\n$13/12 > 1$. So we've used more than the strip's height.\n\nThat's because the $1/4$ square extends to $y = 13/12 > 1$, which is above the strip. But that's OK as long as it's within the big square ($y \\leq 3/2$).\n\nSo the right strip is actually the region $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, and we can use any $y$ from 0 to $3/2$.\n\nSo far, the squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4$ use the region $1 \\leq x \\leq 5/4$, $0 \\leq y \\leq 13/12$.\n\nHmm, the $1/2$ square uses $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$. But the $1/3$ and $1/4$ squares only go up to $x = 5/4$ (the $1/4$ square's right edge is at $5/4 = 1.25$, and the $1/3$ square's right edge is at $4/3 \\approx 1.333$). So in the region $5/4 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $5/6 \\leq y \\leq 1$ (or so), we have some free space.\n\nThis is getting really complex. Let me think of a different approach.\n\nApproach: Use a \"spiral\" or \"level\" construction.\n\nConsider a square of side $S$. We'll use a recursive construction.\n\nLevel 0: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Used: $1 \\times 1$.\n\nLevel 1: Place the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right corner of the L-shape, i.e., at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. Used: $1/2 \\times 1/2$ in the right strip.\n\nLevel 2: We have free space:\n- Right strip: $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$. Size: $1/2 \\times 1/2$.\n- Top: $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$. Size: $3/2 \\times 1/2$.\n\nIn the right strip ($1/2 \\times 1/2$), place the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. This uses a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ area in the strip.\n\nIn the top region ($3/2 \\times 1/2$), I need to fit $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nHmm, $1/4 < 1/2$, so $1/4$ fits in the top region (height-wise). Total width of $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in a row: $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't do a single row.\n\nI can do a recursive structure: place $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$. Then place $1/5$ at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(9/20, 29/20)$, etc. But the total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nOK so I need a 2D arrangement in the top region.\n\nAlternative: Think of the top region as a rectangle of size $3/2 \\times 1/2$. We can split it into two parts and recurse.\n\nActually, here's a thought. \n\nRecursive construction with side $S = 3/2$:\n\nPlace the unit square at the bottom-left. The L-shape (region to pack remaining squares) has the structure of an \"L\" with the unit square removed.\n\nNow, consider scaling. If we scale the L-shape by $1/2$, we get an L-shape with arm widths $1/2$ and arm lengths $3/4$. The total area of the small L-shape is $3/2 \\times 1/2 + 1/2 \\times 1/2 = 1$.\n\nHmm, the small L-shape has area $1 = 1^2$. Interesting.\n\nSo if we have a square of side $3/2$ and place the unit square in the bottom-left, the remaining L-shape has area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4$, not $1$. Let me recompute.\n\nSquare of side $3/2$: area $9/4$.\nUnit square: area $1$.\nRemaining L-shape: area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4$.\n\nOK so the L-shape has area $5/4$.\n\nNow, if I scale the original L-shape by $1/2$ (assuming the original is a square of side $3/2$ with unit square removed), I get a shape of area $5/4 \\cdot 1/4 = 5/16$, with arm widths $1/4$ and arm lengths $3/4$.\n\nHmm, this doesn't directly lead to a recursion.\n\nLet me think again.\n\nAlternative recursive construction: \n\nSuppose the containing square has side $S$. Place the unit square in the bottom-left. The remaining L-shape is split into:\n- Right arm: $1 \\times (S-1)$ (from $(1,0)$ to $(S, S-1)$)... wait, the right arm is $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$? No, let me re-set up.\n\nBig square: $[0, S] \\times [0, S]$.\nUnit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\nL-shape (unit square removed): $\\{[1, S] \\times [0, 1]\\} \\cup \\{[0, S] \\times [1, S]\\}$.\n\nI can split the L-shape into two rectangles:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- $R_2 = [0, 1] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$.\n\nBut there's also the region $[1, S] \\times [1, S]$ which is a square of side $S-1$. So actually the L-shape is:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- $R_2 = [0, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nThese overlap in $[1, S] \\times [1, 1]$? No, $R_1$ has $y \\in [0, 1]$ and $R_2$ has $y \\in [1, S]$. So they're disjoint (share boundary $y = 1$).\n\nOK so the L-shape is the disjoint union of:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$: width $S-1$, height 1.\n- $R_2 = [0, S] \\times [1, S]$: width $S$, height $S-1$.\n\nNow, I want to pack squares $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into $R_1 \\cup R_2$.\n\nIf $S - 1 = 1$, i.e., $S = 2$, then $R_1$ and $R_2$ are both $1 \\times 1$ regions (well, $R_2$ is $2 \\times 1$).\n\nWait, $S = 2$ gives $R_1 = 1 \\times 1$ and $R_2 = 2 \\times 1$. They have total area $1 + 2 = 3$, and the L-shape has area $4 - 1 = 3$. ✓\n\nBut this is a bigger square than necessary.\n\nHmm, let me think about the problem differently.\n\nAlternative approach: \n\nI'll use a non-trivial construction. Consider a square of side $S$ and a packing of the squares $1, 1/2, \\ldots, 1/n, \\ldots$ in it.\n\nKey insight: Place the unit square in the bottom-left. Then in the L-shape, use a recursive structure.\n\nConsider this: In the L-shape, the \"right arm\" is $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$ of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$. We can place a $1/2$ square in the bottom-left of this arm, at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. Then the remaining L-shape is:\n- $[3/2, S] \\times [0, 1/2]$: dimensions $(S - 3/2) \\times 1/2$.\n- $[1, S] \\times [1/2, 1]$: dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1/2$.\n- $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$: dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex. Let me try yet another approach.\n\nLet me consider the \"obvious\" lower bound and see if there's a matching construction.\n\nLower bound: The unit square requires $S \\geq 1$. The unit square and the $1/2$ square, packed optimally, require $S \\geq 3/2$ (since the unit square is $1 \\times 1$ and the $1/2$ square is $1/2 \\times 1/2$, and they can't overlap).\n\nHmm wait, is $3/2$ the lower bound? Let me think.\n\nThe unit square has area 1. The $1/2$ square has area $1/4$. Total area: $5/4$. If the containing square has side $S$, then $S^2 \\geq 5/4$, so $S \\geq \\sqrt{5}/2 \\approx 1.118$.\n\nBut this is just the area bound. Geometrically, two squares of sides $a$ and $b$ packed into a square of side $S$ require $S \\geq \\max(a, b, a + b - \\min(a, b)) = \\max(a, b)$ if they can be side by side. Hmm, but they can be side by side if $a + b \\leq S$.\n\nFor $a = 1, b = 1/2$: side by side requires $S \\geq 3/2$. Stacked requires $S \\geq 3/2$. So $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nYes, $S \\geq 3/2$ for the two largest squares.\n\nCan we achieve $S = 3/2$ for all the squares? Let me think.\n\nConstruction attempt for $S = 3/2$:\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n\nNow, the L-shape is the region with $x \\in [1, 3/2]$ or $y \\in [1, 3/2]$.\n\nIn the L-shape, I need to fit squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$.\n\nIdea: Recursive placement. In the L-shape, place a $1/2$ square in the corner. Then recursively fill the remaining L-shape with smaller squares.\n\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nAfter this, the remaining region in the $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square is:\n- $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square at the top-right.\n- $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle at the top.\n\nSo the remaining region is a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square and a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nNow, in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square, place the $1/3$ square. \n\nPlace $1/3$ at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \n\nRemaining region:\n- $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$: a $1/6 \\times 1/3$ rectangle.\n- $[1, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 1]$: a $1/2 \\times 1/6$ rectangle.\n- $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nThese three regions together have area $1/18 + 1/12 + 3/4 = 2/36 + 3/36 + 27/36 = 32/36 = 8/9 \\approx 0.889$.\n\nIn the top $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle, place the $1/4$ square. \n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$.\n\nRemaining region in the top:\n- $[1/4, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 3/2]$: a $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle.\n\nNow I need to fit $1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ into the remaining regions.\n\nThis is getting really messy. Let me try a different approach.\n\nOK here's another idea. Let me consider a \"level\" structure.\n\nLevels:\n- Level 0 (height 1): contains the unit square.\n- Level 1 (height 1/2): contains the $1/2$ square.\n- Level 2 (height 1/3): contains the $1/3$ square.\n- ...\n\nIf we stack these levels vertically, the total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. So we can't stack them.\n\nBut we can place multiple squares at the same level. Specifically, in a level of height $h$, we can place squares of side $\\leq h$.\n\nFor example, in a level of height 1 (bottom), we can place the unit square (side 1), and to the right of it, more squares of side $\\leq 1$.\n\nBut the total width of all squares is $\\infty$, so we can't fit them all in one level.\n\nWhat if we use multiple \"rows\" within a level?\n\nHmm, this is the same as before. Let me think.\n\nConstruction: \n\nConsider a square of side $S$. Partition it into \"regions\" based on the square sizes.\n\nRegion 1: A $1 \\times 1$ square in the corner for the unit square.\nRegion 2: A $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square in the adjacent corner for the $1/2$ square.\nRegion 3: A $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square for the $1/3$ square.\n...\n\nIf we place these regions in an L-shape pattern:\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$ square: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(19/12, 5/6 + 1/4)$... \n\nWait, $1/4$ square should have height $1/4$. If we place it at the right of the $1/3$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 1/2 + 1/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$. $19/12 \\approx 1.583$, and $3/4 = 0.75$. So the $1/4$ square's right edge is at $19/12$, which is greater than $3/2$. So this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nHmm.\n\nOK let me think about this problem more carefully.\n\nI think the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$, but let me see if a smaller square works.\n\nLower bound argument:\n\nConsider the unit square. Place it somewhere in the containing square. WLOG, the unit square's bottom-left corner is at $(x_0, y_0)$ with $0 \\leq x_0, y_0$ and $x_0 + 1 \\leq S$, $y_0 + 1 \\leq S$.\n\nThe unit square is $[x_0, x_0 + 1] \\times [y_0, y_0 + 1]$.\n\nNow, the $1/2$ square is $[x_1, x_1 + 1/2] \\times [y_1, y_1 + 1/2]$, disjoint from the unit square's interior.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to be disjoint from the unit square, either $x_1 + 1/2 \\leq x_0$ (to the left), or $x_1 \\geq x_0 + 1$ (to the right), or $y_1 + 1/2 \\leq y_0$ (below), or $y_1 \\geq y_0 + 1$ (above).\n\nIn the most space-efficient case, the $1/2$ square is in one of these positions, touching the unit square.\n\nIf $x_0 = 0$ (unit square in the bottom-left corner) and the $1/2$ square is to the right: $x_1 = 1, y_1 = 0$, so $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. The containing square has side $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nAlternatively, the $1/2$ square is above: $x_1 = 0, y_1 = 1$, so $1/2$ square is at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. The containing square has side $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo in any case, the unit square and $1/2$ square together require $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, the question is: with $S = 3/2$, can we fit all the squares?\n\nThis is a non-trivial question. Let me think.\n\nAttempt: $S = 3/2$.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow, in the strip $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$ (which is a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region), I want to place the $1/3$ square.\n\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \n\nRemaining in this strip: $1/3 \\times 1/2$ rectangle at $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (width $1/6$, height $1/2$), and the region above the $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [5/6, 1]$ (width $1/3$, height $1/6$).\n\nNow, in the top strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$ (a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region), I want to place the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nIn this $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, the height is $1/2$, so I can fit squares of side $\\leq 1/2$. The squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ have sides $\\leq 1/4 < 1/2$, so they fit.\n\nIf I place them in a row, the total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't do a single row.\n\nWhat if I use a recursive structure within this strip?\n\nSub-strip approach: \n- In the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, place a $1/4$ square at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$.\n- The remaining region in the strip is $[1/4, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 3/2]$, a $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle.\n- In this $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle, place a $1/5$ square at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. The height is $1/5 < 1/4$, so it fits.\n- Remaining: $[9/20, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 29/20]$ and $[1/4, 9/20] \\times [29/20, 3/2]$.\n\nThis is the same infinite-row problem. So this approach doesn't work directly.\n\nAlternative: 2D arrangement in the strip.\n\nIn the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, use a 2D arrangement. For example, place a $1/4$ square at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. Then place a $1/5$ square at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Wait, $5/4 + 1/5 = 25/20 + 4/20 = 29/20 = 1.45 < 3/2$. And $9/20 = 0.45 < 3/2$. So it fits.\n\nContinue: $1/6$ at $(9/20, 1)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 1 + 1/6) = (37/60, 7/6)$. $37/60 \\approx 0.617 < 3/2$ and $7/6 \\approx 1.167 < 3/2$. Fits.\n\nSo the squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ are placed in a row at the bottom of the top strip. The total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip.\n\nSo I need a more clever arrangement.\n\nHmm, let me think about this.\n\nKey insight: In the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, I can use a \"brick-wall\" or \"L-shape\" pattern.\n\nWait, the strip is $3/2$ wide and $1/2$ tall. The total area is $3/4$. The total area of squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 - 1/9 = \\pi^2/6 - 1 - 9/36 - 4/36 = \\pi^2/6 - 1 - 13/36 \\approx 1.645 - 1 - 0.361 = 0.284$.\n\nSo the total area of the remaining squares is $\\approx 0.284$, but the strip has area $3/4 = 0.75$. Plenty of room.\n\nBut the issue is that the squares are long and thin (in some sense), and we need to pack them efficiently.\n\nActually, the squares $1/n$ are square-shaped, not long and thin. So packing them in a strip is just like packing them in any region.\n\nOK so let me think about packing squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ (with total area $\\approx 0.284$) in a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region.\n\nHmm, even if I can pack them in a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region (area $0.25$, slightly less than $0.284$), the area is just barely insufficient. So I need to use a larger region.\n\nBut the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region has area $0.75$, much more than $0.284$. So area-wise it's fine.\n\nThe challenge is to find an arrangement that fits.\n\nLet me try:\n- $1/4$ at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. \n- $1/5$ at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Wait, $29/20 = 1.45$, which is greater than $5/4 = 1.25$. So the $1/5$ square is taller than the $1/4$ square. The top of the $1/5$ square is at $y = 1 + 1/5 = 6/5 = 1.2$. Hmm wait, $1 + 1/5 = 6/5 = 1.2$. And $5/4 = 1.25$. So the $1/5$ square's top is at $1.2 < 1.25$, so it fits in height. \n\nOK let me redo this.\n\nStrip: $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$. Height: $1/2$.\n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. \nPlace $1/5$ at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 1 + 1/5) = (9/20, 6/5)$.\nPlace $1/6$ at $(9/20, 1)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 1 + 1/6) = (37/60, 7/6)$.\n...\n\nThe squares are stacked horizontally, with their bottoms at $y = 1$. The widths add up.\n\nAfter placing $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/k$, the right edge is at $x = \\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n = H_k - H_3$.\n\nFor the squares to fit in the strip, the right edge must be $\\leq 3/2$. So $\\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_k = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + \\ldots + 1/k \\approx \\ln k + \\gamma$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n = H_k - H_3 = H_k - 11/6$.\n\nFor $H_k - 11/6 \\leq 3/2$, we need $H_k \\leq 3/2 + 11/6 = 9/6 + 11/6 = 20/6 = 10/3 \\approx 3.33$.\n\n$H_k \\approx \\ln k + 0.577 \\leq 3.33$ gives $\\ln k \\leq 2.76$, so $k \\leq e^{2.76} \\approx 15.8$. So $k \\leq 15$.\n\nSo we can fit $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ in a single row of the strip. But we have infinitely many squares!\n\nAfter $1/15$, we have $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots$ remaining. We need to fit them somewhere.\n\nAfter placing $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ in a row, the row occupies $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 1 + 1/4] = [0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$.\n\nWait, actually, the squares have different heights. $1/4$ has height $1/4$, $1/5$ has height $1/5$, etc. The smallest is $1/k$ for the largest $k$.\n\nIf I place all squares with their bottoms at $y = 1$, then the heights go from $1/4$ to $1/k$. The squares are aligned at the bottom, so the top of the row is at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$ (the tallest square in the row).\n\nSo the row occupies $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. The width is $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485$, which is less than $3/2$. Good.\n\nNow, above the row (i.e., $5/4 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$), we have a region of width $3/2$ and height $1/4$. We can continue packing squares here.\n\nIn this region, place $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots$ in a row. The squares have heights $\\leq 1/16 < 1/4$, so they fit.\n\nThe width used is $\\sum_{n=16}^{k'} 1/n = H_{k'} - H_{15}$.\n\nWe need $H_{k'} - H_{15} \\leq 3/2$, so $H_{k'} \\leq 3/2 + H_{15} \\approx 1.5 + 3.318 = 4.818$.\n\n$H_{k'} \\approx \\ln k' + 0.577 \\leq 4.818$ gives $\\ln k' \\leq 4.24$, so $k' \\leq e^{4.24} \\approx 69.4$. So $k' \\leq 69$.\n\nSo we can fit $1/16, \\ldots, 1/69$ in this second row.\n\nContinuing, we can fit $1/70, \\ldots, 1/N$ in a third row, etc.\n\nThis is the \"stacked rows\" approach. The number of rows is finite (since the harmonic series diverges), and we can fit infinitely many squares.\n\nWait, but does this approach actually work in a finite containing square?\n\nLet me re-examine. We have:\n- Row 1: $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. Width: $\\sum_{n=4}^{15} 1/n = H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485$. Height: $1/4$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n- Row 2: $1/16, \\ldots, 1/69$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. Width: $\\sum_{n=16}^{69} 1/n = H_{69} - H_{15} \\approx 4.536 - 3.318 = 1.218$. Height: $1/16$.\n- Row 3: $1/70, \\ldots$ at $y \\in [5/4 + 1/16, 5/4 + 1/16 + 1/70]$. ...\n\nEach row has width $\\leq 3/2$ (so it fits in the strip). \n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/70 + \\ldots = \\sum 1/n_0$ for some sequence $n_0$. \n\nWait, the heights are: row 1 has height $1/4$ (the height of the $1/4$ square, the tallest in the row), row 2 has height $1/16$, row 3 has height $1/70$, etc.\n\nHmm wait, the height of each row is the height of the tallest square in the row, which is the first one in the row. So row 1 has height $1/4$ (tallest is $1/4$), row 2 has height $1/16$ (tallest is $1/16$), row 3 has height $1/70$ (tallest is $1/70$), etc.\n\nThe total height is $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/70 + ...$. Let me compute this.\n\nActually, the rows are determined by when the running sum of widths exceeds $3/2$. Let me re-define.\n\nStarting from the bottom of the top strip ($y = 1$):\n- Row 1: Place squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 1$. Stop when the next square would push the right edge past $3/2$.\n- Then start a new row above.\n\nFor row 1, the squares have heights $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, decreasing. The tallest is $1/4$. So row 1's top is at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$.\n\nFor row 2, the squares are the next ones (the ones that didn't fit in row 1). They have heights $1/k_1, 1/(k_1 + 1), \\ldots$ for some $k_1$. The tallest is $1/k_1$. Row 2's top is at $y = 5/4 + 1/k_1$.\n\nFor row 3, the squares are even smaller. Row 3's top is at $y = 5/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2$.\n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2 + \\ldots$.\n\nFor this to fit in the strip of height $1/2$, we need $1/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2 + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe sequence $1/4, 1/k_1, 1/k_2, \\ldots$ is a subseries of the harmonic series. For the total to be $\\leq 1/4$ (since we already used $1/4$ and have $1/4$ left), we need $\\sum 1/k_i \\leq 1/4$.\n\nCan we choose $k_1, k_2, \\ldots$ such that $\\sum 1/k_i \\leq 1/4$? Yes, by choosing $k_i$ to grow fast enough. For example, $k_1 = 16, k_2 = 16^2, k_3 = 16^3, \\ldots$ gives $\\sum 1/k_i = 1/16 + 1/256 + \\ldots < 1/15 < 1/4$.\n\nBut wait, we need each row to fit in width $3/2$. Let me re-examine.\n\nIf $k_1 = 16$, row 1 contains $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$. The width is $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nRow 2 starts at $1/16$. We need to fit $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/k_1 - 1$ in row 2. Wait, I conflated some things. Let me restart.\n\nThe \"row\" structure: \n- Row 1: Place squares with their bottoms at $y = 1$, going right. The squares in row 1 are $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ where $m_1$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=4}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n- Row 2: Place squares with their bottoms at $y = 1 + h_1$ (where $h_1$ is the height of row 1), going right. Squares in row 2 are $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_1+2), \\ldots, 1/m_2$ where $m_2$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_1+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n- Etc.\n\nHeight of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1} + 1)$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n\nWait, I need to be more careful. The squares in row $i$ are $1/(m_{i-1}+1), 1/(m_{i-1}+2), \\ldots, 1/m_i$, where $m_0 = 3$. The tallest square in row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nSo the height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) = \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$.\n\nWe need this to be $\\leq 1/2$ (the height of the top strip).\n\nNow, the question is: can we choose the row boundaries $m_1, m_2, \\ldots$ such that:\n(a) Each row fits in width $3/2$: $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n(b) Total height $\\leq 1/2$: $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nFor (a), we want each row to have \"enough\" squares. The row width is $3/2 \\approx 1.5$.\n\nThe partial harmonic sum $H_m - H_{m_{i-1}}$ is approximately $\\ln(m/m_{i-1})$.\n\nFor $H_m - H_{m_{i-1}} \\leq 3/2$, we need $\\ln(m/m_{i-1}) \\leq 3/2$ (approximately), so $m \\leq m_{i-1} \\cdot e^{3/2} \\approx m_{i-1} \\cdot 4.48$.\n\nSo $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$, which means $m_i$ grows by a factor of at most $\\approx 4.48$ each row.\n\nNow, $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i$. And $1/m_i \\leq 1/(4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}) \\leq 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$. So $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$.\n\nHmm, the series $\\sum 1/m_i$ might or might not converge. Let me check.\n\nIf $m_i = c \\cdot m_{i-1}$ for some constant $c > 1$, then $m_i = c^i \\cdot m_0$ and $\\sum 1/m_i = \\sum 1/(c^i m_0)$ converges (geometric series).\n\nBut the constraint is $m_i \\leq c \\cdot m_{i-1}$, so $m_i$ could grow as fast as $c \\cdot m_{i-1}$. If we choose $m_i = c \\cdot m_{i-1}$, the series $\\sum 1/m_i$ converges.\n\nSo the total height $\\sum 1/(m_i+1)$ converges. But we need it to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nLet me check with $c = 4.48$. We have $m_0 = 3, m_1 \\leq 3 \\cdot 4.48 = 13.44, m_2 \\leq 13.44 \\cdot 4.48 \\approx 60.2, m_3 \\leq 60.2 \\cdot 4.48 \\approx 269.7, \\ldots$\n\n$\\sum 1/m_i = 1/3 + 1/13.44 + 1/60.2 + 1/269.7 + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.0744 + 0.0166 + 0.0037 + \\ldots$\n\nThis is dominated by $1/3 = 0.333$. But we need $\\sum 1/m_i \\leq 1/2$ for the total height, and the total height of all rows is $\\sum 1/(m_i + 1)$, which is at most $\\sum 1/m_i$.\n\nWait, the total height of all rows is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$, and the first term is $1/(m_0 + 1) = 1/4$. So the first row alone takes $1/4$ of the height. Then the subsequent rows take $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_2+1), \\ldots$.\n\nFor the total height to be $\\leq 1/2$, we need $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$, i.e., $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/4$.\n\nThis is achievable by choosing $m_i$ to grow fast enough. For example, $m_1 = 16, m_2 = 256, \\ldots$ gives $\\sum 1/m_i = 1/16 + 1/256 + \\ldots < 1/15 < 1/4$. ✓\n\nBut we also need each row to fit in width $3/2$. Let me check:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$. Width: $H_{15} - H_3 = H_{15} - 11/6$. $H_{15} = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + \\ldots + 1/15 \\approx 3.318$. So width $\\approx 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/255$. Width: $H_{255} - H_{15} \\approx 6.14 - 3.32 = 2.82$. This is greater than $3/2$! ✗\n\nSo row 2 doesn't fit in width $3/2$.\n\nI need to be more careful. Let me re-define.\n\nThe row width is at most $3/2$. The number of squares in a row is determined by when the running sum of widths exceeds $3/2$.\n\nHmm, let me think about this differently. \n\nOK so the constraint is that each row fits in width $3/2$. The widths in a row are $1/n$ for a range of $n$. The sum of widths in a row is approximately $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1})$.\n\nFor the sum to be $\\leq 3/2$, we need $m_i / m_{i-1} \\leq e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nBut the height of the row is $1/(m_{i-1} + 1)$, and we need the total height of all rows to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$, where $m_0 = 3$ (we start with $1/4$, the smallest index in row 1 is 4, but the height of the row is $1/4$ since $1/4$ is the tallest in the row).\n\nWait, the first row has $1/4$ as the tallest, so its height is $1/4$. The total height of all rows is at least $1/4$ (from the first row alone).\n\nThe first row uses height $1/4$, leaving $1/4$ for the remaining rows.\n\nFor the remaining rows, we have $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/4$, and $m_i \\leq 4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nHmm, let me think about whether this is achievable.\n\n$m_0 = 3, m_1 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 3 = 13.44, m_2 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 13.44 = 60.2, m_3 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 60.2 = 269.7, \\ldots$\n\nSo $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$\\sum 1/m_i = \\sum 1/(4.48^i \\cdot 3) = 1/3 \\cdot \\sum 1/4.48^i = 1/3 \\cdot 1/(1 - 1/4.48) = 1/3 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 = 1/3 \\cdot 1.287 = 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429 + $ (correction for the $m_0 = 3$ term) $\\approx 0.429 + 1/4 \\cdot 1/3 \\approx ?$. Hmm, let me redo this.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$. With $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$, we have $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i \\leq 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = 1/3 \\cdot 1/(1 - 1/4.48) = 1/3 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429$. We need it to be $\\leq 1/2 = 0.5$. So this works!\n\nWait, but $0.429 < 0.5$, so we have slack. Let me double check.\n\n$m_0 = 3$, $1/(m_0 + 1) = 1/4 = 0.25$.\n$m_1 \\leq 13.44$, $1/(m_1 + 1) \\leq 1/14.44 \\approx 0.0693$.\n$m_2 \\leq 60.2$, $1/(m_2 + 1) \\leq 1/61.2 \\approx 0.0163$.\n$m_3 \\leq 269.7$, $1/(m_3 + 1) \\leq 1/270.7 \\approx 0.0037$.\n\nSum: $0.25 + 0.0693 + 0.0163 + 0.0037 + \\ldots \\approx 0.25 + 0.0693 \\cdot 1.29 \\approx 0.25 + 0.0894 = 0.339$.\n\nHmm, my bound above said $0.429$, but the actual sum is less because the constraint is an upper bound on $m_i$.\n\nOK so the total height is at most $\\approx 0.34$, which is less than $0.5$. So the \"rows\" approach works.\n\nWait wait wait. Let me reconsider. The constraint is that $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$ (approximately). But this is a constraint on the upper bound of $m_i$, meaning $m_i$ is at most $4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nThe \"height\" of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ (the height of the tallest square in the row). So the total height is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) = \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i+1)$.\n\nWe have $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$ for $i \\geq 1$, so $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot m_0 = 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i \\leq 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{4.48}{3.48} \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429$, which is less than $1/2$. \n\nSo the \"rows\" approach works for $S = 3/2$!\n\nWait, I need to double-check the constraint. The constraint for each row to fit in width $3/2$ is that the sum of widths in the row is $\\leq 3/2$. The sum of widths in row $i$ is $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\approx \\ln(m_i / m_{i-1})$.\n\nSo we need $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\leq 3/2$, i.e., $m_i / m_{i-1} \\leq e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nThis means $m_i$ can be at most $4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$.\n\nAnd the height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the rows approach to work, we need $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWith $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$, this sum is at most $0.429 < 1/2$. ✓\n\nGreat, so $S = 3/2$ works.\n\nBut wait, I need to verify that the constraint is $m_i \\leq 4.48 m_{i-1}$ and not something else. Let me re-examine.\n\nThe \"rows\" approach: in row $i$, we place squares $1/(m_{i-1}+1), 1/(m_{i-1}+2), \\ldots, 1/m_i$ side by side, with their bottoms at the same $y$-level.\n\nThe total width of row $i$ is $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n$.\n\nFor this to fit in the strip of width $3/2$, we need $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nThe height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ (the height of the tallest square, which is the first one).\n\nThe constraint $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nNow, we have freedom in choosing $m_i$: we can make it smaller (fewer squares per row) or larger (more squares per row). But if we make $m_i$ smaller, we need more rows, and the heights add up.\n\nLet me think about this as an optimization problem. We want to choose $m_0 = 3 < m_1 < m_2 < \\ldots$ such that:\n(a) $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$ for all $i$.\n(b) $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWe need the rows to cover all squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, i.e., $m_i \\to \\infty$.\n\nThe total width of the rows is $\\sum_i \\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n = \\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So the rows use infinite total width, but each individual row uses $\\leq 3/2$. The rows are stacked vertically, so they don't interfere.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the construction to work, we need this sum to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe question is whether we can choose $m_0 = 3, m_1, m_2, \\ldots$ such that (a) and (b) hold.\n\nIf we choose $m_i$ to grow as fast as possible (i.e., $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$), then the heights of the rows decrease fast, and the total height is small.\n\nLet me check with $m_i = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1} \\rfloor$:\n\n$m_0 = 3$.\n$m_1 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 3 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 13.44 \\rfloor = 13$.\n$m_2 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 13 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 58.24 \\rfloor = 58$.\n$m_3 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 58 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 259.84 \\rfloor = 259$.\n$m_4 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 259 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 1160.32 \\rfloor = 1160$.\n...\n\nHeights: $1/(m_0+1), 1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_2+1), \\ldots = 1/4, 1/14, 1/59, 1/260, 1/1161, \\ldots$\n\nSum: $1/4 + 1/14 + 1/59 + 1/260 + 1/1161 + \\ldots$\n$\\approx 0.25 + 0.0714 + 0.0169 + 0.00385 + 0.000861 + \\ldots$\n$\\approx 0.343$\n\nThis is less than $1/2 = 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the \"rows\" approach works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, but I haven't been careful. The constraint is that the widths fit, i.e., $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$. Let me re-verify this.\n\nFor $m_0 = 3, m_1 = 13$: $\\sum_{n=4}^{13} 1/n = 1/4 + 1/5 + \\ldots + 1/13 = H_{13} - H_3 \\approx 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nFor $m_1 = 13, m_2 = 58$: $\\sum_{n=14}^{58} 1/n = H_{58} - H_{13} \\approx 4.318 - 3.180 = 1.138 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nFor $m_2 = 58, m_3 = 259$: $\\sum_{n=59}^{259} 1/n = H_{259} - H_{58} \\approx 5.848 - 4.318 = 1.530$. Hmm, this is greater than $3/2$!\n\nSo $m_3 = 259$ doesn't work. Let me reduce.\n\nFor $m_2 = 58$, the largest $m$ such that $H_m - H_{58} \\leq 3/2$. $H_{58} \\approx 4.318$, so $H_m \\leq 4.318 + 1.5 = 5.818$. $H_m = 5.818$ corresponds to $m \\approx 208$.\n\nSo $m_3 \\approx 208$ instead of 259.\n\nOK so the row boundaries are smaller than what I estimated. Let me redo:\n\n$m_0 = 3, m_1 = 13, m_2 = 58, m_3 = 208, m_4 = ?$.\n\n$H_{58} \\approx 4.318$, so $H_{m_3} \\leq 4.318 + 1.5 = 5.818$, $m_3 \\approx 208$.\n\n$H_{208} \\approx 5.594$, so $H_{m_4} \\leq 5.594 + 1.5 = 7.094$, $m_4 \\approx 1200$.\n\nActually, let me just verify that the total height is small.\n\nHeights: $1/4, 1/14, 1/59, 1/209, 1/1201, \\ldots$\n\nSum: $0.25 + 0.0714 + 0.01695 + 0.00478 + 0.000833 + \\ldots \\approx 0.344$.\n\nThis is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the \"rows\" approach gives a valid construction for $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, but I should double-check the lower bound.\n\nLower bound: We need $S \\geq 3/2$ because of the unit square and the $1/2$ square. The unit square has area 1, the $1/2$ square has area $1/4$, and they can't be packed into a square of side $< 3/2$.\n\nSpecifically, the unit square has side 1. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. If the containing square has side $S < 3/2$, then the unit square and the $1/2$ square, when placed, must fit. The unit square alone needs $S \\geq 1$. The $1/2$ square needs to be placed in the L-shape around the unit square (since it can't overlap with the unit square). The L-shape (after removing the unit square from a corner) has \"arms\" of width $S - 1$ and length 1. The $1/2$ square, with side $1/2$, fits in the arm only if the arm has width $\\geq 1/2$ and length $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, the $1/2$ square doesn't need to be in the arm. It could be in the \"corner\" of the L-shape, i.e., at $(1, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$, which is in the upper-right corner of the L-shape. This requires $S \\geq 3/2$ as well.\n\nBut what if the unit square is not in the corner? Say the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$, and the $1/2$ square is at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. The containing square has $S \\geq 3/2$ since the $1/2$ square's top is at $y = 3/2$.\n\nWhat if the unit square is in the middle? Say at $(0.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.2, 1.2)$. The $1/2$ square is at... where? It must not overlap with the unit square. The closest placement is adjacent to the unit square. Say at $(1.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.7, 0.7)$. The containing square has $S \\geq 1.7$ (to fit the $1/2$ square's right edge). This is worse than $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nSo placing the unit square in the corner and the $1/2$ square adjacent is optimal, giving $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and we have a construction achieving $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, hold on. Let me reconsider whether the lower bound is really $3/2$.\n\nHmm, the lower bound argument: the unit square has side 1, so $S \\geq 1$. But we have more squares. \n\nThe $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. The unit square and $1/2$ square, when packed optimally in a square, need a square of side at least $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$ (if placed in opposite corners of an L-shape).\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nThis is tight, as we've shown a construction with $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, I want to double-check the construction. Let me re-verify.\n\nConstruction for $S = 3/2$:\n\n1. Unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n2. $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n3. $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n4. Squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, arranged in rows.\n\nWait, but the top strip is $3/2 \\times 1/2$, and we have squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ to fit in it. Let me re-verify the \"rows\" arrangement.\n\nTop strip: $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$. Width: $3/2$. Height: $1/2$.\n\nRow 1: Place squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/13$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 1$. The right edge is at $\\sum_{n=4}^{13} 1/n = H_{13} - H_3 \\approx 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nWait, I had $m_1 = 13$ earlier, but let me recheck. The condition is $\\sum_{n=4}^{m_1} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_{13} - H_3 = 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{14} - H_3 = 3.251 - 1.833 = 1.418 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{15} - H_3 = 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{16} - H_3 = 3.381 - 1.833 = 1.548 > 1.5$. ✗\n\nSo $m_1 = 15$. Squares $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ in row 1.\n\nHeight of row 1: $1/4$ (the height of the tallest square in the row, which is $1/4$).\n\nTop of row 1: $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$.\n\nRow 2: Place squares $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 5/4$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=16}^{m_2} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_{15} \\approx 3.318$, so $H_{m_2} \\leq 3.318 + 1.5 = 4.818$. \n\n$H_{50} \\approx 4.499$, $H_{100} \\approx 5.187$.\n\nHmm, $H_{m_2} \\leq 4.818$ corresponds to $m_2 \\approx 80$ or so. Let me check: $H_{83} \\approx 4.829$, $H_{82} \\approx 4.819$. So $m_2 \\approx 82$.\n\nActually let me just say $m_2$ is around $80$.\n\nHeight of row 2: $1/16$ (the height of the tallest square, which is $1/16$).\n\nTop of row 2: $y = 5/4 + 1/16 = 21/16$.\n\nRow 3: Place squares $1/83, 1/84, \\ldots, 1/m_3$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 21/16$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=83}^{m_3} 1/n \\leq 3/2$. $H_{82} \\approx 4.819$, so $H_{m_3} \\leq 4.819 + 1.5 = 6.319$. This corresponds to $m_3 \\approx 540$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 3: $1/83$.\n\nTop of row 3: $y = 21/16 + 1/83$.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nTotal height: $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/83 + 1/m_3 + \\ldots$\n\n$\\approx 0.25 + 0.0625 + 0.01205 + \\ldots$\n\nThe series is dominated by the first term $1/4 = 0.25$, and the remaining terms sum to less than $0.0625/(1 - 1/5) = 0.078$ or so (rough estimate). So total height $\\leq 0.328$, which is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works.\n\nBut wait, I want to make sure the total height is indeed $\\leq 1/2$. Let me compute more carefully.\n\nThe sequence $m_0 = 3, m_1 = 15, m_2 = 82, m_3 = ?$ is determined by the constraint $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nThe height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the total height $\\sum 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ to be $\\leq 1/2$, we need this series to converge to $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nLet me estimate: $m_{i-1} + 1 \\approx m_{i-1}$, and $1/m_{i-1}$ is the height of row $i$. \n\nThe ratio $m_i / m_{i-1}$ is determined by $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\approx 3/2$, so $m_i / m_{i-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nSo $1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$, and the heights decrease by a factor of $\\approx 4.48$ each row. The total height is dominated by the first term, $1/4 = 0.25$, and the remaining terms sum to $\\approx 0.25 \\cdot 1/4.48 / (1 - 1/4.48) \\approx 0.25 \\cdot 0.288 \\approx 0.072$.\n\nTotal: $\\approx 0.322$, which is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $\\boxed{S = 3/2}$.\n\nHmm wait, I want to double-check the lower bound more carefully. The lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$ from the unit square and $1/2$ square. But what if there's a more subtle lower bound?\n\nLet me think. Could the answer be larger than $3/2$?\n\nFor example, consider the squares $1, 1/2, 1/3$. Can they be packed into a square of side $< 3/2$?\n\nIf the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$, the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$, the $1/3$ square must fit in the remaining area: $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square) and $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ (a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle).\n\nThe $1/3$ square has side $1/3 < 1/2$, so it fits in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. ✓\n\nSo three squares fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square. Now what about all the squares?\n\nWe've shown the construction works. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, I realize I should double-check the lower bound argument. The argument is: $S \\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$ because the unit square has side 1 and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and they must be placed in opposite corners of an L-shape (or similar) in the containing square.\n\nBut is this really a lower bound? Could the unit square and $1/2$ square be packed in a square of side $< 3/2$?\n\nThe unit square has area 1. The $1/2$ square has area $1/4$. The containing square has area $S^2$. So $S^2 \\geq 5/4$, i.e., $S \\geq \\sqrt{5}/2 \\approx 1.118$. This is the area lower bound.\n\nThe geometric lower bound: The unit square has side 1, so it requires $S \\geq 1$. But can the $1/2$ square fit in a square of side $S$ if $1 \\leq S < 3/2$?\n\nIf $S < 3/2$, the $1/2$ square can't be placed in the L-shape with arms of width $S - 1 < 1/2$ (assuming the unit square is in a corner). So the $1/2$ square would have to be placed \"on top of\" or \"next to\" the unit square, but this requires $S \\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$.\n\nWait, what if the unit square is not in a corner? Let's say the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$, and the $1/2$ square is at $(c, d)$ to $(c+1/2, d+1/2)$, with the two squares disjoint.\n\nFor the squares to fit in $[0, S] \\times [0, S]$, we need $0 \\leq a, b$ and $a+1, b+1 \\leq S$, and $0 \\leq c, d$ and $c+1/2, d+1/2 \\leq S$.\n\nThe squares are disjoint, so their interiors don't intersect. WLOG, assume the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square: $c \\geq a + 1$. Then $c + 1/2 \\leq S$ gives $a + 1 + 1/2 \\leq S$, i.e., $S \\geq a + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo if the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nBy symmetry, if the $1/2$ square is to the left, above, or below, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThis confirms the lower bound $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nCombined with the construction achieving $S = 3/2$, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I want to reconsider the problem statement. The problem says \"el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nSo we want the smallest square that can contain all the squares, with no two squares sharing interior points. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm let me reconsider this once more. The problem is to find the smallest $S$ such that squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ can be packed into an $S \\times S$ square.\n\nLower bound: $S \\geq 3/2$ (from the unit square and $1/2$ square).\n\nConstruction: $S = 3/2$ works (as shown above).\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I want to also verify the lower bound once more, since it's the crux.\n\nThe unit square has side 1. It's placed in the $S \\times S$ square. WLOG, the unit square is in the bottom-left corner, $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square is placed somewhere disjoint from the unit square. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. \n\nIf the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square (i.e., its left edge is at $x \\geq 1$), then its right edge is at $x \\geq 3/2$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the $S \\times S$ square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is above the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is below the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$ (by similar reasoning, but with $y$).\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is to the left of the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIn all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nSo the lower bound is $3/2$, and the construction achieves $3/2$. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, hold on, I realize that I want to also check the construction more carefully. Let me re-examine the \"rows\" approach.\n\nThe \"rows\" approach places squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ in rows.\n\nRow 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ with bottoms at $y = 1$, going right.\nRow 2: $1/(m_1+1), \\ldots, 1/m_2$ with bottoms at $y = 1 + h_1$, going right.\n...\n\nWhere $h_i = 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ is the height of row $i$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n\nWait, I realize there's an issue. The \"bottoms\" of the squares in a row are at the same $y$-level, but the squares have different heights. So the tops of the squares are at different $y$-levels.\n\nFor example, in row 1, the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ have heights $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. The $1/4$ square (tallest) has top at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$. The $1/5$ square has top at $y = 1 + 1/5 = 6/5$. Etc.\n\nSo row 1 occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$ (the union of all squares in the row).\n\nRow 2 starts at $y = 5/4$ (above row 1).\n\nThe squares in row 2 have heights $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$, and they fit in the region $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nWait, actually, the squares in row 2 can have height $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$ (the smallest square in row 2 has height $1/m_2$, which is the smallest). The tallest square in row 2 has height $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nHmm wait, I think I had this right. Let me re-examine.\n\nRow 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. Tallest: $1/4$. Height of row 1: $1/4$.\n\nSo row 1 occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$.\n\nRow 2: $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_1+2), \\ldots, 1/m_2$. Tallest: $1/(m_1+1)$. Height of row 2: $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nSo row 2 occupies $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nThe constraint is that the total height $\\sum$ (heights of rows) $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nTotal height: $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWe have $m_i / m_{i-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$, so $m_i \\approx 4.48^i \\cdot m_0 = 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$1/(m_i+1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} \\approx (1/3) \\cdot 1.287 \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo total height $\\leq 0.429 < 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works.\n\nOK so I'm confident the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, let me reconsider. I think the answer might actually be smaller. Let me re-examine the lower bound.\n\nLower bound re-examination:\n\nThe unit square has side 1. It's placed in the $S \\times S$ square. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$.\n\nIf the unit square is in a corner, the $1/2$ square is in the L-shape. The L-shape has arms of width $S - 1$ and length 1.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the arm, we need the arm width to be $\\geq 1/2$ and the arm length to be $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nBut what if the unit square is not in a corner? Then the L-shape (around the unit square) has different dimensions. Let me think.\n\nIf the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$, with $0 \\leq a, b$ and $a+1, b+1 \\leq S$. The L-shape around the unit square (within the $S \\times S$ square) has two arms:\n- Right arm: $[a+1, S] \\times [b, b+1]$, dimensions $(S - a - 1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[a, S] \\times [b+1, S]$, dimensions $(S - a) \\times (S - b - 1)$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these arms (or in the corners). The widest arm has width $\\max(S - a - 1, S - b - 1)$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in an arm, the arm width must be $\\geq 1/2$.\n\nIf $S < 3/2$, then $S - a - 1 \\leq S - 1 < 1/2$ (for $a \\geq 0$). So the right arm has width $< 1/2$, and the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSimilarly for the top arm.\n\nSo the $1/2$ square can't fit in any arm. Where else can it go?\n\nThe $1/2$ square must be placed in the $S \\times S$ square, disjoint from the unit square. The only regions available are the arms. If the arms have width $< 1/2$, the $1/2$ square can't fit.\n\nWait, actually, the $1/2$ square could be placed in the corner of the L-shape, e.g., at $(a+1, b+1)$ to $(a + 3/2, b + 3/2)$. This is in the upper-right corner of the L-shape, which is part of the right and top arms.\n\nFor this placement, the $1/2$ square is in the region $[a+1, a+3/2] \\times [b+1, b+3/2]$, which requires $a + 3/2 \\leq S$ and $b + 3/2 \\leq S$, i.e., $S \\geq a + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$ (for $a \\geq 0$).\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction achieves this. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, I want to double check the case where the unit square is not in a corner.\n\nSuppose the unit square is at $(0.1, 0.1)$ to $(1.1, 1.1)$ in a $S \\times S$ square. Then the L-shape has:\n- Left arm: $[0, 0.1] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $0.1 \\times 1$.\n- Bottom arm: $[0, 1.1] \\times [0, 0.1]$, dimensions $1.1 \\times 0.1$.\n- Right arm: $[1.1, S] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $(S-1.1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0.1, S] \\times [1.1, S]$, dimensions $(S-0.1) \\times (S-1.1)$.\n- And the four corners.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these regions.\n\nFor $S = 3/2 = 1.5$:\n- Right arm: $[1.1, 1.5] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $0.4 \\times 1$. Width 0.4 < 0.5, so the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n- Top arm: $[0.1, 1.5] \\times [1.1, 1.5]$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. Width 0.4 < 0.5 (wait, width is $S-1.1 = 0.4$, and height is $S-1.1 = 0.4$). So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n- The corner region $[1.1, 1.5] \\times [1.1, 1.5]$ is $0.4 \\times 0.4$, too small.\n\nSo with $S = 3/2$ and the unit square not in the corner, the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSo we need the unit square in a corner for $S = 3/2$ to work. The optimal placement has the unit square in a corner and the $1/2$ square in the adjacent L-shape.\n\nOK so the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction with the unit square in a corner achieves this. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, but what if there's an even more clever placement that allows $S < 3/2$? Let me think.\n\nSuppose $S = 1.4 < 3/2$. The unit square is placed somewhere in the $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square, and the $1/2$ square is placed disjoint from it.\n\nThe unit square has side 1, so it occupies a $1 \\times 1$ region. The L-shape around it has total area $1.4^2 - 1 = 0.96$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, it must fit in one of the arms (or a corner of the L-shape). The widest arm has width $S - 1 = 0.4$ (if the unit square is in a corner) or possibly larger (if the unit square is in the middle).\n\nWait, if the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has more arms, but each is narrower.\n\nSpecifically, if the unit square is at $(0.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.2, 1.2)$ in a $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square, then:\n- Left arm: $[0, 0.2] \\times [0.2, 1.2]$, dimensions $0.2 \\times 1$.\n- Bottom arm: $[0, 1.2] \\times [0, 0.2]$, dimensions $1.2 \\times 0.2$.\n- Right arm: $[1.2, 1.4] \\times [0.2, 1.2]$, dimensions $0.2 \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0.2, 1.4] \\times [1.2, 1.4]$, dimensions $1.2 \\times 0.2$.\n\nThe widest arm has width 0.2 (for left/right) or 0.2 (for bottom/top, in the \"perpendicular\" direction). Hmm, I need to be more careful.\n\nActually, an arm of dimensions $w \\times h$ can fit a square of side $\\min(w, h)$.\n\n- Left arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Bottom arm: $1.2 \\times 0.2$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Right arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Top arm: $1.2 \\times 0.2$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n\nSo with the unit square in the middle, the largest square that fits in the L-shape is $0.2 \\times 0.2$. The $1/2$ square (side 0.5) doesn't fit.\n\nSo $S = 1.4$ doesn't work.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$ in a $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square?\n- Right arm: $[1, 1.4] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $0.4 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.4$.\n- Top arm: $[0, 1.4] \\times [1, 1.4]$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. Can fit a square of side $0.4$.\n\nSo the largest square fitting in the L-shape is $0.4 \\times 0.4$. The $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nWhat about a different placement, where the unit square is not in a corner and not in the middle, but somewhere in between?\n\nLet's say the unit square is at $(a, 0)$ to $(a+1, 1)$ (on the bottom edge, with left edge at $x = a$). The L-shape:\n- Right arm: $[a+1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-a-1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n- The corner region of the L-shape: $[a+1, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $(S-a-1) \\times (S-1)$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these regions. The right arm has width $S - a - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm, $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf $S = 1.4$, $a \\leq 1.4 - 1.5 = -0.1$, which is impossible. So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the right arm.\n\nThe $1/2$ square could fit in the top arm or the corner. The top arm has height $S - 1 = 0.4 < 1/2$. So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the top arm (it would need height $\\geq 1/2$).\n\nWait, the top arm is $S \\times (S-1)$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. The $1/2$ square has side $0.5 > 0.4$, so it doesn't fit.\n\nSo with $S = 1.4$, the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the L-shape around the unit square, regardless of the unit square's position.\n\nWhat if the unit square is tilted? Well, the problem says the squares are axis-aligned, I think. (If we allow rotation, the problem is different.)\n\nAssuming axis-aligned squares, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I haven't been careful. The problem says the squares have side $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ and we want to find the smallest containing square. The squares can be placed anywhere, but they must be axis-aligned (I assume).\n\nWith axis-aligned squares, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction achieves $S = 3/2$. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, I realize that I want to sanity check this with a simpler example. Consider packing squares of sides $1$ and $1/2$ into a square. The smallest such square has side $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. ✓\n\nNow, adding the $1/3$ square, we can fit it in the L-shape (in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region). The smallest square is still $3/2$.\n\nAdding $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$, we can fit them in the top strip (using the \"rows\" approach). The smallest square is still $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm, let me reconsider whether the rows approach really works. I want to verify that the total height of the rows is $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nTotal height: $h_1 + h_2 + h_3 + \\ldots$ where $h_i$ is the height of row $i$.\n\n$h_1 = 1/4$ (height of the tallest square in row 1, which is $1/4$).\n$h_2 = 1/(m_1 + 1)$ (height of the tallest square in row 2, which is $1/(m_1+1)$).\n$h_3 = 1/(m_2 + 1)$.\n...\n\nWe have $m_i$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$, and $m_i$ is the largest such value.\n\nFor the harmonic series, $\\sum_{n=a}^{b} 1/n \\approx \\ln(b/a)$.\n\nSo $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\approx 3/2$, giving $m_i \\approx 4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nSo $h_{i+1} = 1/(m_i + 1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1}) \\approx h_i / 4.48$.\n\nWait, $h_i = 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\approx 1/m_{i-1}$, and $h_{i+1} = 1/(m_i + 1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1}) = h_i / 4.48$.\n\nSo the heights decrease by a factor of $4.48$ each row.\n\nTotal height: $h_1 + h_2 + h_3 + \\ldots = h_1 (1 + 1/4.48 + 1/4.48^2 + \\ldots) = h_1 \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = h_1 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 \\approx h_1 \\cdot 1.287$.\n\n$h_1 = 1/4 = 0.25$.\n\nTotal height $\\approx 0.25 \\cdot 1.287 = 0.322$.\n\nThis is less than $1/2 = 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works, and the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the final answer is $S = 3/2$, or equivalently, the side length of the smallest containing square is $3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I should also verify that the rows are \"compatible\", i.e., they don't overlap with each other or with the unit square / $1/2$ square.\n\nUnit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n$1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n$1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\nRow 1: $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. So row 1 is in $[0, 1.485] \\times [1, 1.25]$.\n\nWait, row 1 has the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ with bottoms at $y = 1$. So row 1 is in $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. The right edge is at $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485$, which is less than $3/2 = 1.5$. So row 1 is within the top strip.\n\nRow 2 is in $[0, H_{m_2} - H_{m_1}] \\times [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. The right edge is at $H_{m_2} - H_{m_1} \\leq 3/2$. The top is at $5/4 + 1/16 = 21/16 = 1.3125 < 3/2 = 1.5$. So row 2 is within the top strip.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nThe rows don't overlap with each other (they're at different $y$-levels), and they're within the top strip ($y \\in [1, 3/2]$, $x \\in [0, 3/2]$). The rows are also disjoint from the unit square (which is at $y \\in [0, 1]$) and the $1/2$ square (at $y \\in [0, 1/2]$).\n\nWait, the $1/2$ square is at $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$, and the $1/3$ square is at $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$. The row 1 starts at $y = 1$, so it's above the $1/3$ square. ✓\n\nThe rows are in $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$. They're disjoint from the unit square, $1/2$ square, and $1/3$ square. ✓\n\nSo the construction is valid.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK I'm confident the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, hmm, let me reconsider this once more. The problem is asking for the smallest $S$, and I've shown $S = 3/2$ is achievable and is a lower bound. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nBut wait, I should double check the lower bound. The lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$ because the unit square has side 1 and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and they can't both fit in a square of side $< 3/2$.\n\nThe argument: If the unit square is placed in the containing square, the $1/2$ square must be placed in the L-shape around it. The L-shape has arms of width $\\leq S - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in an arm, the arm width must be $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWait, I need to be more careful. The L-shape has arms of width $S - 1$ only if the unit square is in a corner. If the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has more arms but each is narrower.\n\nBut in any case, the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and the L-shape has total area $S^2 - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, we need a region of size $\\geq 1/2 \\times 1/2$ in the L-shape.\n\nHmm, the L-shape can be split into four rectangles (if the unit square is in the middle): left, right, top, bottom. Each has width $S - 1$ (approximately) and length $\\leq 1$.\n\nWait, if the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has four arms. The left arm is $[0, a] \\times [b, b+1]$ where the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$. So the left arm has width $a$ and height $1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the left arm, $a \\geq 1/2$ and $1 \\geq 1/2$. So $a \\geq 1/2$.\n\nSimilarly, the right arm has width $S - a - 1$, and we need $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nFor both $a \\geq 1/2$ and $a \\leq S - 3/2$ to hold, we need $1/2 \\leq S - 3/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 2$.\n\nHmm wait, this is a stronger constraint.\n\nLet me re-examine. If the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has four arms, and the $1/2$ square fits in one of them only if the arm is wide enough.\n\nLeft arm: width $a$, height 1. For $1/2$ square: $a \\geq 1/2$.\nRight arm: width $S - a - 1$, height 1. For $1/2$ square: $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\nBottom arm: width $S$, height $b$. For $1/2$ square: $b \\geq 1/2$.\nTop arm: width $S$, height $S - b - 1$. For $1/2$ square: $S - b - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf we want the $1/2$ square to fit in one of the arms, we need at least one of: $a \\geq 1/2$, $a \\leq S - 3/2$, $b \\geq 1/2$, $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf $S < 2$, then $S - 3/2 < 1/2$. So $a \\leq S - 3/2 < 1/2$ and $b \\leq S - 3/2 < 1/2$. Combined with $a, b \\geq 0$ (the unit square is in the square), we have $a < 1/2$ and $b < 1/2$, $a \\leq S - 3/2$ and $b \\leq S - 3/2$. \n\nSo neither $a \\geq 1/2$ nor $b \\geq 1/2$, and neither $a \\leq S - 3/2$ nor $b \\leq S - 3/2$ requires special conditions (they're automatically satisfied).\n\nWait, I think I confused myself. Let me redo this.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the left arm, we need $a \\geq 1/2$ (left arm width is $a$).\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm, we need $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the bottom arm, we need $b \\geq 1/2$ (bottom arm height is $b$).\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the top arm, we need $S - b - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf the unit square is in the corner, say $a = 0, b = 0$ (bottom-left), then the left and bottom arms have width/height 0, and the right and top arms have width/height $S - 1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm: $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the top arm: $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo with the unit square in a corner, $S \\geq 3/2$ is needed.\n\nWhat if the unit square is in the middle? Say $a = 0.2, b = 0.2$ in a $S \\times S$ square.\n\nLeft arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Width 0.2, can't fit $1/2$ square.\nRight arm: $(S - 1.2) \\times 1$. For $1/2$ square: $S - 1.2 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 1.7$.\nBottom arm: $S \\times 0.2$. Height 0.2, can't fit $1/2$ square.\nTop arm: $S \\times (S - 1.2)$. For $1/2$ square: $S - 1.2 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 1.7$.\n\nSo with the unit square at $(0.2, 0.2)$, $S \\geq 1.7$ is needed.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at the very corner, $a = 0, b = 0$? Then $S \\geq 3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nSo the corner placement is optimal, giving $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at $a = 0, b = 0$ (corner), but the $1/2$ square is in the \"interior\" of the L-shape, e.g., at $[1, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ (the corner of the L-shape opposite the unit square)?\n\nFor this, $S \\geq 3/2$. Same as before.\n\nSo the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, achieved with the unit square in a corner and the $1/2$ square adjacent.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm, wait, I realize that in my \"middle\" placement analysis, I got $S \\geq 1.7$, which is larger than $3/2$. So the corner placement is indeed better.\n\nThe minimum is achieved with the unit square in a corner, giving $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK so I'm confident: the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm let me reconsider this problem one more time to make sure I understand correctly.\n\nThe problem: Find the smallest square such that we can place infinitely many squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ inside it, with no two squares having common interior points.\n\nSolution: The smallest square has side length $3/2$.\n\nLower bound: The unit square and the $1/2$ square together require a square of side at least $3/2$. (The unit square has side 1, and the $1/2$ square, placed adjacent to the unit square, requires an additional $1/2$ of length, totaling $3/2$.)\n\nUpper bound (construction): Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner of a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square. Place the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right corner of the L-shape (i.e., $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$). Place the $1/3$ square in $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$. Place the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ using a \"rows\" arrangement. The rows fit within the strip.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I want to be a bit more careful about the rows. The squares in a row have their bottoms aligned, but they have different heights. The \"row\" occupies a region $y \\in [y_0, y_0 + h]$ where $h$ is the height of the tallest square in the row.\n\nFor row 1 in the top strip, the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ have heights $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. The tallest is $1/4$, so the row's height is $1/4$ and it occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$.\n\nWait, but the squares in the row have different heights. The shortest square (height $1/m_1$) only goes up to $y = 1 + 1/m_1$. The tallest (height $1/4$) goes up to $y = 5/4$.\n\nSo the row \"occupies\" the region $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, but not all of it is filled with squares. There's wasted space above the shorter squares.\n\nFor row 2 to start at $y = 5/4$ (just above row 1), it uses the space above row 1.\n\nBut wait, row 2's squares are at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + h_2]$ where $h_2$ is the height of the tallest in row 2, which is $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nHmm, the squares in row 2 have heights $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$, so they fit in $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots$. And this is $\\leq 1/2$ as I calculated.\n\nSo the construction is valid, and the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nLet me re-examine the question once more: \"Encontrar el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nTranslation: Find the smallest square in which all the infinite squares of side lengths $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ can be placed such that no two of them have common interior points.\n\nAnswer: The smallest square has side length $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I want to verify this with another construction approach. \n\nAlternative construction: \n\nConsider a square of side $3/2$. We'll pack the squares as follows:\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4$ square: $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. Wait, $1/4 = 3/12$, and $5/6 = 10/12$. So $5/6 + 1/4 = 10/12 + 3/12 = 13/12$. So the $1/4$ square is at $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$.\n\nHmm, this is the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=5/4$ (width $1/4$), with squares stacked vertically.\n\nAfter $1/3, 1/4$, the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=5/4$ is filled up to $y = 13/12$.\n\nWhat about the region $x \\in [5/4, 3/2]$, $y \\in [1/2, 13/12]$? This is a $1/4 \\times 7/12$ rectangle.\n\nAnd the region $x \\in [1, 5/4]$, $y \\in [13/12, 3/2]$? This is a $1/4 \\times 5/12$ rectangle.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex.\n\nLet me try yet another construction: use the rows approach for the top strip, and the right strip for the larger remaining squares.\n\nConstruction (refined):\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4$ square: $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6 + 1/4] = [4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 13/12]$? Wait, $5/6 + 1/4 = 10/12 + 3/12 = 13/12$. So the $1/4$ square is at $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. But then the $1/4$ square's bottom is at $5/6$, not at $1/2$.\n\nHmm, this isn't aligning with the previous squares. Let me re-think.\n\nAlternative: place the $1/4$ square in the region $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. This is the right strip continuing from the $1/3$ square.\n\nBut then the region $[5/4, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$ is unused. We can place the $1/5$ square there: $[5/4, 5/4 + 1/5] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/5] = [5/4, 29/20] \\times [1/2, 7/10]$.\n\nAnd the $1/6$ square: $[29/20, 29/20 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/6] = [29/20, 77/60] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$. Wait, $1/2 + 1/6 = 4/12 = 1/3$? No, $1/2 + 1/6 = 3/6 + 1/6 = 4/6 = 2/3$. So the $1/6$ square is at $[29/20, 29/20 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$. And $29/20 + 1/6 = 87/60 + 10/60 = 97/60$. Hmm, $97/60 > 3/2 = 90/60$. So the $1/6$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSo this approach doesn't work directly.\n\nLet me think about this differently. The key issue is that the right strip $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$ has width $1/2$ and height $1$, and we're trying to fit the $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ squares (after the unit square) in it.\n\nBut the total area of these squares is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.645$, and the strip has area $0.5$. So area-wise, we can't fit them all in the strip!\n\nWait, that's a problem. The strip $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$ has area $1/2$, but the remaining squares have total area $\\approx 0.645$. So we can't fit them all in the strip.\n\nThis means my \"rows\" approach is essential: we use both the right strip and the top strip.\n\nOK so the construction is:\n- Unit square in the bottom-left corner: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square in the bottom-right of the L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square in the top-right of the L-shape (above the $1/2$ square): $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, using the rows approach.\n\nBut wait, the $1/3$ square is in the right strip (above the $1/2$ square), not in the top strip. Let me re-examine.\n\n$[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$: This is in the region $x \\in [1, 4/3], y \\in [1/2, 5/6]$. This is the right strip from $x = 1$ to $x = 3/2$ and $y = 1/2$ to $y = 1$. The $1/3$ square uses a portion of this.\n\nActually, the $1/3$ square is in the region $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$, which is a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square in the right strip (above the $1/2$ square).\n\nThe remaining region of the right strip (above the $1/2$ square) is $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$, which is a $1/6 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nAnd the top strip is $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, which is a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nThe remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ need to fit in $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1] \\cup [0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nHmm, this is two disjoint regions.\n\nAlternatively, the rows approach places $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip only, and leaves the small region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ unused (or used for smaller squares).\n\nActually, in the rows approach, the first row (containing $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$) is in the top strip, $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. The widths add up to $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. The squares are at $x \\in [0, 1.485]$, which doesn't overlap with the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (which is at $x \\in [4/3, 3/2] \\approx [1.333, 1.5]$).\n\nHmm wait, the rows approach has the squares in row 1 at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, which is above the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (at $y \\in [1/2, 1]$). So no overlap.\n\nBut the rows approach doesn't use the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$. Can we fit some squares there?\n\nThe region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ has dimensions $1/6 \\times 1/2$. The largest square that fits has side $1/6$. So we can fit a $1/6$ square there. But $1/6$ is in our list of squares (the $1/6$ square). So we can place the $1/6$ square at $[4/3, 4/3 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/6] = [4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$.\n\nThen the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [2/3, 1]$ is unused (dimensions $1/6 \\times 1/3$).\n\nHmm, this doesn't help much. Let me just go with the rows approach.\n\nOK so the final construction is:\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- Rows approach for $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nThe rows approach:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, total width $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$, total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n- ...\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\leq 0.322 < 1/2$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK I'm confident. The answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I realize I should also double check the lower bound once more. The lower bound argument relies on the fact that the unit square and the $1/2$ square together require a square of side $\\geq 3/2$. Let me verify this rigorously.\n\nClaim: If two squares of sides $1$ and $1/2$ are packed in a larger square of side $S$ (with disjoint interiors), then $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nProof: The unit square has side 1. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. Suppose they are packed in a square of side $S$ with $S < 3/2$. We'll derive a contradiction.\n\nThe unit square, when placed in the $S \\times S$ square, has its left edge at $x_1$ and right edge at $x_1 + 1$ for some $0 \\leq x_1 \\leq S - 1$. Similarly, the bottom edge at $y_1$ and top edge at $y_1 + 1$ for some $0 \\leq y_1 \\leq S - 1$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square has its left edge at $x_2$, right edge at $x_2 + 1/2$, bottom at $y_2$, top at $y_2 + 1/2$, with $0 \\leq x_2, y_2$ and $x_2 + 1/2, y_2 + 1/2 \\leq S$.\n\nFor the squares to have disjoint interiors, they don't overlap. There are several cases:\n\nCase 1: $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq x_1$ (the $1/2$ square is to the left of the unit square). Then $1/2 \\leq x_1 - x_2 \\leq x_1 \\leq S - 1$, so $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWait, that's $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq x_1$, so $1/2 \\leq x_1 - x_2$, and $x_2 \\geq 0$, so $1/2 \\leq x_1$. And $x_1 + 1 \\leq S$, so $S \\geq x_1 + 1 \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 2: $x_1 + 1 \\leq x_2$ (the $1/2$ square is to the right). Then $1 \\leq x_2 - x_1$, and $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq S$, so $S \\geq x_2 + 1/2 \\geq x_1 + 1 + 1/2 = x_1 + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 3: $y_2 + 1/2 \\leq y_1$ (the $1/2$ square is below). By symmetry, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 4: $y_1 + 1 \\leq y_2$ (the $1/2$ square is above). By symmetry, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 5: None of the above. Then the squares are not separated horizontally or vertically, so they must overlap. But they have disjoint interiors, so this is a contradiction.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThis confirms the lower bound.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, in case 5, \"none of the above\" means $x_2 + 1/2 > x_1$ AND $x_1 + 1 > x_2$ AND $y_2 + 1/2 > y_1$ AND $y_1 + 1 > y_2$.\n\n$x_2 + 1/2 > x_1$ means the $1/2$ square's right edge is to the right of the unit square's left edge: $x_2 > x_1 - 1/2$.\n$x_1 + 1 > x_2$ means the unit square's right edge is to the right of the $1/2$ square's left edge: $x_2 < x_1 + 1$.\n\nSo $x_1 - 1/2 < x_2 < x_1 + 1$, which is a range of width $3/2$.\n\nSimilarly, $y_1 - 1/2 < y_2 < y_1 + 1$.\n\nHmm, this doesn't immediately mean overlap. Let me think.\n\nIf the squares are axis-aligned, they overlap iff their projections on both axes overlap.\n\nProjection on $x$-axis: unit square is $[x_1, x_1+1]$, $1/2$ square is $[x_2, x_2+1/2]$. They overlap iff $x_1 < x_2 + 1/2$ AND $x_2 < x_1 + 1$.\n\nProjection on $y$-axis: similar.\n\nSo they overlap iff both projections overlap. \"None of the above\" means both projections overlap, so the squares overlap. Contradiction.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nOK so the lower bound is rigorously $3/2$, and the construction achieves it. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, I realize I should double check Case 5 more carefully. \"None of the above\" means none of the 4 cases (squares are separated horizontally or vertically) hold. This means both projections overlap, which means the squares overlap. Since the squares have disjoint interiors, this is a contradiction.\n\nSo Case 5 is impossible, and we're always in one of Cases 1-4, each giving $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nGreat, the lower bound is rigorously $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, I realize I should also sanity check this answer with a different lower bound. The total area of the squares is $\\pi^2/6 \\approx 1.645$. The area of a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square is $9/4 = 2.25$. So the area bound is $S \\geq \\sqrt{1.645} \\approx 1.28$, which is less than $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nThe geometric bound (from the unit and $1/2$ squares) is $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nThese two bounds are consistent: the geometric bound is the binding one.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nI'm confident. The answer is $\\boxed{3/2}$.\n\nWait, I realize the problem might have a different answer if I'm missing something. Let me re-read the problem.\n\n\" Encontrar el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nTranslation: Find the smallest square in which all the infinite squares of side lengths $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ can be placed such that no pair of them has common interior points.\n\nYes, this is what I solved. The answer is $3/2$.\n\nSo the side length of the smallest containing square is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLet me present the solution clearly.\n\nSolution:\n\nThe smallest square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLower bound: The two largest squares (sides 1 and $1/2$) must be packed into the containing square. The unit square has side 1, and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. If they are placed in the containing square with disjoint interiors, then either they are separated horizontally (in which case the containing square has side $\\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$) or vertically (same conclusion). Therefore, the containing square has side $\\geq 3/2$.\n\nUpper bound (construction): We show that a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square suffices. \n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right of the L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square in the top-right of the L-shape (above the $1/2$ square): $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n\nFor the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, place them in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ using a \"rows\" arrangement. In each row, place the squares side by side with their bottoms aligned. The rows are stacked vertically.\n\nSpecifically:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. Total width $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. Total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n- Row $i$: Squares $1/(m_{i-1}+1), \\ldots, 1/m_i$ at $y \\in [y_{i-1}, y_{i-1} + 1/(m_{i-1}+1)]$. Total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_i 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 0.322 < 1/2$. ✓\n\n(Here $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$, with $m_0 = 3$.)\n\nSo all squares are packed in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nTherefore, the smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm, I realize that I should present the construction more carefully. Let me redo it.\n\nConstruction:\n\nWe'll pack the squares into a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square as follows.\n\n1. Unit square (side 1): Place at the bottom-left corner, $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n\n2. $\\frac{1}{2}$ square: Place adjacent to the unit square, $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n\n3. $\\frac{1}{3}$ square: Place above the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square, $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n\n4. Remaining squares $\\frac{1}{n}$ for $n \\geq 4$: Place in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$ using a recursive \"rows\" arrangement.\n\nFor the \"rows\" arrangement in the top strip (which is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $\\frac{1}{2}$ tall):\n\n- Row 1: Place $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1$, where $N_1$ is the largest integer such that $\\sum_{n=4}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. We have $N_1 = 15$ (since $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 \\leq 1.5$ and $H_{16} - H_3 \\approx 1.548 > 1.5$). The height of row 1 is $\\frac{1}{4}$.\n\n- Row 2: Place $\\frac{1}{N_1 + 1}, \\frac{1}{N_1 + 2}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1 + \\frac{1}{4} = \\frac{5}{4}$, where $N_2$ is the largest integer such that $\\sum_{n=N_1+1}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. The height of row 2 is $\\frac{1}{N_1+1} = \\frac{1}{16}$.\n\n- Row $k$ ($k \\geq 1$): Place $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}, \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+2}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_k}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1 + \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \\frac{1}{N_{j-1}+1}$. The height of row $k$ is $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$.\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1} = \\sum_{j=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_j+1}$, where $N_0 = 3$.\n\nWe claim this sum is $\\leq \\frac{1}{2}$. \n\nTo see this, observe that $N_j$ is defined so that $H_{N_j} - H_{N_{j-1}} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. Approximately, $H_{N_j} - H_{N_{j-1}} \\approx \\ln(N_j / N_{j-1})$, so $N_j / N_{j-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$. Thus $N_j \\approx 4.48^j \\cdot 3$, and $\\frac{1}{N_j+1} \\approx \\frac{1}{3 \\cdot 4.48^j}$.\n\n$\\sum_{j=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{3 \\cdot 4.48^j} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{4.48}{3.48} \\approx 0.429 < \\frac{1}{2}$.\n\nSo the total height of the rows is at most $0.429 < 0.5$, and the rows fit in the top strip of height $\\frac{1}{2}$. ✓\n\nTherefore, all squares $\\frac{1}{n}$ for $n \\geq 1$ are packed in a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square.\n\nConclusion: The smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nSo my final answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nOh wait, I realize I might be overcomplicating things. Let me see if there's a cleaner construction.\n\nCleaner construction:\n\nConsider a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square. We'll place the squares as follows.\n\n- Place the unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- Place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- Place the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square at $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n\nNow, the remaining region is:\n- $[0, 1] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$: a $1 \\times \\frac{1}{2}$ rectangle (top-left of the L-shape).\n- $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{5}{6}, 1]$: a $\\frac{1}{2} \\times \\frac{1}{6}$ rectangle (above the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square).\n- $[\\frac{4}{3}, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$: a $\\frac{1}{6} \\times \\frac{1}{3}$ rectangle (right of the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square).\n\nWe need to place $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots$ in these regions (or in any available space in the $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square, as long as they don't overlap with the unit, $\\frac{1}{2}$, or $\\frac{1}{3}$ squares).\n\nHmm, the regions are a bit awkward. Let me think of a different approach.\n\nRecursive approach: \n- Use the right strip $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$ to place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square.\n- Use the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$ to place the remaining squares (i.e., $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$).\n\nWait, this is a different decomposition. The $\\frac{1}{2}$ square is in the right strip, and the remaining squares are in the top strip (of dimensions $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$).\n\nBut the top strip has area $\\frac{3}{2}$, and the remaining squares have total area $\\pi^2/6 - \\frac{1}{4} \\approx 1.645 - 0.25 = 1.395$. So area-wise, it fits.\n\nBut can we arrange them?\n\nHmm, the top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$, and we need to place $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ in it.\n\nThe $\\frac{1}{3}$ square has side $\\frac{1}{3} < 1$, so it fits in the strip (height-wise).\n\nIf we place the squares in a single row at the bottom of the strip, the total width is $\\sum_{n=3}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} = \\infty$. So we can't do a single row.\n\nWe can use a \"rows\" approach within the strip. The strip is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $1$ tall.\n\nRow 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3}]$. $N_1$ is the largest $N$ such that $\\sum_{n=3}^{N} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. $H_{N_1} - H_2 \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 2$. $H_6 \\approx 1.45 + 1/6 \\approx 1.617$, wait, let me recompute. $H_2 = 1.5$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 1.5 + 1.5 = 3$. $H_7 \\approx 2.593$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$ or so.\n\nHmm wait, $H_2 = 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. And we want $H_{N_1} - 3/2 \\leq 3/2$, i.e., $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_{10} \\approx 2.929$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$.\n\nRow 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{10}$, total width $H_{10} - H_2 \\approx 2.929 - 1.5 = 1.429 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n\nHeight of row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}$.\n\nRow 2: $\\frac{1}{11}, \\frac{1}{12}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11}]$. $N_2$ is the largest $N$ such that $H_N - H_{10} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. $H_{83} \\approx 4.829$, $H_{77} \\approx 4.787$, $H_{68} \\approx 4.745$, $H_{60} \\approx 4.677$, $H_{55} \\approx 4.621$, $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$. So $N_2 = 50$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 2: $\\frac{1}{11}$.\n\nRow 3: $\\frac{1}{51}, \\frac{1}{52}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_3}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11}, \\ldots]$. $N_3$ is the largest $N$ such that $H_N - H_{50} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_3} \\leq 4.499 + 1.5 = 5.999$. $H_{N_3} = 6$ corresponds to $N_3 \\approx 226$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 3: $\\frac{1}{51}$.\n\nTotal height: $\\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{51} + \\ldots \\leq \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{11 \\cdot 4.5} + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.091 + 0.020 + \\ldots \\approx 0.45$.\n\nWe need this to be $\\leq 1$ (the height of the top strip). $0.45 < 1$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works! And it's cleaner: we just put the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square in the right strip and the rest in the top strip using a \"rows\" approach.\n\nSo the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I realize I had a similar construction earlier but with a smaller top strip. Let me re-examine.\n\nIn my earlier construction:\n- Unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{3}$ square at $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$.\n\nThe top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{1}{2}$.\n\nIn the new construction:\n- Unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$.\n\nThe top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$.\n\nThe new construction is cleaner: we have one big top strip and put all the remaining squares there using the \"rows\" approach.\n\nBoth constructions work, but the new one is simpler.\n\nOK so the final answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm, let me also verify that the new construction's top strip has enough height for the rows.\n\nTop strip: $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$. The unit square uses up the bottom part ($[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$), but the top strip starts at $y = \\frac{1}{2}$ (above the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square's top at $y = \\frac{1}{2}$).\n\nWait, in the new construction, the top strip is $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$, which is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $1$ tall.\n\nThe rows in the top strip have total height $\\approx 0.45$, which is less than $1$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works, and the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nAlright, I'm confident. The final answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I want to double check this. Let me reconsider the problem.\n\nProblem: Find the smallest square that can contain all squares of side $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ with no two squares having interior points in common.\n\nSolution: The smallest square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLower bound: The unit square and $\\frac{1}{2}$ square together require a square of side $\\geq \\frac{3}{2}$. (Reason: the unit square has side 1, and the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square, placed adjacent, requires an additional $\\frac{1}{2}$.)\n\nUpper bound (construction): We pack all squares into a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square as follows.\n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square to the right of the unit square. The remaining area is the L-shape (top + right).\n\nUse the top strip of the L-shape (a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$ rectangle) to place the remaining squares $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ using a \"rows\" approach.\n\nIn the \"rows\" approach, we place the squares in horizontal rows, with each row's squares side by side and the rows stacked vertically. The width of each row is bounded by $\\frac{3}{2}$, and the total height of all rows is bounded by the height of the top strip.\n\nSpecifically, the total height is $\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$, where $N_k$ is the largest $N$ such that the cumulative width $\\sum_{n=N_{k-1}+1}^{N} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. This sum is bounded by $\\frac{1}{2}$ (or some specific value less than $1$), so the rows fit in the top strip.\n\nTherefore, the smallest containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nOK so the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm wait, let me reconsider whether the \"rows\" approach really works with the height bound.\n\nTop strip: $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$.\n\nRows approach:\n- Row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$, with $N_1$ such that $\\sum_{n=3}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n- Row 2: $\\frac{1}{N_1+1}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$, with $N_2$ such that $\\sum_{n=N_1+1}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n- ...\n\nHeights: row $k$ has height $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$.\n\n$N_0 = 2$ (we start from $\\frac{1}{3}$).\n\n$N_1$: $\\sum_{n=3}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} = H_{N_1} - H_2 \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_2 = 1.5$, $H_{10} \\approx 2.929$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$. Row 1 height: $\\frac{1}{3}$.\n\n$N_2$: $\\sum_{n=11}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} = H_{N_2} - H_{10} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$, $H_{49} \\approx 4.589$, $H_{40} \\approx 4.279$. Hmm, let me recompute. \n\nActually, I realize I should look up or compute these values more carefully.\n\n$H_1 = 1$\n$H_2 = 1.5$\n$H_3 \\approx 1.833$\n$H_4 \\approx 2.083$\n$H_5 \\approx 2.283$\n$H_6 \\approx 2.45$\n$H_7 \\approx 2.593$\n$H_8 \\approx 2.718$\n$H_9 \\approx 2.829$\n$H_{10} \\approx 2.929$\n$H_{11} \\approx 3.020$\n$H_{12} \\approx 3.103$\n$H_{13} \\approx 3.180$\n$H_{14} \\approx 3.251$\n$H_{15} \\approx 3.318$\n$H_{16} \\approx 3.381$\n$H_{17} \\approx 3.440$\n$H_{18} \\approx 3.495$\n$H_{19} \\approx 3.548$\n$H_{20} \\approx 3.598$\n\nOK so for $N_1$: $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_{10} \\approx 2.929 < 3$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020 > 3$. So $N_1 = 10$. Row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{10}$.\n\nFor $N_2$: $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. We need $H_{N_2} \\leq 4.429$.\n\n$H_{50} \\approx ?$. Using $\\ln(50) + \\gamma + \\frac{1}{2 \\cdot 50} \\approx 3.912 + 0.577 + 0.01 = 4.499$. So $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$.\n\n$H_{40} \\approx \\ln(40) + 0.577 \\approx 3.689 + 0.577 = 4.266$.\n\nSo $N_2 \\approx 50$ or so. Specifically, we want $H_{N_2} \\leq 4.429$, so $N_2 \\approx 50$.\n\nHmm, but the exact value depends on the precise harmonic numbers. Let me just take $N_2 = 50$ as an approximation.\n\nRow 2: $\\frac{1}{11}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{50}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{11}$.\n\nFor $N_3$: $H_{N_3} \\leq 4.499 + 1.5 = 5.999$. $H_{300} \\approx \\ln(300) + 0.577 \\approx 5.704 + 0.577 = 6.281$. $H_{200} \\approx 5.298 + 0.577 = 5.875$. $H_{220} \\approx 5.394 + 0.577 = 5.971$. So $N_3 \\approx 220$.\n\nRow 3: $\\frac{1}{51}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{220}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{51}$.\n\nFor $N_4$: $H_{N_4} \\leq 5.999 + 1.5 = 7.499$. $H_{1800} \\approx 7.499$. So $N_4 \\approx 1800$.\n\nRow 4: $\\frac{1}{221}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{1800}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{221}$.\n\nTotal height: $\\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{51} + \\frac{1}{221} + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.091 + 0.0196 + 0.0045 + \\ldots \\approx 0.448$.\n\nThe top strip has height $1$, so we have $1 - 0.448 = 0.552$ of slack. ✓\n\nSo the rows fit in the top strip.\n\nTherefore, the construction works, and the smallest containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nFinal answer: $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, I realize I should double check by computing the cumulative sum more carefully.\n\n$\\frac{1}{3} = 0.3333$\n$\\frac{1}{11} = 0.0909$\n$\\frac{1}{51} = 0.0196$\n$\\frac{1}{221} = 0.00452$\n$\\frac{1}{?} = ?$ (next row)\n\nThe next row has height $\\frac{1}{N_3+1} = \\frac{1}{221}$. And the next-next has height $\\frac{1}{N_4+1} = \\frac{1}{1801} \\approx 0.000555$.\n\nSo the total is approximately $0.333 + 0.091 + 0.0196 + 0.00452 + 0.000555 + \\ldots$\n\nThe series is dominated by the first term, and the tail is small. Let me estimate: $0.333 \\cdot (1 + 1/3.6 + 1/3.6^2 + \\ldots) = 0.333 / (1 - 1/3.6) = 0.333 \\cdot 1.385 = 0.461$. (The factor $1/3.6$ comes from $N_1 = 10$ vs $N_0 = 2$, ratio $\\approx 5$; and $N_2 = 50$ vs $N_1 = 10$, ratio $5$; and $N_3 = 220$ vs $N_2 = 50$, ratio $4.4$; and $N_4 = 1800$ vs $N_3 = 220$, ratio $\\approx 8.2$. The ratios are around $4.5$.)\n\nActually, the ratios are approximately $e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nSo the series is approximately $\\frac{1}{3} (1 + 1/4.48 + 1/4.48^2 + \\ldots) = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot 1.287 = 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is approximately $0.429 < 1$. ✓\n\nOK so the construction works. The answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, looking back at this problem, I realize that this is a classic problem, and the answer is indeed $\\frac{3}{2}$. The key insight is that the unit square and the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square together determine the lower bound, and the \"rows\" approach gives a matching upper bound.\n\nFinal answer: $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.","reasoning_details":[{"type":"reasoning.text","text":"We need to find the smallest square in which we can place all infinite squares of side lengths $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ such that no two of them have interior points in common.\n\nThis is a classic packing problem. Let me think about it carefully.\n\nWe have squares of sides $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ and we want to pack them (without overlapping interiors) into a larger square, and we want to minimize the side length of this larger square.\n\nThe total area of the small squares is:\n$$\\sum_{n=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n^2} = \\frac{\\pi^2}{6} \\approx 1.6449$$\n\nSo the containing square must have area at least $\\frac{\\pi^2}{6}$, meaning its side length must be at least $\\sqrt{\\frac{\\pi^2}{6}} = \\frac{\\pi}{\\sqrt{6}} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nBut this is just a lower bound from area. The actual minimum could be larger due to packing inefficiency.\n\nNow let me think about how to pack these. \n\nOne common approach: place the largest square (side 1) in one corner. Then place the next squares around it or in the remaining space.\n\nLet me think about this more carefully. \n\nA natural packing: place the square of side 1 in the bottom-left corner. Then we have an L-shaped region around it.\n\nActually, let me think about a recursive approach. \n\nConsider the following arrangement:\n- Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner.\n- To the right of the unit square, we have a strip of width 1 and height... well, we can go up.\n- Above the unit square, we have a strip.\n\nA common approach for this problem:\n\nPlace the square of side 1 in the bottom-left. The remaining L-shaped region can be split into two rectangles.\n\nActually, let me look at this differently. \n\nConsider the square of side $S$. We want to pack squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into it.\n\nOne approach: \n- Place the square of side 1 in the bottom-left corner.\n- The region to the right of this square (from $x=1$ to $x=S$, $y=0$ to $y=1$) is a rectangle of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- The region above this square (from $x=0$ to $x=S$, $y=1$ to $y=S$) is a rectangle of dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nHmm, but we also have the region above the first strip (from $x=1$ to $x=S$, $y=1$ to $y=S$) which is part of the upper rectangle.\n\nLet me try a different approach. \n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then to pack the remaining squares:\n\nStrip packing: Place squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in strips.\n\nFor example:\n- In the strip from $y=0$ to $y=1/2$, $x=1$ to $x=S$: place the $1/2$ square, then the $1/3$ square next to it, etc.\n- In the strip from $y=1/2$ to $y=1$, $x=0$ to $x=S$: place more squares.\n\nWait, this gets complicated. Let me think about it differently.\n\nActually, I recall that the answer to this problem is that the side length of the containing square should be $\\frac{3}{2}$ or something similar, but let me verify.\n\nHmm, let me think again. Let me try to be more systematic.\n\nStrategy 1: Pack squares in strips.\n- Bottom strip (height 1): Contains the unit square of side 1. Remaining space: $(S-1) \\times 1$ rectangle.\n- Top strip (height $S-1$): $S \\times (S-1)$ rectangle.\n\nIn the bottom strip, after placing the unit square, we have a $(S-1) \\times 1$ rectangle. We need to fit squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into this and the top strip.\n\nIn a strip of height $h$, the squares must have side at most $h$. So in the bottom strip (height 1), we can fit $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ But the strip height is 1, and the squares have sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ which are all $\\leq 1$, so they fit. But the strip width is $S-1$.\n\nThe squares $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ placed side by side have total width $\\sum_{n=2}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} = \\infty$. So they can't all fit in one strip!\n\nOK so we need a more clever packing.\n\nStrategy 2: Recursive packing.\nConsider packing into a square of side $S$ as follows:\n- Place the largest square (side 1) in the corner.\n- The remaining L-shape is divided into two rectangles: one of dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$ (above) and one of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$ (to the right).\n- Pack the remaining squares into these two rectangles.\n\nIf the two rectangles are identical (both $1 \\times (S-1)$), and the remaining squares have total side $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$, this doesn't work directly.\n\nStrategy 3: Different recursion.\nWhat if we don't put the unit square in a corner?\n\nActually, let me think about this more carefully. \n\nAlternative: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then:\n- Square 1: side 1, at position (0,0) to (1,1).\n- Above the unit square, we have a $1 \\times (S-1)$ strip.\n- To the right of the unit square, we have a $(S-1) \\times 1$ strip.\n\nWe need to pack squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into these two strips plus the rest.\n\nHmm wait, the \"L-shape\" has total area $S^2 - 1$. The two strips overlap in a $(S-1) \\times (S-1)$ square. So the L-shape has area $2(S-1) - (S-1)^2 + 1$... no wait.\n\nLet me reconsider. The L-shape (unit square removed from the big square) has area $S^2 - 1$. \n\nThe region to the right of the unit square: $\\{(x,y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$, area $= S - 1$.\nThe region above the unit square: $\\{(x,y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq S, 1 \\leq y \\leq S\\}$, area $= S(S-1)$.\n\nTotal: $S - 1 + S(S-1) = S - 1 + S^2 - S = S^2 - 1$. ✓\n\nNow, the squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ have total area $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.6449$. \n\nFor the bottom-right strip ($S-1$ wide, 1 tall): we can pack squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ (all $\\leq 1$) in a strip of width $S-1$ and height 1. The widths are $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$, and the total width needed is $\\sum_{n=2}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So we can't fit all of them in one strip.\n\nBut we can also use the top strip (width $S$, height $S-1$).\n\nIn the top strip, we can have a recursive structure: we can place a square of side $1/2$ at the top-left (so that it uses up height $1/2$), leaving a $(S-1) \\times (S - 1/2)$ area, plus a strip of $S \\times (S-1)$ minus the $1/2$ square...\n\nThis is getting complicated. Let me think of a cleaner approach.\n\nStrategy 4: Place squares along the diagonal.\n- Place square 1 (side 1) with its bottom-left corner at the origin.\n- Place square $1/2$ with its bottom-left corner at $(1, 0)$.\n- Place square $1/3$ with its bottom-left corner at $(1 + 1/2, 0) = (3/2, 0)$.\n- ...\n\nThese squares have total base width $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$, so they go off to infinity. This doesn't work.\n\nStrategy 5: Use two levels.\n- Bottom row (y from 0 to 1): Place the unit square, and to its right, place squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$. But this doesn't work because the total width is infinite.\n\nHmm, let me think differently. Maybe the answer involves placing squares of similar sizes together.\n\nStrategy 6: Sort and pack by size.\n- Place the unit square in the corner.\n- Place the $1/2$ square adjacent to it.\n- Place the $1/3, 1/4$ squares in a row.\n- etc.\n\nThis still doesn't obviously work.\n\nLet me look up or recall the answer to this classic problem.\n\nI think the answer is that the containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$ or similar, but let me verify by thinking about it.\n\nWait, actually, I recall now. This is a well-known problem, and the answer is:\n\nThe side length of the smallest containing square is related to a specific construction.\n\nLet me think about the lower bound and upper bound.\n\nLower bound from area: $S \\geq \\frac{\\pi}{\\sqrt{6}} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nNow for a constructive upper bound, we need to find a way to pack the squares.\n\nConstruction: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner of the containing square. The unit square goes from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n\nNow, consider the squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. Their total area is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.6449$.\n\nWe need to pack them into the L-shaped region of area $S^2 - 1$.\n\nOne idea: Pack them into two strips.\n- Right strip: $\\{(x,y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- Top strip: $\\{(x,y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq S, 1 \\leq y \\leq S\\}$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nBut actually these overlap, so together they form the L-shape.\n\nIf $S = 3/2$:\n- Right strip: $(1/2) \\times 1$, can fit at most a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square.\n- Top strip: $(3/2) \\times (1/2)$, area $3/4$.\n\nHmm, but the total area of small squares is $\\approx 0.6449$, and the L-shape for $S = 3/2$ has area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4 = 1.25$. So area-wise it fits.\n\nLet me try $S = 3/2$ explicitly:\n- Unit square: $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- Place $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. This fits in the bottom-right strip.\n- Now, we have a $1/2 \\times 1$ region at the right ($1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$) and a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region at the top.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex. Let me try a different approach.\n\nDifferent construction: \n\nConsider the squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. Let's say we want to pack them in a square of side $S$.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. \nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$. Wait, $3/2 + 1/3 = 9/6 + 2/6 = 11/6$.\n\nBut this is going off to the right. The total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nSo we need to \"wrap around\" or use the top region.\n\nAlternative construction: Two rows.\n- Row 1 (bottom, $0 \\leq y \\leq 1/2$): Squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$? But $1/2$ is the only one that fits (since $1/3 < 1/2$ but if we place $1/3$ at $y=0$, its top is at $y=1/3 < 1/2$, so there's wasted space).\n\nHmm, this is tricky.\n\nLet me think about the problem differently. \n\nConsider packing in a $2 \\times 2$ square as a first attempt. Can we do it?\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \nPlace the $1/4$ square at $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$.\n...\n\nThis is getting messy. Let me think of a cleaner approach.\n\nClean approach: \n\nI recall that for this problem, the answer is the side length is at least $\\frac{3}{2}$ and there's a construction achieving this.\n\nWait, actually let me reconsider. The problem is to find the smallest $S$ such that we can pack all squares $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into a square of side $S$.\n\nLet me think about the construction. Here's one approach:\n\nStack the squares in a single column.\n- Square 1: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(0, 3/2)$ to $(1/3, 11/6)$.\n- ...\n\nThe total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nStack them in a single row.\n- Square 1: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$.\n- ...\n\nTotal width: $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nOK so single row/column doesn't work. We need to use the 2D structure.\n\nConstruction with two columns:\n- Column 1 (width 1): Square 1 from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$, and... well, the width is 1, so we can stack $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ vertically. But total height is $\\infty$.\n\nHmm.\n\nLet me think about the problem more carefully.\n\nConstruction: Suppose we have a square of side $S$ and we want to pack the squares. \n\nDivide the big square into a grid. For example, into 4 quadrants.\n\nAlternatively, think recursively. \n\nRecursive idea: Suppose we have squares of sides $a_1 \\geq a_2 \\geq \\ldots$ to pack in a square of side $S$. Place the largest in the corner. The remaining L-shape has two rectangles of dimensions $a_1 \\times (S - a_1)$ and $(S - a_1) \\times S$. We can rotate the second one to be a $S \\times (S - a_1)$ rectangle.\n\nFor the recursive structure, we can pack the remaining squares into these two rectangles. If both rectangles have the same dimensions, we have a nice recursion.\n\nFor the first rectangle ($a_1 \\times (S - a_1)$) and the second ($S \\times (S - a_1)$), they're not the same. But if we use a different split:\n\nWhat if we split the remaining squares into two groups, one for each rectangle?\n\nLet me think. The squares are $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$. We place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Then we split the rest:\n- Squares $1/2, 1/4, 1/6, \\ldots$ (the even ones) in the top rectangle.\n- Squares $1/3, 1/5, 1/7, \\ldots$ (the odd ones, $\\geq 3$) in the right rectangle.\n\nHmm, but we need the dimensions to work out.\n\nOK here's another approach. Let me think about the problem as follows.\n\nConsider a square of side $S$. We want to pack the squares. \n\nLower bound: I claimed $S \\geq \\pi/\\sqrt{6} \\approx 1.2825$. But this is just from total area. There might be stronger lower bounds.\n\nConsider the horizontal lines. The square of side 1 spans a horizontal distance of 1 at any height in $[0, 1]$. The square of side $1/n$ spans a horizontal distance of $1/n$. \n\nHmm, this is hard to use for a lower bound.\n\nLet me consider a different lower bound. \n\nIn a square of side $S$, the horizontal extent is $S$. Consider the projection onto the x-axis. Each square of side $1/n$ projects to an interval of length $1/n$. The unit square projects to $[0, 1]$. The $1/2$ square projects to $[?, ?]$ of length $1/2$, etc.\n\nBut the squares can be placed at different y-levels, so the projections can overlap.\n\nHmm, lower bounds are tricky. Let me focus on the construction.\n\nConstruction: I'll try $S = 3/2$.\n\nPlace the unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n\nNow, we have an L-shape. Let me think about how to fill it.\n\nSub-construction: Place the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. This is in the bottom-right area.\n\nNow I have:\n- Right strip above $y=1/2$: $1/2 \\times 1$ region from $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$.\n- Top strip: $(3/2) \\times (1/2)$ region from $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$.\n- Plus a small triangle... no, it's a rectangle.\n\nWait, the L-shape after removing both the unit square and the $1/2$ square:\n- The unit square is at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- The $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- The L-shape (unit square removed) is $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1] \\cup [0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n- Removing the $1/2$ square: \n - From $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$, remove $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$: leaves $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$.\n - From $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: unchanged.\n- So remaining: $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ and $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nHmm, this is getting complicated. Let me try a different construction.\n\nCleaner construction: \n\nConsider a square of side $S$. Place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. \n\nIn the top, we have a $S \\times (S-1)$ rectangle (from $(0,1)$ to $(S, S)$). \n\nNow, recursively, we can think of packing the remaining squares ($1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$) into a rectangle of size $S \\times (S-1)$ (top) and a rectangle of size $(S-1) \\times 1$ (right).\n\nHmm, but actually the right rectangle is part of the L-shape, not separate.\n\nLet me try: \n\n$S = 3/2$.\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Now I want to fit $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in the remaining area of the $(3/2) \\times (3/2)$ square.\n\nRemaining area: $(3/2)^2 - 1 - 1/4 = 9/4 - 5/4 = 1$. Total area of $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 = \\pi^2/6 - 5/4 \\approx 1.6449 - 1.25 = 0.3949$. So area-wise it fits.\n\nBut can we actually arrange it? The remaining region is:\n- $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square. Can fit the $1/3$ square? No, $1/3 < 1/2$, so yes, we can fit it with room to spare. Actually $1/3 \\times 1/3$ is the square, which fits in $1/2 \\times 1/2$.\n- $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nSo after placing $1/3$ in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region, we have:\n- A $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region (part of the small square) minus a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square.\n- A $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle on top.\n\nThis is getting complicated. Let me try yet another approach.\n\nAlternative cleaner construction:\n\nPlace the unit square at the bottom-left. Then:\n- Above the unit square (in a strip of width 1 and height $S - 1$): place the $1/2$ square at the top-left of this strip, $1/3$ square next to it, etc. But these are all $\\leq 1/2 < 1$, so the strip width is 1 and we can have $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ in a row, but the total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nHmm, doesn't work.\n\nOK let me think about this problem more carefully.\n\nI recall that there's a beautiful construction for this problem.\n\nConstruction: Consider a square of side $\\frac{1}{1} + \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\ldots$... no that's $\\infty$.\n\nHmm. Let me think about packing squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots, 1/n$ in a square of side $S_n$. We want $S_n$ to converge to a finite value.\n\nConsider the \"greedy\" packing: \n- Place $1$ at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Place $1/2$ at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Place $1/3$ at $(3/2, 0)$ to $(11/6, 1/3)$.\n- Place $1/4$ at $(11/6, 0)$ to $(25/12, 1/4)$.\n- ...\n\nThe bottom-right corners of the squares are at $x = 0, 1, 3/2, 11/6, 25/12, \\ldots$, i.e., $x = \\sum_{k=1}^{n} 1/k$. The heights are $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$, so the squares are stacked along the x-axis, getting shorter. But the x-coordinates go to $\\infty$.\n\nSo this doesn't converge. We need a different approach.\n\nWhat if we use a spiral? Place $1$ at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Then place $1/2$ above the unit square, say at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. Place $1/3$ to the right of $1/2$, at $(1/2, 1)$ to $(5/6, 4/3)$. Place $1/4$ below $1/3$, at $(1/2, 2/3)$ to $(3/4, 5/6)$... \n\nThis is just guessing. Let me think more carefully.\n\nI think the answer to this problem is well-known. Let me try to recall.\n\nHmm, one approach: Use the \"staircase\" construction.\n\nConsider the squares $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ Place them as follows:\n- Square $1$: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- Square $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- Square $1/3$: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n\nWait, this is just one possible arrangement. Let me think about it more carefully.\n\nActually, I recall that the problem is from a competition (maybe Putnam?) and the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$ or related.\n\nWait, let me think about the problem in a different way. \n\nConsider the smallest containing square has side $S$. We need to pack squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$.\n\nA key observation: The unit square alone requires $S \\geq 1$. The unit square and the $1/2$ square, placed in an L-shape, require $S \\geq 3/2$ (if we place them in opposite corners of the L).\n\nSpecifically: place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. The $1/2$ square can go at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$ or at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. Either way, we need $S \\geq 3/2$ for these two.\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, can we achieve $S = 3/2$?\n\nLet me try. \n\nPlace the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Place the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow I need to pack $1/3, 1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ into the remaining L-shape.\n\nRemaining L-shape:\n- Top: $(0, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$, a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n- Right: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(3/2, 1)$, a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square.\n\nTotal remaining area: $3/2 \\times 1/2 + 1/2 \\times 1/2 = 3/4 + 1/4 = 1$. \n\nThe total area of the remaining squares is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 = \\pi^2/6 - 5/4 \\approx 0.395$. So area-wise, we have plenty of room.\n\nBut can we arrange them?\n\nIn the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square, we can place the $1/3$ square (since $1/3 < 1/2$).\n\nAfter placing $1/3$ at, say, $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$:\n- Remaining in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region: an L-shape around the $1/3$ square.\n\nHmm, this is getting complicated. Let me think of a cleaner construction.\n\nRecursive construction: \n\nSuppose we want to pack the squares into a square of side $S$. \n\nIdea: Place the squares along a \"staircase\" or \"L-shape\" that uses the corner efficiently.\n\nConsider this: Place the unit square at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. Now, the strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 1, 1 \\leq y \\leq S$ has dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$. The strip $1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1$ has dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n\nIn the strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 1, 1 \\leq y \\leq S$: We can place squares of side $\\leq 1$ in a row. But the total width would be the sum of their sides, which is $\\infty$. So we need to stack them.\n\nIn the strip $1 \\leq x \\leq S, 0 \\leq y \\leq 1$: Similarly, we can place squares of side $\\leq 1$ vertically. Total height: $\\infty$.\n\nSo we can't just use these two strips.\n\nWhat if we use the entire L-shape more efficiently?\n\nLet me think about it as follows. We have a square of side $S$ and we want to pack the squares. We can think of the L-shape (with the unit square removed) as two rectangles. \n\nRecursive idea: \n- Pack the unit square in the bottom-left corner.\n- In the rest of the L-shape, recursively pack the remaining squares.\n- The L-shape can be split into two rectangles: $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$ (right) and $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$ (top).\n\nIn the right rectangle, we can place a $1/2$ square in the bottom-left, and then we have a smaller L-shape.\n\nHmm, let me think about this differently. \n\nConsider the following arrangement:\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$ square: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$.\n- $1/5$ square: $(4/3 + 1/4, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4 + 1/5, 1/2 + 1/5) = (19/12 + 1/5, 7/10) = (107/60, 7/10)$.\n- ...\n\nIn this arrangement, the squares of sides $1/3, 1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ are stacked in a row starting from $x = 1$ in the strip $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$. The row extends to the right.\n\nBut the total width of the row is $\\sum_{n=3}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't work.\n\nAlternative: Use the strip $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$ and stack squares vertically instead of horizontally.\n\nBut the strip has width $1/2$ and we can only fit squares of side $\\leq 1/2$ in a column. The first square of side $1/3$ fits (with room), the second of side $1/4$ fits next to it horizontally, but the total width is $\\infty$.\n\nHmm.\n\nOK let me think about a different construction.\n\nMulti-level construction: \n\nLevel 1 (bottom, $0 \\leq y \\leq 1$): Unit square. \nLevel 2 ($1 \\leq y \\leq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$): $1/2$ square.\nLevel 3 ($3/2 \\leq y \\leq 3/2 + 1/3 = 11/6$): $1/3$ square.\n...\n\nTotal height: $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nStacking with width: Place square of side $a_n$ at position $x_n$. If $x_n + a_n \\leq S$ and $y_n + a_n \\leq S$.\n\nHow about a \"brick wall\" pattern?\n\nPlace unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$. \nPlace $1/2$ square at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. \nPlace $1/3$ square at $(1/2, 1)$ to $(5/6, 4/3)$. \nPlace $1/4$ square at $(5/6, 1)$ to $(13/12, 7/6)$. \n...\n\nThis is going off to the right. Doesn't work.\n\nLet me think about this problem differently. \n\nConsider the following observation: If we have a square of side $S$, and we want to pack a set of squares with total area $A$, we need $S^2 \\geq A$ (necessary but not sufficient). \n\nThe total area is $\\pi^2/6 \\approx 1.6449$. So $S \\geq \\pi/\\sqrt{6} \\approx 1.2825$.\n\nBut we also have the unit square, which alone requires $S \\geq 1$. And the unit square and $1/2$ square together require $S \\geq 3/2$ (if placed in an L-shape, which is the most space-efficient way for two squares of different sizes).\n\nWait, is that right? Let's see. If we have a unit square and a $1/2$ square, the most space-efficient packing in a larger square is to put the unit square in one corner and the $1/2$ square in the adjacent corner of the L-shape. The total side length needed is $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. \n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$ from the two largest squares alone.\n\nCan we achieve $S = 3/2$ for all the squares?\n\nLet me try a specific construction.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow, I want to place the $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ in the remaining L-shape.\n\nRemaining L-shape:\n- $\\{(x, y) : 1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2, 1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1\\}$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square. Call this region $A$.\n- $\\{(x, y) : 0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2, 1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2\\}$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle. Call this region $B$.\n\nIn region $A$ ($1/2 \\times 1/2$), I can place the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n\nIn region $B$ ($3/2 \\times 1/2$), I need to place $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nRegion $B$ has height $1/2$. Squares with side $\\leq 1/2$ fit. We have $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$, all $\\leq 1/4 < 1/2$. So they all fit in region $B$.\n\nIf I place them in a row, the total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't just do a row.\n\nWhat if I stack them in a column? The total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. Doesn't work.\n\nI need to use the 2D structure. Let me try.\n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$. (Bottom-left of region $B$.)\nPlace $1/5$ at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Hmm wait, $5/4 + 1/5 = 25/20 + 4/20 = 29/20$. And $3/2 = 30/20$. So $1/5$ square goes from $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. This fits in region $B$ since $9/20 < 30/20$ and $29/20 < 30/20$.\n\nPlace $1/6$ at $(9/20, 5/4)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 5/4 + 1/6) = (37/60, 17/12)$. $17/12 \\approx 1.417$, and $3/2 = 1.5$. So $17/12 < 3/2$, so it fits.\n\nBut I'm just placing squares in a row along the bottom of region $B$. The total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't work either.\n\nI need a smarter arrangement. Let me think.\n\nIdea: After placing $1/3, 1/4, \\ldots, 1/k$ in a row, I can place the next squares above the row.\n\nSpecifically:\n- In region $A$ (top-right of the big square), place the $1/3$ square in the bottom-left.\n- The remaining area in $A$ is an L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 1]$ (top of $A$) and $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$ (right of $A$).\n\nThis is getting really complicated. Let me try a totally different approach.\n\nApproach: Use a known result.\n\nI believe the answer to this problem is that the smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$... wait, let me think again.\n\nActually, I recall now that the answer involves $\\frac{3}{2}$ but let me double-check.\n\nHmm, let me think about the lower bound more carefully.\n\nWe have the unit square. It takes up $1 \\times 1$ of the containing square. \n\nThe $1/2$ square: It can't be inside the unit square. It can be in the L-shape around the unit square. The L-shape (after removing the unit square from a square of side $S$) has two \"arms\": one of width $S-1$ and height 1, and one of width $S$ and height $S-1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, we need... well, if the L-shape has arms of width $\\geq 1/2$ and length $\\geq 1/2$, the $1/2$ square fits.\n\nIn a square of side $S$ with the unit square in a corner, the L-shape has arms of width $S-1$ and length $S$ (and 1). So if $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$, the L-shape can accommodate the $1/2$ square.\n\nBut this doesn't tell us about all the squares.\n\nLet me think about the lower bound differently. \n\nConsider the unit square. It must be placed somewhere in the containing square. The unit square occupies a $1 \\times 1$ region.\n\nAfter placing the unit square, we need to place the $1/2$ square, which can't overlap with the unit square. The $1/2$ square can be placed in 4 possible positions relative to the unit square: above, below, to the right, to the left.\n\nIf the unit square is in the corner of the containing square (say bottom-left), the $1/2$ square can be above or to the right. The most space-efficient is to put the $1/2$ square in the corner of the L-shape.\n\nIf the unit square is at $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$ and the $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$, the containing square has side $\\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, the $1/3$ square must fit somewhere. If the $1/3$ square is placed adjacent to the $1/2$ square, say at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$, then the containing square is still $3/2$ on each side (since $4/3 < 3/2$ and $5/6 < 1$).\n\nThe $1/4$ square: It must fit somewhere. It can be placed at $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 3/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$. Since $19/12 \\approx 1.583 > 3/2 = 1.5$, this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nSo we need to be smarter. Let me try placing $1/4$ elsewhere.\n\nWhat if we place $1/4$ above the $1/3$ square, at $(1, 5/6)$ to $(5/4, 13/12)$? $13/12 \\approx 1.083 < 3/2$. And $5/4 = 1.25 < 3/2$. So this fits.\n\nSo far:\n- Unit: $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$.\n- $1/2$: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$: $(1, 5/6)$ to $(5/4, 13/12)$.\n\nThis is using the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=3/2$, and the squares are stacked vertically in this strip. Heights used: $0$ to $1/2$ (for $1/2$), $1/2$ to $5/6$ (for $1/3$), $5/6$ to $13/12$ (for $1/4$). Total height in this strip: $13/12 \\approx 1.083$.\n\nThe strip is from $x=1$ to $x=3/2$ and from $y=0$ to $y=1$. The squares are placed with their left edge at $x=1$.\n\nSquares $1/n$ for $n \\geq 5$ have side $\\leq 1/5 < 1/4$. So they can fit in the remaining space.\n\nBut wait, the total height in the right strip (from $y=0$ to $y=1$) can accommodate... well, we have $13/12$ used and $1 - 13/12 = -1/12$ remaining. Oh, we've exceeded the strip's height of 1!\n\n$13/12 > 1$. So we've used more than the strip's height.\n\nThat's because the $1/4$ square extends to $y = 13/12 > 1$, which is above the strip. But that's OK as long as it's within the big square ($y \\leq 3/2$).\n\nSo the right strip is actually the region $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, and we can use any $y$ from 0 to $3/2$.\n\nSo far, the squares $1/2, 1/3, 1/4$ use the region $1 \\leq x \\leq 5/4$, $0 \\leq y \\leq 13/12$.\n\nHmm, the $1/2$ square uses $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$. But the $1/3$ and $1/4$ squares only go up to $x = 5/4$ (the $1/4$ square's right edge is at $5/4 = 1.25$, and the $1/3$ square's right edge is at $4/3 \\approx 1.333$). So in the region $5/4 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $5/6 \\leq y \\leq 1$ (or so), we have some free space.\n\nThis is getting really complex. Let me think of a different approach.\n\nApproach: Use a \"spiral\" or \"level\" construction.\n\nConsider a square of side $S$. We'll use a recursive construction.\n\nLevel 0: Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Used: $1 \\times 1$.\n\nLevel 1: Place the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right corner of the L-shape, i.e., at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. Used: $1/2 \\times 1/2$ in the right strip.\n\nLevel 2: We have free space:\n- Right strip: $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$. Size: $1/2 \\times 1/2$.\n- Top: $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$. Size: $3/2 \\times 1/2$.\n\nIn the right strip ($1/2 \\times 1/2$), place the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. This uses a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ area in the strip.\n\nIn the top region ($3/2 \\times 1/2$), I need to fit $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nHmm, $1/4 < 1/2$, so $1/4$ fits in the top region (height-wise). Total width of $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in a row: $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't do a single row.\n\nI can do a recursive structure: place $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$. Then place $1/5$ at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(9/20, 29/20)$, etc. But the total width is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$.\n\nOK so I need a 2D arrangement in the top region.\n\nAlternative: Think of the top region as a rectangle of size $3/2 \\times 1/2$. We can split it into two parts and recurse.\n\nActually, here's a thought. \n\nRecursive construction with side $S = 3/2$:\n\nPlace the unit square at the bottom-left. The L-shape (region to pack remaining squares) has the structure of an \"L\" with the unit square removed.\n\nNow, consider scaling. If we scale the L-shape by $1/2$, we get an L-shape with arm widths $1/2$ and arm lengths $3/4$. The total area of the small L-shape is $3/2 \\times 1/2 + 1/2 \\times 1/2 = 1$.\n\nHmm, the small L-shape has area $1 = 1^2$. Interesting.\n\nSo if we have a square of side $3/2$ and place the unit square in the bottom-left, the remaining L-shape has area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4$, not $1$. Let me recompute.\n\nSquare of side $3/2$: area $9/4$.\nUnit square: area $1$.\nRemaining L-shape: area $9/4 - 1 = 5/4$.\n\nOK so the L-shape has area $5/4$.\n\nNow, if I scale the original L-shape by $1/2$ (assuming the original is a square of side $3/2$ with unit square removed), I get a shape of area $5/4 \\cdot 1/4 = 5/16$, with arm widths $1/4$ and arm lengths $3/4$.\n\nHmm, this doesn't directly lead to a recursion.\n\nLet me think again.\n\nAlternative recursive construction: \n\nSuppose the containing square has side $S$. Place the unit square in the bottom-left. The remaining L-shape is split into:\n- Right arm: $1 \\times (S-1)$ (from $(1,0)$ to $(S, S-1)$)... wait, the right arm is $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$? No, let me re-set up.\n\nBig square: $[0, S] \\times [0, S]$.\nUnit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\nL-shape (unit square removed): $\\{[1, S] \\times [0, 1]\\} \\cup \\{[0, S] \\times [1, S]\\}$.\n\nI can split the L-shape into two rectangles:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- $R_2 = [0, 1] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $1 \\times (S-1)$.\n\nBut there's also the region $[1, S] \\times [1, S]$ which is a square of side $S-1$. So actually the L-shape is:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$.\n- $R_2 = [0, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nThese overlap in $[1, S] \\times [1, 1]$? No, $R_1$ has $y \\in [0, 1]$ and $R_2$ has $y \\in [1, S]$. So they're disjoint (share boundary $y = 1$).\n\nOK so the L-shape is the disjoint union of:\n- $R_1 = [1, S] \\times [0, 1]$: width $S-1$, height 1.\n- $R_2 = [0, S] \\times [1, S]$: width $S$, height $S-1$.\n\nNow, I want to pack squares $1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ into $R_1 \\cup R_2$.\n\nIf $S - 1 = 1$, i.e., $S = 2$, then $R_1$ and $R_2$ are both $1 \\times 1$ regions (well, $R_2$ is $2 \\times 1$).\n\nWait, $S = 2$ gives $R_1 = 1 \\times 1$ and $R_2 = 2 \\times 1$. They have total area $1 + 2 = 3$, and the L-shape has area $4 - 1 = 3$. ✓\n\nBut this is a bigger square than necessary.\n\nHmm, let me think about the problem differently.\n\nAlternative approach: \n\nI'll use a non-trivial construction. Consider a square of side $S$ and a packing of the squares $1, 1/2, \\ldots, 1/n, \\ldots$ in it.\n\nKey insight: Place the unit square in the bottom-left. Then in the L-shape, use a recursive structure.\n\nConsider this: In the L-shape, the \"right arm\" is $[1, S] \\times [0, 1]$ of dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1$. We can place a $1/2$ square in the bottom-left of this arm, at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. Then the remaining L-shape is:\n- $[3/2, S] \\times [0, 1/2]$: dimensions $(S - 3/2) \\times 1/2$.\n- $[1, S] \\times [1/2, 1]$: dimensions $(S-1) \\times 1/2$.\n- $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$: dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex. Let me try yet another approach.\n\nLet me consider the \"obvious\" lower bound and see if there's a matching construction.\n\nLower bound: The unit square requires $S \\geq 1$. The unit square and the $1/2$ square, packed optimally, require $S \\geq 3/2$ (since the unit square is $1 \\times 1$ and the $1/2$ square is $1/2 \\times 1/2$, and they can't overlap).\n\nHmm wait, is $3/2$ the lower bound? Let me think.\n\nThe unit square has area 1. The $1/2$ square has area $1/4$. Total area: $5/4$. If the containing square has side $S$, then $S^2 \\geq 5/4$, so $S \\geq \\sqrt{5}/2 \\approx 1.118$.\n\nBut this is just the area bound. Geometrically, two squares of sides $a$ and $b$ packed into a square of side $S$ require $S \\geq \\max(a, b, a + b - \\min(a, b)) = \\max(a, b)$ if they can be side by side. Hmm, but they can be side by side if $a + b \\leq S$.\n\nFor $a = 1, b = 1/2$: side by side requires $S \\geq 3/2$. Stacked requires $S \\geq 3/2$. So $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nYes, $S \\geq 3/2$ for the two largest squares.\n\nCan we achieve $S = 3/2$ for all the squares? Let me think.\n\nConstruction attempt for $S = 3/2$:\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n\nNow, the L-shape is the region with $x \\in [1, 3/2]$ or $y \\in [1, 3/2]$.\n\nIn the L-shape, I need to fit squares of sides $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$.\n\nIdea: Recursive placement. In the L-shape, place a $1/2$ square in the corner. Then recursively fill the remaining L-shape with smaller squares.\n\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nAfter this, the remaining region in the $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square is:\n- $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$: a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square at the top-right.\n- $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle at the top.\n\nSo the remaining region is a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square and a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nNow, in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square, place the $1/3$ square. \n\nPlace $1/3$ at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \n\nRemaining region:\n- $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$: a $1/6 \\times 1/3$ rectangle.\n- $[1, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 1]$: a $1/2 \\times 1/6$ rectangle.\n- $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$: a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nThese three regions together have area $1/18 + 1/12 + 3/4 = 2/36 + 3/36 + 27/36 = 32/36 = 8/9 \\approx 0.889$.\n\nIn the top $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle, place the $1/4$ square. \n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$.\n\nRemaining region in the top:\n- $[1/4, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 3/2]$: a $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle.\n\nNow I need to fit $1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ into the remaining regions.\n\nThis is getting really messy. Let me try a different approach.\n\nOK here's another idea. Let me consider a \"level\" structure.\n\nLevels:\n- Level 0 (height 1): contains the unit square.\n- Level 1 (height 1/2): contains the $1/2$ square.\n- Level 2 (height 1/3): contains the $1/3$ square.\n- ...\n\nIf we stack these levels vertically, the total height is $\\sum 1/n = \\infty$. So we can't stack them.\n\nBut we can place multiple squares at the same level. Specifically, in a level of height $h$, we can place squares of side $\\leq h$.\n\nFor example, in a level of height 1 (bottom), we can place the unit square (side 1), and to the right of it, more squares of side $\\leq 1$.\n\nBut the total width of all squares is $\\infty$, so we can't fit them all in one level.\n\nWhat if we use multiple \"rows\" within a level?\n\nHmm, this is the same as before. Let me think.\n\nConstruction: \n\nConsider a square of side $S$. Partition it into \"regions\" based on the square sizes.\n\nRegion 1: A $1 \\times 1$ square in the corner for the unit square.\nRegion 2: A $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square in the adjacent corner for the $1/2$ square.\nRegion 3: A $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square for the $1/3$ square.\n...\n\nIf we place these regions in an L-shape pattern:\n- Unit square: $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n- $1/2$ square: $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n- $1/3$ square: $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n- $1/4$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(19/12, 5/6 + 1/4)$... \n\nWait, $1/4$ square should have height $1/4$. If we place it at the right of the $1/3$ square: $(4/3, 1/2)$ to $(4/3 + 1/4, 1/2 + 1/4) = (19/12, 3/4)$. $19/12 \\approx 1.583$, and $3/4 = 0.75$. So the $1/4$ square's right edge is at $19/12$, which is greater than $3/2$. So this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nHmm.\n\nOK let me think about this problem more carefully.\n\nI think the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$, but let me see if a smaller square works.\n\nLower bound argument:\n\nConsider the unit square. Place it somewhere in the containing square. WLOG, the unit square's bottom-left corner is at $(x_0, y_0)$ with $0 \\leq x_0, y_0$ and $x_0 + 1 \\leq S$, $y_0 + 1 \\leq S$.\n\nThe unit square is $[x_0, x_0 + 1] \\times [y_0, y_0 + 1]$.\n\nNow, the $1/2$ square is $[x_1, x_1 + 1/2] \\times [y_1, y_1 + 1/2]$, disjoint from the unit square's interior.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to be disjoint from the unit square, either $x_1 + 1/2 \\leq x_0$ (to the left), or $x_1 \\geq x_0 + 1$ (to the right), or $y_1 + 1/2 \\leq y_0$ (below), or $y_1 \\geq y_0 + 1$ (above).\n\nIn the most space-efficient case, the $1/2$ square is in one of these positions, touching the unit square.\n\nIf $x_0 = 0$ (unit square in the bottom-left corner) and the $1/2$ square is to the right: $x_1 = 1, y_1 = 0$, so $1/2$ square is at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$. The containing square has side $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nAlternatively, the $1/2$ square is above: $x_1 = 0, y_1 = 1$, so $1/2$ square is at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. The containing square has side $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo in any case, the unit square and $1/2$ square together require $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nNow, the question is: with $S = 3/2$, can we fit all the squares?\n\nThis is a non-trivial question. Let me think.\n\nAttempt: $S = 3/2$.\n\nPlace the unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n\nNow, in the strip $1 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1/2 \\leq y \\leq 1$ (which is a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region), I want to place the $1/3$ square.\n\nPlace the $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. \n\nRemaining in this strip: $1/3 \\times 1/2$ rectangle at $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (width $1/6$, height $1/2$), and the region above the $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [5/6, 1]$ (width $1/3$, height $1/6$).\n\nNow, in the top strip $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$ (a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region), I want to place the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$.\n\nIn this $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, the height is $1/2$, so I can fit squares of side $\\leq 1/2$. The squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ have sides $\\leq 1/4 < 1/2$, so they fit.\n\nIf I place them in a row, the total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So I can't do a single row.\n\nWhat if I use a recursive structure within this strip?\n\nSub-strip approach: \n- In the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, place a $1/4$ square at $(0, 5/4)$ to $(1/4, 3/2)$.\n- The remaining region in the strip is $[1/4, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 3/2]$, a $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle.\n- In this $5/4 \\times 1/4$ rectangle, place a $1/5$ square at $(1/4, 5/4)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. The height is $1/5 < 1/4$, so it fits.\n- Remaining: $[9/20, 3/2] \\times [5/4, 29/20]$ and $[1/4, 9/20] \\times [29/20, 3/2]$.\n\nThis is the same infinite-row problem. So this approach doesn't work directly.\n\nAlternative: 2D arrangement in the strip.\n\nIn the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, use a 2D arrangement. For example, place a $1/4$ square at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. Then place a $1/5$ square at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Wait, $5/4 + 1/5 = 25/20 + 4/20 = 29/20 = 1.45 < 3/2$. And $9/20 = 0.45 < 3/2$. So it fits.\n\nContinue: $1/6$ at $(9/20, 1)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 1 + 1/6) = (37/60, 7/6)$. $37/60 \\approx 0.617 < 3/2$ and $7/6 \\approx 1.167 < 3/2$. Fits.\n\nSo the squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ are placed in a row at the bottom of the top strip. The total width is $\\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So this doesn't fit in a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip.\n\nSo I need a more clever arrangement.\n\nHmm, let me think about this.\n\nKey insight: In the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ strip, I can use a \"brick-wall\" or \"L-shape\" pattern.\n\nWait, the strip is $3/2$ wide and $1/2$ tall. The total area is $3/4$. The total area of squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 - 1/4 - 1/9 = \\pi^2/6 - 1 - 9/36 - 4/36 = \\pi^2/6 - 1 - 13/36 \\approx 1.645 - 1 - 0.361 = 0.284$.\n\nSo the total area of the remaining squares is $\\approx 0.284$, but the strip has area $3/4 = 0.75$. Plenty of room.\n\nBut the issue is that the squares are long and thin (in some sense), and we need to pack them efficiently.\n\nActually, the squares $1/n$ are square-shaped, not long and thin. So packing them in a strip is just like packing them in any region.\n\nOK so let me think about packing squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ (with total area $\\approx 0.284$) in a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region.\n\nHmm, even if I can pack them in a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region (area $0.25$, slightly less than $0.284$), the area is just barely insufficient. So I need to use a larger region.\n\nBut the $3/2 \\times 1/2$ region has area $0.75$, much more than $0.284$. So area-wise it's fine.\n\nThe challenge is to find an arrangement that fits.\n\nLet me try:\n- $1/4$ at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. \n- $1/5$ at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(9/20, 5/4 + 1/5) = (9/20, 29/20)$. Wait, $29/20 = 1.45$, which is greater than $5/4 = 1.25$. So the $1/5$ square is taller than the $1/4$ square. The top of the $1/5$ square is at $y = 1 + 1/5 = 6/5 = 1.2$. Hmm wait, $1 + 1/5 = 6/5 = 1.2$. And $5/4 = 1.25$. So the $1/5$ square's top is at $1.2 < 1.25$, so it fits in height. \n\nOK let me redo this.\n\nStrip: $0 \\leq x \\leq 3/2$, $1 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$. Height: $1/2$.\n\nPlace $1/4$ at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/4, 5/4)$. \nPlace $1/5$ at $(1/4, 1)$ to $(1/4 + 1/5, 1 + 1/5) = (9/20, 6/5)$.\nPlace $1/6$ at $(9/20, 1)$ to $(9/20 + 1/6, 1 + 1/6) = (37/60, 7/6)$.\n...\n\nThe squares are stacked horizontally, with their bottoms at $y = 1$. The widths add up.\n\nAfter placing $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/k$, the right edge is at $x = \\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n = H_k - H_3$.\n\nFor the squares to fit in the strip, the right edge must be $\\leq 3/2$. So $\\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_k = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + \\ldots + 1/k \\approx \\ln k + \\gamma$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=4}^{k} 1/n = H_k - H_3 = H_k - 11/6$.\n\nFor $H_k - 11/6 \\leq 3/2$, we need $H_k \\leq 3/2 + 11/6 = 9/6 + 11/6 = 20/6 = 10/3 \\approx 3.33$.\n\n$H_k \\approx \\ln k + 0.577 \\leq 3.33$ gives $\\ln k \\leq 2.76$, so $k \\leq e^{2.76} \\approx 15.8$. So $k \\leq 15$.\n\nSo we can fit $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ in a single row of the strip. But we have infinitely many squares!\n\nAfter $1/15$, we have $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots$ remaining. We need to fit them somewhere.\n\nAfter placing $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ in a row, the row occupies $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 1 + 1/4] = [0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$.\n\nWait, actually, the squares have different heights. $1/4$ has height $1/4$, $1/5$ has height $1/5$, etc. The smallest is $1/k$ for the largest $k$.\n\nIf I place all squares with their bottoms at $y = 1$, then the heights go from $1/4$ to $1/k$. The squares are aligned at the bottom, so the top of the row is at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$ (the tallest square in the row).\n\nSo the row occupies $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. The width is $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485$, which is less than $3/2$. Good.\n\nNow, above the row (i.e., $5/4 \\leq y \\leq 3/2$), we have a region of width $3/2$ and height $1/4$. We can continue packing squares here.\n\nIn this region, place $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots$ in a row. The squares have heights $\\leq 1/16 < 1/4$, so they fit.\n\nThe width used is $\\sum_{n=16}^{k'} 1/n = H_{k'} - H_{15}$.\n\nWe need $H_{k'} - H_{15} \\leq 3/2$, so $H_{k'} \\leq 3/2 + H_{15} \\approx 1.5 + 3.318 = 4.818$.\n\n$H_{k'} \\approx \\ln k' + 0.577 \\leq 4.818$ gives $\\ln k' \\leq 4.24$, so $k' \\leq e^{4.24} \\approx 69.4$. So $k' \\leq 69$.\n\nSo we can fit $1/16, \\ldots, 1/69$ in this second row.\n\nContinuing, we can fit $1/70, \\ldots, 1/N$ in a third row, etc.\n\nThis is the \"stacked rows\" approach. The number of rows is finite (since the harmonic series diverges), and we can fit infinitely many squares.\n\nWait, but does this approach actually work in a finite containing square?\n\nLet me re-examine. We have:\n- Row 1: $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. Width: $\\sum_{n=4}^{15} 1/n = H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485$. Height: $1/4$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n- Row 2: $1/16, \\ldots, 1/69$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. Width: $\\sum_{n=16}^{69} 1/n = H_{69} - H_{15} \\approx 4.536 - 3.318 = 1.218$. Height: $1/16$.\n- Row 3: $1/70, \\ldots$ at $y \\in [5/4 + 1/16, 5/4 + 1/16 + 1/70]$. ...\n\nEach row has width $\\leq 3/2$ (so it fits in the strip). \n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/70 + \\ldots = \\sum 1/n_0$ for some sequence $n_0$. \n\nWait, the heights are: row 1 has height $1/4$ (the height of the $1/4$ square, the tallest in the row), row 2 has height $1/16$, row 3 has height $1/70$, etc.\n\nHmm wait, the height of each row is the height of the tallest square in the row, which is the first one in the row. So row 1 has height $1/4$ (tallest is $1/4$), row 2 has height $1/16$ (tallest is $1/16$), row 3 has height $1/70$ (tallest is $1/70$), etc.\n\nThe total height is $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/70 + ...$. Let me compute this.\n\nActually, the rows are determined by when the running sum of widths exceeds $3/2$. Let me re-define.\n\nStarting from the bottom of the top strip ($y = 1$):\n- Row 1: Place squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 1$. Stop when the next square would push the right edge past $3/2$.\n- Then start a new row above.\n\nFor row 1, the squares have heights $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, decreasing. The tallest is $1/4$. So row 1's top is at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$.\n\nFor row 2, the squares are the next ones (the ones that didn't fit in row 1). They have heights $1/k_1, 1/(k_1 + 1), \\ldots$ for some $k_1$. The tallest is $1/k_1$. Row 2's top is at $y = 5/4 + 1/k_1$.\n\nFor row 3, the squares are even smaller. Row 3's top is at $y = 5/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2$.\n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2 + \\ldots$.\n\nFor this to fit in the strip of height $1/2$, we need $1/4 + 1/k_1 + 1/k_2 + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe sequence $1/4, 1/k_1, 1/k_2, \\ldots$ is a subseries of the harmonic series. For the total to be $\\leq 1/4$ (since we already used $1/4$ and have $1/4$ left), we need $\\sum 1/k_i \\leq 1/4$.\n\nCan we choose $k_1, k_2, \\ldots$ such that $\\sum 1/k_i \\leq 1/4$? Yes, by choosing $k_i$ to grow fast enough. For example, $k_1 = 16, k_2 = 16^2, k_3 = 16^3, \\ldots$ gives $\\sum 1/k_i = 1/16 + 1/256 + \\ldots < 1/15 < 1/4$.\n\nBut wait, we need each row to fit in width $3/2$. Let me re-examine.\n\nIf $k_1 = 16$, row 1 contains $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$. The width is $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nRow 2 starts at $1/16$. We need to fit $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/k_1 - 1$ in row 2. Wait, I conflated some things. Let me restart.\n\nThe \"row\" structure: \n- Row 1: Place squares with their bottoms at $y = 1$, going right. The squares in row 1 are $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ where $m_1$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=4}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n- Row 2: Place squares with their bottoms at $y = 1 + h_1$ (where $h_1$ is the height of row 1), going right. Squares in row 2 are $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_1+2), \\ldots, 1/m_2$ where $m_2$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_1+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n- Etc.\n\nHeight of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1} + 1)$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n\nWait, I need to be more careful. The squares in row $i$ are $1/(m_{i-1}+1), 1/(m_{i-1}+2), \\ldots, 1/m_i$, where $m_0 = 3$. The tallest square in row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nSo the height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) = \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$.\n\nWe need this to be $\\leq 1/2$ (the height of the top strip).\n\nNow, the question is: can we choose the row boundaries $m_1, m_2, \\ldots$ such that:\n(a) Each row fits in width $3/2$: $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n(b) Total height $\\leq 1/2$: $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nFor (a), we want each row to have \"enough\" squares. The row width is $3/2 \\approx 1.5$.\n\nThe partial harmonic sum $H_m - H_{m_{i-1}}$ is approximately $\\ln(m/m_{i-1})$.\n\nFor $H_m - H_{m_{i-1}} \\leq 3/2$, we need $\\ln(m/m_{i-1}) \\leq 3/2$ (approximately), so $m \\leq m_{i-1} \\cdot e^{3/2} \\approx m_{i-1} \\cdot 4.48$.\n\nSo $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$, which means $m_i$ grows by a factor of at most $\\approx 4.48$ each row.\n\nNow, $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i$. And $1/m_i \\leq 1/(4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}) \\leq 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$. So $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$.\n\nHmm, the series $\\sum 1/m_i$ might or might not converge. Let me check.\n\nIf $m_i = c \\cdot m_{i-1}$ for some constant $c > 1$, then $m_i = c^i \\cdot m_0$ and $\\sum 1/m_i = \\sum 1/(c^i m_0)$ converges (geometric series).\n\nBut the constraint is $m_i \\leq c \\cdot m_{i-1}$, so $m_i$ could grow as fast as $c \\cdot m_{i-1}$. If we choose $m_i = c \\cdot m_{i-1}$, the series $\\sum 1/m_i$ converges.\n\nSo the total height $\\sum 1/(m_i+1)$ converges. But we need it to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nLet me check with $c = 4.48$. We have $m_0 = 3, m_1 \\leq 3 \\cdot 4.48 = 13.44, m_2 \\leq 13.44 \\cdot 4.48 \\approx 60.2, m_3 \\leq 60.2 \\cdot 4.48 \\approx 269.7, \\ldots$\n\n$\\sum 1/m_i = 1/3 + 1/13.44 + 1/60.2 + 1/269.7 + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.0744 + 0.0166 + 0.0037 + \\ldots$\n\nThis is dominated by $1/3 = 0.333$. But we need $\\sum 1/m_i \\leq 1/2$ for the total height, and the total height of all rows is $\\sum 1/(m_i + 1)$, which is at most $\\sum 1/m_i$.\n\nWait, the total height of all rows is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$, and the first term is $1/(m_0 + 1) = 1/4$. So the first row alone takes $1/4$ of the height. Then the subsequent rows take $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_2+1), \\ldots$.\n\nFor the total height to be $\\leq 1/2$, we need $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$, i.e., $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/4$.\n\nThis is achievable by choosing $m_i$ to grow fast enough. For example, $m_1 = 16, m_2 = 256, \\ldots$ gives $\\sum 1/m_i = 1/16 + 1/256 + \\ldots < 1/15 < 1/4$. ✓\n\nBut we also need each row to fit in width $3/2$. Let me check:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$. Width: $H_{15} - H_3 = H_{15} - 11/6$. $H_{15} = 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + \\ldots + 1/15 \\approx 3.318$. So width $\\approx 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/255$. Width: $H_{255} - H_{15} \\approx 6.14 - 3.32 = 2.82$. This is greater than $3/2$! ✗\n\nSo row 2 doesn't fit in width $3/2$.\n\nI need to be more careful. Let me re-define.\n\nThe row width is at most $3/2$. The number of squares in a row is determined by when the running sum of widths exceeds $3/2$.\n\nHmm, let me think about this differently. \n\nOK so the constraint is that each row fits in width $3/2$. The widths in a row are $1/n$ for a range of $n$. The sum of widths in a row is approximately $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1})$.\n\nFor the sum to be $\\leq 3/2$, we need $m_i / m_{i-1} \\leq e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nBut the height of the row is $1/(m_{i-1} + 1)$, and we need the total height of all rows to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$, where $m_0 = 3$ (we start with $1/4$, the smallest index in row 1 is 4, but the height of the row is $1/4$ since $1/4$ is the tallest in the row).\n\nWait, the first row has $1/4$ as the tallest, so its height is $1/4$. The total height of all rows is at least $1/4$ (from the first row alone).\n\nThe first row uses height $1/4$, leaving $1/4$ for the remaining rows.\n\nFor the remaining rows, we have $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/4$, and $m_i \\leq 4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nHmm, let me think about whether this is achievable.\n\n$m_0 = 3, m_1 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 3 = 13.44, m_2 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 13.44 = 60.2, m_3 \\leq 4.48 \\cdot 60.2 = 269.7, \\ldots$\n\nSo $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$\\sum 1/m_i = \\sum 1/(4.48^i \\cdot 3) = 1/3 \\cdot \\sum 1/4.48^i = 1/3 \\cdot 1/(1 - 1/4.48) = 1/3 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 = 1/3 \\cdot 1.287 = 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429 + $ (correction for the $m_0 = 3$ term) $\\approx 0.429 + 1/4 \\cdot 1/3 \\approx ?$. Hmm, let me redo this.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i + 1)$. With $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$, we have $1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i \\leq 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = 1/3 \\cdot 1/(1 - 1/4.48) = 1/3 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429$. We need it to be $\\leq 1/2 = 0.5$. So this works!\n\nWait, but $0.429 < 0.5$, so we have slack. Let me double check.\n\n$m_0 = 3$, $1/(m_0 + 1) = 1/4 = 0.25$.\n$m_1 \\leq 13.44$, $1/(m_1 + 1) \\leq 1/14.44 \\approx 0.0693$.\n$m_2 \\leq 60.2$, $1/(m_2 + 1) \\leq 1/61.2 \\approx 0.0163$.\n$m_3 \\leq 269.7$, $1/(m_3 + 1) \\leq 1/270.7 \\approx 0.0037$.\n\nSum: $0.25 + 0.0693 + 0.0163 + 0.0037 + \\ldots \\approx 0.25 + 0.0693 \\cdot 1.29 \\approx 0.25 + 0.0894 = 0.339$.\n\nHmm, my bound above said $0.429$, but the actual sum is less because the constraint is an upper bound on $m_i$.\n\nOK so the total height is at most $\\approx 0.34$, which is less than $0.5$. So the \"rows\" approach works.\n\nWait wait wait. Let me reconsider. The constraint is that $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$ (approximately). But this is a constraint on the upper bound of $m_i$, meaning $m_i$ is at most $4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nThe \"height\" of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ (the height of the tallest square in the row). So the total height is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) = \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(m_i+1)$.\n\nWe have $m_i \\leq 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$ for $i \\geq 1$, so $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot m_0 = 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$1/(m_i + 1) \\leq 1/m_i \\leq 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{4.48}{3.48} \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is at most $0.429$, which is less than $1/2$. \n\nSo the \"rows\" approach works for $S = 3/2$!\n\nWait, I need to double-check the constraint. The constraint for each row to fit in width $3/2$ is that the sum of widths in the row is $\\leq 3/2$. The sum of widths in row $i$ is $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\approx \\ln(m_i / m_{i-1})$.\n\nSo we need $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\leq 3/2$, i.e., $m_i / m_{i-1} \\leq e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nThis means $m_i$ can be at most $4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1}$.\n\nAnd the height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the rows approach to work, we need $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWith $m_i \\leq 4.48^i \\cdot 3$, this sum is at most $0.429 < 1/2$. ✓\n\nGreat, so $S = 3/2$ works.\n\nBut wait, I need to verify that the constraint is $m_i \\leq 4.48 m_{i-1}$ and not something else. Let me re-examine.\n\nThe \"rows\" approach: in row $i$, we place squares $1/(m_{i-1}+1), 1/(m_{i-1}+2), \\ldots, 1/m_i$ side by side, with their bottoms at the same $y$-level.\n\nThe total width of row $i$ is $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n$.\n\nFor this to fit in the strip of width $3/2$, we need $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nThe height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ (the height of the tallest square, which is the first one).\n\nThe constraint $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nNow, we have freedom in choosing $m_i$: we can make it smaller (fewer squares per row) or larger (more squares per row). But if we make $m_i$ smaller, we need more rows, and the heights add up.\n\nLet me think about this as an optimization problem. We want to choose $m_0 = 3 < m_1 < m_2 < \\ldots$ such that:\n(a) $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$ for all $i$.\n(b) $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWe need the rows to cover all squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, i.e., $m_i \\to \\infty$.\n\nThe total width of the rows is $\\sum_i \\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n = \\sum_{n=4}^{\\infty} 1/n = \\infty$. So the rows use infinite total width, but each individual row uses $\\leq 3/2$. The rows are stacked vertically, so they don't interfere.\n\nThe total height is $\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the construction to work, we need this sum to be $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nThe question is whether we can choose $m_0 = 3, m_1, m_2, \\ldots$ such that (a) and (b) hold.\n\nIf we choose $m_i$ to grow as fast as possible (i.e., $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$), then the heights of the rows decrease fast, and the total height is small.\n\nLet me check with $m_i = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot m_{i-1} \\rfloor$:\n\n$m_0 = 3$.\n$m_1 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 3 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 13.44 \\rfloor = 13$.\n$m_2 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 13 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 58.24 \\rfloor = 58$.\n$m_3 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 58 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 259.84 \\rfloor = 259$.\n$m_4 = \\lfloor 4.48 \\cdot 259 \\rfloor = \\lfloor 1160.32 \\rfloor = 1160$.\n...\n\nHeights: $1/(m_0+1), 1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_2+1), \\ldots = 1/4, 1/14, 1/59, 1/260, 1/1161, \\ldots$\n\nSum: $1/4 + 1/14 + 1/59 + 1/260 + 1/1161 + \\ldots$\n$\\approx 0.25 + 0.0714 + 0.0169 + 0.00385 + 0.000861 + \\ldots$\n$\\approx 0.343$\n\nThis is less than $1/2 = 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the \"rows\" approach works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, but I haven't been careful. The constraint is that the widths fit, i.e., $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$. Let me re-verify this.\n\nFor $m_0 = 3, m_1 = 13$: $\\sum_{n=4}^{13} 1/n = 1/4 + 1/5 + \\ldots + 1/13 = H_{13} - H_3 \\approx 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nFor $m_1 = 13, m_2 = 58$: $\\sum_{n=14}^{58} 1/n = H_{58} - H_{13} \\approx 4.318 - 3.180 = 1.138 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nFor $m_2 = 58, m_3 = 259$: $\\sum_{n=59}^{259} 1/n = H_{259} - H_{58} \\approx 5.848 - 4.318 = 1.530$. Hmm, this is greater than $3/2$!\n\nSo $m_3 = 259$ doesn't work. Let me reduce.\n\nFor $m_2 = 58$, the largest $m$ such that $H_m - H_{58} \\leq 3/2$. $H_{58} \\approx 4.318$, so $H_m \\leq 4.318 + 1.5 = 5.818$. $H_m = 5.818$ corresponds to $m \\approx 208$.\n\nSo $m_3 \\approx 208$ instead of 259.\n\nOK so the row boundaries are smaller than what I estimated. Let me redo:\n\n$m_0 = 3, m_1 = 13, m_2 = 58, m_3 = 208, m_4 = ?$.\n\n$H_{58} \\approx 4.318$, so $H_{m_3} \\leq 4.318 + 1.5 = 5.818$, $m_3 \\approx 208$.\n\n$H_{208} \\approx 5.594$, so $H_{m_4} \\leq 5.594 + 1.5 = 7.094$, $m_4 \\approx 1200$.\n\nActually, let me just verify that the total height is small.\n\nHeights: $1/4, 1/14, 1/59, 1/209, 1/1201, \\ldots$\n\nSum: $0.25 + 0.0714 + 0.01695 + 0.00478 + 0.000833 + \\ldots \\approx 0.344$.\n\nThis is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the \"rows\" approach gives a valid construction for $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, but I should double-check the lower bound.\n\nLower bound: We need $S \\geq 3/2$ because of the unit square and the $1/2$ square. The unit square has area 1, the $1/2$ square has area $1/4$, and they can't be packed into a square of side $< 3/2$.\n\nSpecifically, the unit square has side 1. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. If the containing square has side $S < 3/2$, then the unit square and the $1/2$ square, when placed, must fit. The unit square alone needs $S \\geq 1$. The $1/2$ square needs to be placed in the L-shape around the unit square (since it can't overlap with the unit square). The L-shape (after removing the unit square from a corner) has \"arms\" of width $S - 1$ and length 1. The $1/2$ square, with side $1/2$, fits in the arm only if the arm has width $\\geq 1/2$ and length $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, the $1/2$ square doesn't need to be in the arm. It could be in the \"corner\" of the L-shape, i.e., at $(1, 1)$ to $(3/2, 3/2)$, which is in the upper-right corner of the L-shape. This requires $S \\geq 3/2$ as well.\n\nBut what if the unit square is not in the corner? Say the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$, and the $1/2$ square is at $(0, 1)$ to $(1/2, 3/2)$. The containing square has $S \\geq 3/2$ since the $1/2$ square's top is at $y = 3/2$.\n\nWhat if the unit square is in the middle? Say at $(0.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.2, 1.2)$. The $1/2$ square is at... where? It must not overlap with the unit square. The closest placement is adjacent to the unit square. Say at $(1.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.7, 0.7)$. The containing square has $S \\geq 1.7$ (to fit the $1/2$ square's right edge). This is worse than $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nSo placing the unit square in the corner and the $1/2$ square adjacent is optimal, giving $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and we have a construction achieving $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, hold on. Let me reconsider whether the lower bound is really $3/2$.\n\nHmm, the lower bound argument: the unit square has side 1, so $S \\geq 1$. But we have more squares. \n\nThe $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. The unit square and $1/2$ square, when packed optimally in a square, need a square of side at least $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$ (if placed in opposite corners of an L-shape).\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nThis is tight, as we've shown a construction with $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, I want to double-check the construction. Let me re-verify.\n\nConstruction for $S = 3/2$:\n\n1. Unit square at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$.\n2. $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$.\n3. $1/3$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$.\n4. Squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, arranged in rows.\n\nWait, but the top strip is $3/2 \\times 1/2$, and we have squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ to fit in it. Let me re-verify the \"rows\" arrangement.\n\nTop strip: $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$. Width: $3/2$. Height: $1/2$.\n\nRow 1: Place squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/13$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 1$. The right edge is at $\\sum_{n=4}^{13} 1/n = H_{13} - H_3 \\approx 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 < 3/2$. ✓\n\nWait, I had $m_1 = 13$ earlier, but let me recheck. The condition is $\\sum_{n=4}^{m_1} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_{13} - H_3 = 3.180 - 1.833 = 1.347 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{14} - H_3 = 3.251 - 1.833 = 1.418 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{15} - H_3 = 3.318 - 1.833 = 1.485 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n$H_{16} - H_3 = 3.381 - 1.833 = 1.548 > 1.5$. ✗\n\nSo $m_1 = 15$. Squares $1/4, \\ldots, 1/15$ in row 1.\n\nHeight of row 1: $1/4$ (the height of the tallest square in the row, which is $1/4$).\n\nTop of row 1: $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$.\n\nRow 2: Place squares $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 5/4$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=16}^{m_2} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\n$H_{15} \\approx 3.318$, so $H_{m_2} \\leq 3.318 + 1.5 = 4.818$. \n\n$H_{50} \\approx 4.499$, $H_{100} \\approx 5.187$.\n\nHmm, $H_{m_2} \\leq 4.818$ corresponds to $m_2 \\approx 80$ or so. Let me check: $H_{83} \\approx 4.829$, $H_{82} \\approx 4.819$. So $m_2 \\approx 82$.\n\nActually let me just say $m_2$ is around $80$.\n\nHeight of row 2: $1/16$ (the height of the tallest square, which is $1/16$).\n\nTop of row 2: $y = 5/4 + 1/16 = 21/16$.\n\nRow 3: Place squares $1/83, 1/84, \\ldots, 1/m_3$ side by side, with bottoms at $y = 21/16$.\n\n$\\sum_{n=83}^{m_3} 1/n \\leq 3/2$. $H_{82} \\approx 4.819$, so $H_{m_3} \\leq 4.819 + 1.5 = 6.319$. This corresponds to $m_3 \\approx 540$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 3: $1/83$.\n\nTop of row 3: $y = 21/16 + 1/83$.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nTotal height: $1/4 + 1/16 + 1/83 + 1/m_3 + \\ldots$\n\n$\\approx 0.25 + 0.0625 + 0.01205 + \\ldots$\n\nThe series is dominated by the first term $1/4 = 0.25$, and the remaining terms sum to less than $0.0625/(1 - 1/5) = 0.078$ or so (rough estimate). So total height $\\leq 0.328$, which is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works.\n\nBut wait, I want to make sure the total height is indeed $\\leq 1/2$. Let me compute more carefully.\n\nThe sequence $m_0 = 3, m_1 = 15, m_2 = 82, m_3 = ?$ is determined by the constraint $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$.\n\nThe height of row $i$ is $1/(m_{i-1}+1)$.\n\nFor the total height $\\sum 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ to be $\\leq 1/2$, we need this series to converge to $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nLet me estimate: $m_{i-1} + 1 \\approx m_{i-1}$, and $1/m_{i-1}$ is the height of row $i$. \n\nThe ratio $m_i / m_{i-1}$ is determined by $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\approx 3/2$, so $m_i / m_{i-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nSo $1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1})$, and the heights decrease by a factor of $\\approx 4.48$ each row. The total height is dominated by the first term, $1/4 = 0.25$, and the remaining terms sum to $\\approx 0.25 \\cdot 1/4.48 / (1 - 1/4.48) \\approx 0.25 \\cdot 0.288 \\approx 0.072$.\n\nTotal: $\\approx 0.322$, which is less than $0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $\\boxed{S = 3/2}$.\n\nHmm wait, I want to double-check the lower bound more carefully. The lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$ from the unit square and $1/2$ square. But what if there's a more subtle lower bound?\n\nLet me think. Could the answer be larger than $3/2$?\n\nFor example, consider the squares $1, 1/2, 1/3$. Can they be packed into a square of side $< 3/2$?\n\nIf the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$, the $1/2$ square at $(1, 0)$ to $(3/2, 1/2)$, the $1/3$ square must fit in the remaining area: $[1, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (a $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square) and $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ (a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle).\n\nThe $1/3$ square has side $1/3 < 1/2$, so it fits in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ square at $(1, 1/2)$ to $(4/3, 5/6)$. ✓\n\nSo three squares fit in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square. Now what about all the squares?\n\nWe've shown the construction works. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, I realize I should double-check the lower bound argument. The argument is: $S \\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$ because the unit square has side 1 and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and they must be placed in opposite corners of an L-shape (or similar) in the containing square.\n\nBut is this really a lower bound? Could the unit square and $1/2$ square be packed in a square of side $< 3/2$?\n\nThe unit square has area 1. The $1/2$ square has area $1/4$. The containing square has area $S^2$. So $S^2 \\geq 5/4$, i.e., $S \\geq \\sqrt{5}/2 \\approx 1.118$. This is the area lower bound.\n\nThe geometric lower bound: The unit square has side 1, so it requires $S \\geq 1$. But can the $1/2$ square fit in a square of side $S$ if $1 \\leq S < 3/2$?\n\nIf $S < 3/2$, the $1/2$ square can't be placed in the L-shape with arms of width $S - 1 < 1/2$ (assuming the unit square is in a corner). So the $1/2$ square would have to be placed \"on top of\" or \"next to\" the unit square, but this requires $S \\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$.\n\nWait, what if the unit square is not in a corner? Let's say the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$, and the $1/2$ square is at $(c, d)$ to $(c+1/2, d+1/2)$, with the two squares disjoint.\n\nFor the squares to fit in $[0, S] \\times [0, S]$, we need $0 \\leq a, b$ and $a+1, b+1 \\leq S$, and $0 \\leq c, d$ and $c+1/2, d+1/2 \\leq S$.\n\nThe squares are disjoint, so their interiors don't intersect. WLOG, assume the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square: $c \\geq a + 1$. Then $c + 1/2 \\leq S$ gives $a + 1 + 1/2 \\leq S$, i.e., $S \\geq a + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo if the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nBy symmetry, if the $1/2$ square is to the left, above, or below, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThis confirms the lower bound $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nCombined with the construction achieving $S = 3/2$, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I want to reconsider the problem statement. The problem says \"el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nSo we want the smallest square that can contain all the squares, with no two squares sharing interior points. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm let me reconsider this once more. The problem is to find the smallest $S$ such that squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ can be packed into an $S \\times S$ square.\n\nLower bound: $S \\geq 3/2$ (from the unit square and $1/2$ square).\n\nConstruction: $S = 3/2$ works (as shown above).\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I want to also verify the lower bound once more, since it's the crux.\n\nThe unit square has side 1. It's placed in the $S \\times S$ square. WLOG, the unit square is in the bottom-left corner, $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square is placed somewhere disjoint from the unit square. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. \n\nIf the $1/2$ square is to the right of the unit square (i.e., its left edge is at $x \\geq 1$), then its right edge is at $x \\geq 3/2$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the $S \\times S$ square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is above the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is below the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$ (by similar reasoning, but with $y$).\n\nIf the $1/2$ square is to the left of the unit square, $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nIn all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nSo the lower bound is $3/2$, and the construction achieves $3/2$. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, hold on, I realize that I want to also check the construction more carefully. Let me re-examine the \"rows\" approach.\n\nThe \"rows\" approach places squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ in rows.\n\nRow 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ with bottoms at $y = 1$, going right.\nRow 2: $1/(m_1+1), \\ldots, 1/m_2$ with bottoms at $y = 1 + h_1$, going right.\n...\n\nWhere $h_i = 1/(m_{i-1}+1)$ is the height of row $i$ (the height of the tallest square in the row).\n\nWait, I realize there's an issue. The \"bottoms\" of the squares in a row are at the same $y$-level, but the squares have different heights. So the tops of the squares are at different $y$-levels.\n\nFor example, in row 1, the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ have heights $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. The $1/4$ square (tallest) has top at $y = 1 + 1/4 = 5/4$. The $1/5$ square has top at $y = 1 + 1/5 = 6/5$. Etc.\n\nSo row 1 occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$ (the union of all squares in the row).\n\nRow 2 starts at $y = 5/4$ (above row 1).\n\nThe squares in row 2 have heights $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$, and they fit in the region $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nWait, actually, the squares in row 2 can have height $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$ (the smallest square in row 2 has height $1/m_2$, which is the smallest). The tallest square in row 2 has height $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nHmm wait, I think I had this right. Let me re-examine.\n\nRow 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. Tallest: $1/4$. Height of row 1: $1/4$.\n\nSo row 1 occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$.\n\nRow 2: $1/(m_1+1), 1/(m_1+2), \\ldots, 1/m_2$. Tallest: $1/(m_1+1)$. Height of row 2: $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nSo row 2 occupies $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nThe constraint is that the total height $\\sum$ (heights of rows) $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nTotal height: $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots \\leq 1/2$.\n\nWe have $m_i / m_{i-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$, so $m_i \\approx 4.48^i \\cdot m_0 = 4.48^i \\cdot 3$.\n\n$1/(m_i+1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i)$.\n\n$\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} 1/(3 \\cdot 4.48^i) = (1/3) \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} \\approx (1/3) \\cdot 1.287 \\approx 0.429$.\n\nSo total height $\\leq 0.429 < 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works.\n\nOK so I'm confident the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, let me reconsider. I think the answer might actually be smaller. Let me re-examine the lower bound.\n\nLower bound re-examination:\n\nThe unit square has side 1. It's placed in the $S \\times S$ square. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$.\n\nIf the unit square is in a corner, the $1/2$ square is in the L-shape. The L-shape has arms of width $S - 1$ and length 1.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the arm, we need the arm width to be $\\geq 1/2$ and the arm length to be $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nBut what if the unit square is not in a corner? Then the L-shape (around the unit square) has different dimensions. Let me think.\n\nIf the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$, with $0 \\leq a, b$ and $a+1, b+1 \\leq S$. The L-shape around the unit square (within the $S \\times S$ square) has two arms:\n- Right arm: $[a+1, S] \\times [b, b+1]$, dimensions $(S - a - 1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[a, S] \\times [b+1, S]$, dimensions $(S - a) \\times (S - b - 1)$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these arms (or in the corners). The widest arm has width $\\max(S - a - 1, S - b - 1)$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in an arm, the arm width must be $\\geq 1/2$.\n\nIf $S < 3/2$, then $S - a - 1 \\leq S - 1 < 1/2$ (for $a \\geq 0$). So the right arm has width $< 1/2$, and the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSimilarly for the top arm.\n\nSo the $1/2$ square can't fit in any arm. Where else can it go?\n\nThe $1/2$ square must be placed in the $S \\times S$ square, disjoint from the unit square. The only regions available are the arms. If the arms have width $< 1/2$, the $1/2$ square can't fit.\n\nWait, actually, the $1/2$ square could be placed in the corner of the L-shape, e.g., at $(a+1, b+1)$ to $(a + 3/2, b + 3/2)$. This is in the upper-right corner of the L-shape, which is part of the right and top arms.\n\nFor this placement, the $1/2$ square is in the region $[a+1, a+3/2] \\times [b+1, b+3/2]$, which requires $a + 3/2 \\leq S$ and $b + 3/2 \\leq S$, i.e., $S \\geq a + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$ (for $a \\geq 0$).\n\nSo $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction achieves this. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually wait, I want to double check the case where the unit square is not in a corner.\n\nSuppose the unit square is at $(0.1, 0.1)$ to $(1.1, 1.1)$ in a $S \\times S$ square. Then the L-shape has:\n- Left arm: $[0, 0.1] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $0.1 \\times 1$.\n- Bottom arm: $[0, 1.1] \\times [0, 0.1]$, dimensions $1.1 \\times 0.1$.\n- Right arm: $[1.1, S] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $(S-1.1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0.1, S] \\times [1.1, S]$, dimensions $(S-0.1) \\times (S-1.1)$.\n- And the four corners.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these regions.\n\nFor $S = 3/2 = 1.5$:\n- Right arm: $[1.1, 1.5] \\times [0.1, 1.1]$, dimensions $0.4 \\times 1$. Width 0.4 < 0.5, so the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n- Top arm: $[0.1, 1.5] \\times [1.1, 1.5]$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. Width 0.4 < 0.5 (wait, width is $S-1.1 = 0.4$, and height is $S-1.1 = 0.4$). So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n- The corner region $[1.1, 1.5] \\times [1.1, 1.5]$ is $0.4 \\times 0.4$, too small.\n\nSo with $S = 3/2$ and the unit square not in the corner, the $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSo we need the unit square in a corner for $S = 3/2$ to work. The optimal placement has the unit square in a corner and the $1/2$ square in the adjacent L-shape.\n\nOK so the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction with the unit square in a corner achieves this. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, but what if there's an even more clever placement that allows $S < 3/2$? Let me think.\n\nSuppose $S = 1.4 < 3/2$. The unit square is placed somewhere in the $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square, and the $1/2$ square is placed disjoint from it.\n\nThe unit square has side 1, so it occupies a $1 \\times 1$ region. The L-shape around it has total area $1.4^2 - 1 = 0.96$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, it must fit in one of the arms (or a corner of the L-shape). The widest arm has width $S - 1 = 0.4$ (if the unit square is in a corner) or possibly larger (if the unit square is in the middle).\n\nWait, if the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has more arms, but each is narrower.\n\nSpecifically, if the unit square is at $(0.2, 0.2)$ to $(1.2, 1.2)$ in a $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square, then:\n- Left arm: $[0, 0.2] \\times [0.2, 1.2]$, dimensions $0.2 \\times 1$.\n- Bottom arm: $[0, 1.2] \\times [0, 0.2]$, dimensions $1.2 \\times 0.2$.\n- Right arm: $[1.2, 1.4] \\times [0.2, 1.2]$, dimensions $0.2 \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0.2, 1.4] \\times [1.2, 1.4]$, dimensions $1.2 \\times 0.2$.\n\nThe widest arm has width 0.2 (for left/right) or 0.2 (for bottom/top, in the \"perpendicular\" direction). Hmm, I need to be more careful.\n\nActually, an arm of dimensions $w \\times h$ can fit a square of side $\\min(w, h)$.\n\n- Left arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Bottom arm: $1.2 \\times 0.2$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Right arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n- Top arm: $1.2 \\times 0.2$. Can fit a square of side $0.2$.\n\nSo with the unit square in the middle, the largest square that fits in the L-shape is $0.2 \\times 0.2$. The $1/2$ square (side 0.5) doesn't fit.\n\nSo $S = 1.4$ doesn't work.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at $(0, 0)$ to $(1, 1)$ in a $1.4 \\times 1.4$ square?\n- Right arm: $[1, 1.4] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $0.4 \\times 1$. Can fit a square of side $0.4$.\n- Top arm: $[0, 1.4] \\times [1, 1.4]$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. Can fit a square of side $0.4$.\n\nSo the largest square fitting in the L-shape is $0.4 \\times 0.4$. The $1/2$ square doesn't fit.\n\nWhat about a different placement, where the unit square is not in a corner and not in the middle, but somewhere in between?\n\nLet's say the unit square is at $(a, 0)$ to $(a+1, 1)$ (on the bottom edge, with left edge at $x = a$). The L-shape:\n- Right arm: $[a+1, S] \\times [0, 1]$, dimensions $(S-a-1) \\times 1$.\n- Top arm: $[0, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $S \\times (S-1)$.\n- The corner region of the L-shape: $[a+1, S] \\times [1, S]$, dimensions $(S-a-1) \\times (S-1)$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square must fit in one of these regions. The right arm has width $S - a - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm, $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf $S = 1.4$, $a \\leq 1.4 - 1.5 = -0.1$, which is impossible. So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the right arm.\n\nThe $1/2$ square could fit in the top arm or the corner. The top arm has height $S - 1 = 0.4 < 1/2$. So the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the top arm (it would need height $\\geq 1/2$).\n\nWait, the top arm is $S \\times (S-1)$, dimensions $1.4 \\times 0.4$. The $1/2$ square has side $0.5 > 0.4$, so it doesn't fit.\n\nSo with $S = 1.4$, the $1/2$ square doesn't fit in the L-shape around the unit square, regardless of the unit square's position.\n\nWhat if the unit square is tilted? Well, the problem says the squares are axis-aligned, I think. (If we allow rotation, the problem is different.)\n\nAssuming axis-aligned squares, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I haven't been careful. The problem says the squares have side $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ and we want to find the smallest containing square. The squares can be placed anywhere, but they must be axis-aligned (I assume).\n\nWith axis-aligned squares, the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, and the construction achieves $S = 3/2$. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, I realize that I want to sanity check this with a simpler example. Consider packing squares of sides $1$ and $1/2$ into a square. The smallest such square has side $1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. ✓\n\nNow, adding the $1/3$ square, we can fit it in the L-shape (in the $1/2 \\times 1/2$ region). The smallest square is still $3/2$.\n\nAdding $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$, we can fit them in the top strip (using the \"rows\" approach). The smallest square is still $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm, let me reconsider whether the rows approach really works. I want to verify that the total height of the rows is $\\leq 1/2$.\n\nTotal height: $h_1 + h_2 + h_3 + \\ldots$ where $h_i$ is the height of row $i$.\n\n$h_1 = 1/4$ (height of the tallest square in row 1, which is $1/4$).\n$h_2 = 1/(m_1 + 1)$ (height of the tallest square in row 2, which is $1/(m_1+1)$).\n$h_3 = 1/(m_2 + 1)$.\n...\n\nWe have $m_i$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m_i} 1/n \\leq 3/2$, and $m_i$ is the largest such value.\n\nFor the harmonic series, $\\sum_{n=a}^{b} 1/n \\approx \\ln(b/a)$.\n\nSo $\\ln(m_i / m_{i-1}) \\approx 3/2$, giving $m_i \\approx 4.48 m_{i-1}$.\n\nSo $h_{i+1} = 1/(m_i + 1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1}) \\approx h_i / 4.48$.\n\nWait, $h_i = 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\approx 1/m_{i-1}$, and $h_{i+1} = 1/(m_i + 1) \\approx 1/m_i \\approx 1/(4.48 m_{i-1}) = h_i / 4.48$.\n\nSo the heights decrease by a factor of $4.48$ each row.\n\nTotal height: $h_1 + h_2 + h_3 + \\ldots = h_1 (1 + 1/4.48 + 1/4.48^2 + \\ldots) = h_1 \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = h_1 \\cdot 4.48/3.48 \\approx h_1 \\cdot 1.287$.\n\n$h_1 = 1/4 = 0.25$.\n\nTotal height $\\approx 0.25 \\cdot 1.287 = 0.322$.\n\nThis is less than $1/2 = 0.5$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works, and the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nSo the final answer is $S = 3/2$, or equivalently, the side length of the smallest containing square is $3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I should also verify that the rows are \"compatible\", i.e., they don't overlap with each other or with the unit square / $1/2$ square.\n\nUnit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n$1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n$1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\nRow 1: $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. So row 1 is in $[0, 1.485] \\times [1, 1.25]$.\n\nWait, row 1 has the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ with bottoms at $y = 1$. So row 1 is in $[0, H_{15} - H_3] \\times [1, 5/4]$. The right edge is at $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485$, which is less than $3/2 = 1.5$. So row 1 is within the top strip.\n\nRow 2 is in $[0, H_{m_2} - H_{m_1}] \\times [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. The right edge is at $H_{m_2} - H_{m_1} \\leq 3/2$. The top is at $5/4 + 1/16 = 21/16 = 1.3125 < 3/2 = 1.5$. So row 2 is within the top strip.\n\nAnd so on.\n\nThe rows don't overlap with each other (they're at different $y$-levels), and they're within the top strip ($y \\in [1, 3/2]$, $x \\in [0, 3/2]$). The rows are also disjoint from the unit square (which is at $y \\in [0, 1]$) and the $1/2$ square (at $y \\in [0, 1/2]$).\n\nWait, the $1/2$ square is at $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$, and the $1/3$ square is at $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$. The row 1 starts at $y = 1$, so it's above the $1/3$ square. ✓\n\nThe rows are in $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$. They're disjoint from the unit square, $1/2$ square, and $1/3$ square. ✓\n\nSo the construction is valid.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK I'm confident the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, hmm, let me reconsider this once more. The problem is asking for the smallest $S$, and I've shown $S = 3/2$ is achievable and is a lower bound. So the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nBut wait, I should double check the lower bound. The lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$ because the unit square has side 1 and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and they can't both fit in a square of side $< 3/2$.\n\nThe argument: If the unit square is placed in the containing square, the $1/2$ square must be placed in the L-shape around it. The L-shape has arms of width $\\leq S - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in an arm, the arm width must be $\\geq 1/2$. So $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWait, I need to be more careful. The L-shape has arms of width $S - 1$ only if the unit square is in a corner. If the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has more arms but each is narrower.\n\nBut in any case, the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$, and the L-shape has total area $S^2 - 1$. For the $1/2$ square to fit in the L-shape, we need a region of size $\\geq 1/2 \\times 1/2$ in the L-shape.\n\nHmm, the L-shape can be split into four rectangles (if the unit square is in the middle): left, right, top, bottom. Each has width $S - 1$ (approximately) and length $\\leq 1$.\n\nWait, if the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has four arms. The left arm is $[0, a] \\times [b, b+1]$ where the unit square is at $(a, b)$ to $(a+1, b+1)$. So the left arm has width $a$ and height $1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the left arm, $a \\geq 1/2$ and $1 \\geq 1/2$. So $a \\geq 1/2$.\n\nSimilarly, the right arm has width $S - a - 1$, and we need $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nFor both $a \\geq 1/2$ and $a \\leq S - 3/2$ to hold, we need $1/2 \\leq S - 3/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 2$.\n\nHmm wait, this is a stronger constraint.\n\nLet me re-examine. If the unit square is in the middle, the L-shape has four arms, and the $1/2$ square fits in one of them only if the arm is wide enough.\n\nLeft arm: width $a$, height 1. For $1/2$ square: $a \\geq 1/2$.\nRight arm: width $S - a - 1$, height 1. For $1/2$ square: $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\nBottom arm: width $S$, height $b$. For $1/2$ square: $b \\geq 1/2$.\nTop arm: width $S$, height $S - b - 1$. For $1/2$ square: $S - b - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf we want the $1/2$ square to fit in one of the arms, we need at least one of: $a \\geq 1/2$, $a \\leq S - 3/2$, $b \\geq 1/2$, $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf $S < 2$, then $S - 3/2 < 1/2$. So $a \\leq S - 3/2 < 1/2$ and $b \\leq S - 3/2 < 1/2$. Combined with $a, b \\geq 0$ (the unit square is in the square), we have $a < 1/2$ and $b < 1/2$, $a \\leq S - 3/2$ and $b \\leq S - 3/2$. \n\nSo neither $a \\geq 1/2$ nor $b \\geq 1/2$, and neither $a \\leq S - 3/2$ nor $b \\leq S - 3/2$ requires special conditions (they're automatically satisfied).\n\nWait, I think I confused myself. Let me redo this.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the left arm, we need $a \\geq 1/2$ (left arm width is $a$).\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm, we need $S - a - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $a \\leq S - 3/2$.\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the bottom arm, we need $b \\geq 1/2$ (bottom arm height is $b$).\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the top arm, we need $S - b - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $b \\leq S - 3/2$.\n\nIf the unit square is in the corner, say $a = 0, b = 0$ (bottom-left), then the left and bottom arms have width/height 0, and the right and top arms have width/height $S - 1$.\n\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the right arm: $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\nFor the $1/2$ square to fit in the top arm: $S - 1 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nSo with the unit square in a corner, $S \\geq 3/2$ is needed.\n\nWhat if the unit square is in the middle? Say $a = 0.2, b = 0.2$ in a $S \\times S$ square.\n\nLeft arm: $0.2 \\times 1$. Width 0.2, can't fit $1/2$ square.\nRight arm: $(S - 1.2) \\times 1$. For $1/2$ square: $S - 1.2 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 1.7$.\nBottom arm: $S \\times 0.2$. Height 0.2, can't fit $1/2$ square.\nTop arm: $S \\times (S - 1.2)$. For $1/2$ square: $S - 1.2 \\geq 1/2$, i.e., $S \\geq 1.7$.\n\nSo with the unit square at $(0.2, 0.2)$, $S \\geq 1.7$ is needed.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at the very corner, $a = 0, b = 0$? Then $S \\geq 3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nSo the corner placement is optimal, giving $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWhat if the unit square is at $a = 0, b = 0$ (corner), but the $1/2$ square is in the \"interior\" of the L-shape, e.g., at $[1, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ (the corner of the L-shape opposite the unit square)?\n\nFor this, $S \\geq 3/2$. Same as before.\n\nSo the lower bound is $S \\geq 3/2$, achieved with the unit square in a corner and the $1/2$ square adjacent.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm, wait, I realize that in my \"middle\" placement analysis, I got $S \\geq 1.7$, which is larger than $3/2$. So the corner placement is indeed better.\n\nThe minimum is achieved with the unit square in a corner, giving $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK so I'm confident: the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm let me reconsider this problem one more time to make sure I understand correctly.\n\nThe problem: Find the smallest square such that we can place infinitely many squares of sides $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ inside it, with no two squares having common interior points.\n\nSolution: The smallest square has side length $3/2$.\n\nLower bound: The unit square and the $1/2$ square together require a square of side at least $3/2$. (The unit square has side 1, and the $1/2$ square, placed adjacent to the unit square, requires an additional $1/2$ of length, totaling $3/2$.)\n\nUpper bound (construction): Place the unit square in the bottom-left corner of a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square. Place the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right corner of the L-shape (i.e., $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$). Place the $1/3$ square in $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$. Place the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ using a \"rows\" arrangement. The rows fit within the strip.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, I realize I want to be a bit more careful about the rows. The squares in a row have their bottoms aligned, but they have different heights. The \"row\" occupies a region $y \\in [y_0, y_0 + h]$ where $h$ is the height of the tallest square in the row.\n\nFor row 1 in the top strip, the squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$ have heights $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/m_1$. The tallest is $1/4$, so the row's height is $1/4$ and it occupies $y \\in [1, 5/4]$.\n\nWait, but the squares in the row have different heights. The shortest square (height $1/m_1$) only goes up to $y = 1 + 1/m_1$. The tallest (height $1/4$) goes up to $y = 5/4$.\n\nSo the row \"occupies\" the region $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, but not all of it is filled with squares. There's wasted space above the shorter squares.\n\nFor row 2 to start at $y = 5/4$ (just above row 1), it uses the space above row 1.\n\nBut wait, row 2's squares are at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + h_2]$ where $h_2$ is the height of the tallest in row 2, which is $1/(m_1+1)$.\n\nHmm, the squares in row 2 have heights $\\leq 1/(m_1+1)$, so they fit in $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/(m_1+1)]$.\n\nThe total height used is $1/4 + 1/(m_1+1) + 1/(m_2+1) + \\ldots$. And this is $\\leq 1/2$ as I calculated.\n\nSo the construction is valid, and the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nLet me re-examine the question once more: \"Encontrar el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nTranslation: Find the smallest square in which all the infinite squares of side lengths $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ can be placed such that no two of them have common interior points.\n\nAnswer: The smallest square has side length $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I want to verify this with another construction approach. \n\nAlternative construction: \n\nConsider a square of side $3/2$. We'll pack the squares as follows:\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4$ square: $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. Wait, $1/4 = 3/12$, and $5/6 = 10/12$. So $5/6 + 1/4 = 10/12 + 3/12 = 13/12$. So the $1/4$ square is at $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$.\n\nHmm, this is the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=5/4$ (width $1/4$), with squares stacked vertically.\n\nAfter $1/3, 1/4$, the right strip from $x=1$ to $x=5/4$ is filled up to $y = 13/12$.\n\nWhat about the region $x \\in [5/4, 3/2]$, $y \\in [1/2, 13/12]$? This is a $1/4 \\times 7/12$ rectangle.\n\nAnd the region $x \\in [1, 5/4]$, $y \\in [13/12, 3/2]$? This is a $1/4 \\times 5/12$ rectangle.\n\nHmm, this is getting complex.\n\nLet me try yet another construction: use the rows approach for the top strip, and the right strip for the larger remaining squares.\n\nConstruction (refined):\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4$ square: $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6 + 1/4] = [4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 13/12]$? Wait, $5/6 + 1/4 = 10/12 + 3/12 = 13/12$. So the $1/4$ square is at $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. But then the $1/4$ square's bottom is at $5/6$, not at $1/2$.\n\nHmm, this isn't aligning with the previous squares. Let me re-think.\n\nAlternative: place the $1/4$ square in the region $[1, 5/4] \\times [5/6, 13/12]$. This is the right strip continuing from the $1/3$ square.\n\nBut then the region $[5/4, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$ is unused. We can place the $1/5$ square there: $[5/4, 5/4 + 1/5] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/5] = [5/4, 29/20] \\times [1/2, 7/10]$.\n\nAnd the $1/6$ square: $[29/20, 29/20 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/6] = [29/20, 77/60] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$. Wait, $1/2 + 1/6 = 4/12 = 1/3$? No, $1/2 + 1/6 = 3/6 + 1/6 = 4/6 = 2/3$. So the $1/6$ square is at $[29/20, 29/20 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$. And $29/20 + 1/6 = 87/60 + 10/60 = 97/60$. Hmm, $97/60 > 3/2 = 90/60$. So the $1/6$ square doesn't fit.\n\nSo this approach doesn't work directly.\n\nLet me think about this differently. The key issue is that the right strip $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$ has width $1/2$ and height $1$, and we're trying to fit the $1/2, 1/3, 1/4, \\ldots$ squares (after the unit square) in it.\n\nBut the total area of these squares is $\\pi^2/6 - 1 \\approx 0.645$, and the strip has area $0.5$. So area-wise, we can't fit them all in the strip!\n\nWait, that's a problem. The strip $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1]$ has area $1/2$, but the remaining squares have total area $\\approx 0.645$. So we can't fit them all in the strip.\n\nThis means my \"rows\" approach is essential: we use both the right strip and the top strip.\n\nOK so the construction is:\n- Unit square in the bottom-left corner: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square in the bottom-right of the L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square in the top-right of the L-shape (above the $1/2$ square): $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, using the rows approach.\n\nBut wait, the $1/3$ square is in the right strip (above the $1/2$ square), not in the top strip. Let me re-examine.\n\n$[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$: This is in the region $x \\in [1, 4/3], y \\in [1/2, 5/6]$. This is the right strip from $x = 1$ to $x = 3/2$ and $y = 1/2$ to $y = 1$. The $1/3$ square uses a portion of this.\n\nActually, the $1/3$ square is in the region $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$, which is a $1/3 \\times 1/3$ square in the right strip (above the $1/2$ square).\n\nThe remaining region of the right strip (above the $1/2$ square) is $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$, which is a $1/6 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nAnd the top strip is $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$, which is a $3/2 \\times 1/2$ rectangle.\n\nThe remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ need to fit in $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1] \\cup [0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nHmm, this is two disjoint regions.\n\nAlternatively, the rows approach places $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip only, and leaves the small region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ unused (or used for smaller squares).\n\nActually, in the rows approach, the first row (containing $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$) is in the top strip, $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. The widths add up to $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. The squares are at $x \\in [0, 1.485]$, which doesn't overlap with the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (which is at $x \\in [4/3, 3/2] \\approx [1.333, 1.5]$).\n\nHmm wait, the rows approach has the squares in row 1 at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, which is above the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ (at $y \\in [1/2, 1]$). So no overlap.\n\nBut the rows approach doesn't use the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$. Can we fit some squares there?\n\nThe region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 1]$ has dimensions $1/6 \\times 1/2$. The largest square that fits has side $1/6$. So we can fit a $1/6$ square there. But $1/6$ is in our list of squares (the $1/6$ square). So we can place the $1/6$ square at $[4/3, 4/3 + 1/6] \\times [1/2, 1/2 + 1/6] = [4/3, 3/2] \\times [1/2, 2/3]$.\n\nThen the region $[4/3, 3/2] \\times [2/3, 1]$ is unused (dimensions $1/6 \\times 1/3$).\n\nHmm, this doesn't help much. Let me just go with the rows approach.\n\nOK so the final construction is:\n- Unit square: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $1/2$ square: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\n- $1/3$ square: $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n- Rows approach for $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$.\n\nThe rows approach:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$, total width $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$, total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n- ...\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\leq 0.322 < 1/2$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works for $S = 3/2$.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nOK I'm confident. The answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I realize I should also double check the lower bound once more. The lower bound argument relies on the fact that the unit square and the $1/2$ square together require a square of side $\\geq 3/2$. Let me verify this rigorously.\n\nClaim: If two squares of sides $1$ and $1/2$ are packed in a larger square of side $S$ (with disjoint interiors), then $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nProof: The unit square has side 1. The $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. Suppose they are packed in a square of side $S$ with $S < 3/2$. We'll derive a contradiction.\n\nThe unit square, when placed in the $S \\times S$ square, has its left edge at $x_1$ and right edge at $x_1 + 1$ for some $0 \\leq x_1 \\leq S - 1$. Similarly, the bottom edge at $y_1$ and top edge at $y_1 + 1$ for some $0 \\leq y_1 \\leq S - 1$.\n\nThe $1/2$ square has its left edge at $x_2$, right edge at $x_2 + 1/2$, bottom at $y_2$, top at $y_2 + 1/2$, with $0 \\leq x_2, y_2$ and $x_2 + 1/2, y_2 + 1/2 \\leq S$.\n\nFor the squares to have disjoint interiors, they don't overlap. There are several cases:\n\nCase 1: $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq x_1$ (the $1/2$ square is to the left of the unit square). Then $1/2 \\leq x_1 - x_2 \\leq x_1 \\leq S - 1$, so $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nWait, that's $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq x_1$, so $1/2 \\leq x_1 - x_2$, and $x_2 \\geq 0$, so $1/2 \\leq x_1$. And $x_1 + 1 \\leq S$, so $S \\geq x_1 + 1 \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 2: $x_1 + 1 \\leq x_2$ (the $1/2$ square is to the right). Then $1 \\leq x_2 - x_1$, and $x_2 + 1/2 \\leq S$, so $S \\geq x_2 + 1/2 \\geq x_1 + 1 + 1/2 = x_1 + 3/2 \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 3: $y_2 + 1/2 \\leq y_1$ (the $1/2$ square is below). By symmetry, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 4: $y_1 + 1 \\leq y_2$ (the $1/2$ square is above). By symmetry, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nCase 5: None of the above. Then the squares are not separated horizontally or vertically, so they must overlap. But they have disjoint interiors, so this is a contradiction.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThis confirms the lower bound.\n\nTherefore, the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nWait, in case 5, \"none of the above\" means $x_2 + 1/2 > x_1$ AND $x_1 + 1 > x_2$ AND $y_2 + 1/2 > y_1$ AND $y_1 + 1 > y_2$.\n\n$x_2 + 1/2 > x_1$ means the $1/2$ square's right edge is to the right of the unit square's left edge: $x_2 > x_1 - 1/2$.\n$x_1 + 1 > x_2$ means the unit square's right edge is to the right of the $1/2$ square's left edge: $x_2 < x_1 + 1$.\n\nSo $x_1 - 1/2 < x_2 < x_1 + 1$, which is a range of width $3/2$.\n\nSimilarly, $y_1 - 1/2 < y_2 < y_1 + 1$.\n\nHmm, this doesn't immediately mean overlap. Let me think.\n\nIf the squares are axis-aligned, they overlap iff their projections on both axes overlap.\n\nProjection on $x$-axis: unit square is $[x_1, x_1+1]$, $1/2$ square is $[x_2, x_2+1/2]$. They overlap iff $x_1 < x_2 + 1/2$ AND $x_2 < x_1 + 1$.\n\nProjection on $y$-axis: similar.\n\nSo they overlap iff both projections overlap. \"None of the above\" means both projections overlap, so the squares overlap. Contradiction.\n\nSo in all cases, $S \\geq 3/2$. ✓\n\nOK so the lower bound is rigorously $3/2$, and the construction achieves it. The answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nActually, I realize I should double check Case 5 more carefully. \"None of the above\" means none of the 4 cases (squares are separated horizontally or vertically) hold. This means both projections overlap, which means the squares overlap. Since the squares have disjoint interiors, this is a contradiction.\n\nSo Case 5 is impossible, and we're always in one of Cases 1-4, each giving $S \\geq 3/2$.\n\nGreat, the lower bound is rigorously $3/2$.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nHmm wait, I realize I should also sanity check this answer with a different lower bound. The total area of the squares is $\\pi^2/6 \\approx 1.645$. The area of a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square is $9/4 = 2.25$. So the area bound is $S \\geq \\sqrt{1.645} \\approx 1.28$, which is less than $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nThe geometric bound (from the unit and $1/2$ squares) is $3/2 = 1.5$.\n\nThese two bounds are consistent: the geometric bound is the binding one.\n\nSo the answer is $S = 3/2$.\n\nI'm confident. The answer is $\\boxed{3/2}$.\n\nWait, I realize the problem might have a different answer if I'm missing something. Let me re-read the problem.\n\n\" Encontrar el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos los infinitos cuadrados de lado de longitud $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ de tal modo que ningún par de ellos tenga puntos interiores comunes.\"\n\nTranslation: Find the smallest square in which all the infinite squares of side lengths $1, \\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots$ can be placed such that no pair of them has common interior points.\n\nYes, this is what I solved. The answer is $3/2$.\n\nSo the side length of the smallest containing square is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLet me present the solution clearly.\n\nSolution:\n\nThe smallest square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLower bound: The two largest squares (sides 1 and $1/2$) must be packed into the containing square. The unit square has side 1, and the $1/2$ square has side $1/2$. If they are placed in the containing square with disjoint interiors, then either they are separated horizontally (in which case the containing square has side $\\geq 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$) or vertically (same conclusion). Therefore, the containing square has side $\\geq 3/2$.\n\nUpper bound (construction): We show that a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square suffices. \n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner: $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\nPlace the $1/2$ square in the bottom-right of the L-shape: $[1, 3/2] \\times [0, 1/2]$.\nPlace the $1/3$ square in the top-right of the L-shape (above the $1/2$ square): $[1, 4/3] \\times [1/2, 5/6]$.\n\nFor the remaining squares $1/4, 1/5, 1/6, \\ldots$, place them in the top strip $[0, 3/2] \\times [1, 3/2]$ using a \"rows\" arrangement. In each row, place the squares side by side with their bottoms aligned. The rows are stacked vertically.\n\nSpecifically:\n- Row 1: $1/4, 1/5, \\ldots, 1/15$ at $y \\in [1, 5/4]$. Total width $\\approx 1.485 < 3/2$. ✓\n- Row 2: $1/16, 1/17, \\ldots, 1/m_2$ at $y \\in [5/4, 5/4 + 1/16]$. Total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n- Row $i$: Squares $1/(m_{i-1}+1), \\ldots, 1/m_i$ at $y \\in [y_{i-1}, y_{i-1} + 1/(m_{i-1}+1)]$. Total width $\\leq 3/2$. ✓\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_i 1/(m_{i-1}+1) \\leq 0.322 < 1/2$. ✓\n\n(Here $m_i$ is the largest $m$ such that $\\sum_{n=m_{i-1}+1}^{m} 1/n \\leq 3/2$, with $m_0 = 3$.)\n\nSo all squares are packed in a $3/2 \\times 3/2$ square.\n\nTherefore, the smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm, I realize that I should present the construction more carefully. Let me redo it.\n\nConstruction:\n\nWe'll pack the squares into a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square as follows.\n\n1. Unit square (side 1): Place at the bottom-left corner, $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n\n2. $\\frac{1}{2}$ square: Place adjacent to the unit square, $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n\n3. $\\frac{1}{3}$ square: Place above the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square, $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n\n4. Remaining squares $\\frac{1}{n}$ for $n \\geq 4$: Place in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$ using a recursive \"rows\" arrangement.\n\nFor the \"rows\" arrangement in the top strip (which is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $\\frac{1}{2}$ tall):\n\n- Row 1: Place $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1$, where $N_1$ is the largest integer such that $\\sum_{n=4}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. We have $N_1 = 15$ (since $H_{15} - H_3 \\approx 1.485 \\leq 1.5$ and $H_{16} - H_3 \\approx 1.548 > 1.5$). The height of row 1 is $\\frac{1}{4}$.\n\n- Row 2: Place $\\frac{1}{N_1 + 1}, \\frac{1}{N_1 + 2}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1 + \\frac{1}{4} = \\frac{5}{4}$, where $N_2$ is the largest integer such that $\\sum_{n=N_1+1}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. The height of row 2 is $\\frac{1}{N_1+1} = \\frac{1}{16}$.\n\n- Row $k$ ($k \\geq 1$): Place $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}, \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+2}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_k}$ side by side with their bottoms at $y = 1 + \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} \\frac{1}{N_{j-1}+1}$. The height of row $k$ is $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$.\n\nThe total height of all rows is $\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1} = \\sum_{j=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_j+1}$, where $N_0 = 3$.\n\nWe claim this sum is $\\leq \\frac{1}{2}$. \n\nTo see this, observe that $N_j$ is defined so that $H_{N_j} - H_{N_{j-1}} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. Approximately, $H_{N_j} - H_{N_{j-1}} \\approx \\ln(N_j / N_{j-1})$, so $N_j / N_{j-1} \\approx e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$. Thus $N_j \\approx 4.48^j \\cdot 3$, and $\\frac{1}{N_j+1} \\approx \\frac{1}{3 \\cdot 4.48^j}$.\n\n$\\sum_{j=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{3 \\cdot 4.48^j} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{4.48}{3.48} \\approx 0.429 < \\frac{1}{2}$.\n\nSo the total height of the rows is at most $0.429 < 0.5$, and the rows fit in the top strip of height $\\frac{1}{2}$. ✓\n\nTherefore, all squares $\\frac{1}{n}$ for $n \\geq 1$ are packed in a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square.\n\nConclusion: The smallest containing square has side length $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nSo my final answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nOh wait, I realize I might be overcomplicating things. Let me see if there's a cleaner construction.\n\nCleaner construction:\n\nConsider a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square. We'll place the squares as follows.\n\n- Place the unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- Place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- Place the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square at $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n\nNow, the remaining region is:\n- $[0, 1] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$: a $1 \\times \\frac{1}{2}$ rectangle (top-left of the L-shape).\n- $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{5}{6}, 1]$: a $\\frac{1}{2} \\times \\frac{1}{6}$ rectangle (above the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square).\n- $[\\frac{4}{3}, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$: a $\\frac{1}{6} \\times \\frac{1}{3}$ rectangle (right of the $\\frac{1}{3}$ square).\n\nWe need to place $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots$ in these regions (or in any available space in the $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square, as long as they don't overlap with the unit, $\\frac{1}{2}$, or $\\frac{1}{3}$ squares).\n\nHmm, the regions are a bit awkward. Let me think of a different approach.\n\nRecursive approach: \n- Use the right strip $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$ to place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square.\n- Use the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$ to place the remaining squares (i.e., $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$).\n\nWait, this is a different decomposition. The $\\frac{1}{2}$ square is in the right strip, and the remaining squares are in the top strip (of dimensions $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$).\n\nBut the top strip has area $\\frac{3}{2}$, and the remaining squares have total area $\\pi^2/6 - \\frac{1}{4} \\approx 1.645 - 0.25 = 1.395$. So area-wise, it fits.\n\nBut can we arrange them?\n\nHmm, the top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$, and we need to place $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ in it.\n\nThe $\\frac{1}{3}$ square has side $\\frac{1}{3} < 1$, so it fits in the strip (height-wise).\n\nIf we place the squares in a single row at the bottom of the strip, the total width is $\\sum_{n=3}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} = \\infty$. So we can't do a single row.\n\nWe can use a \"rows\" approach within the strip. The strip is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $1$ tall.\n\nRow 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3}]$. $N_1$ is the largest $N$ such that $\\sum_{n=3}^{N} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. $H_{N_1} - H_2 \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 2$. $H_6 \\approx 1.45 + 1/6 \\approx 1.617$, wait, let me recompute. $H_2 = 1.5$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 1.5 + 1.5 = 3$. $H_7 \\approx 2.593$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$ or so.\n\nHmm wait, $H_2 = 1 + 1/2 = 3/2$. And we want $H_{N_1} - 3/2 \\leq 3/2$, i.e., $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_{10} \\approx 2.929$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$.\n\nRow 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{10}$, total width $H_{10} - H_2 \\approx 2.929 - 1.5 = 1.429 \\leq 1.5$. ✓\n\nHeight of row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}$.\n\nRow 2: $\\frac{1}{11}, \\frac{1}{12}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11}]$. $N_2$ is the largest $N$ such that $H_N - H_{10} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. $H_{83} \\approx 4.829$, $H_{77} \\approx 4.787$, $H_{68} \\approx 4.745$, $H_{60} \\approx 4.677$, $H_{55} \\approx 4.621$, $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$. So $N_2 = 50$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 2: $\\frac{1}{11}$.\n\nRow 3: $\\frac{1}{51}, \\frac{1}{52}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_3}$ at $y \\in [\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11}, \\ldots]$. $N_3$ is the largest $N$ such that $H_N - H_{50} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_3} \\leq 4.499 + 1.5 = 5.999$. $H_{N_3} = 6$ corresponds to $N_3 \\approx 226$ or so.\n\nHeight of row 3: $\\frac{1}{51}$.\n\nTotal height: $\\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{51} + \\ldots \\leq \\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{11 \\cdot 4.5} + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.091 + 0.020 + \\ldots \\approx 0.45$.\n\nWe need this to be $\\leq 1$ (the height of the top strip). $0.45 < 1$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works! And it's cleaner: we just put the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square in the right strip and the rest in the top strip using a \"rows\" approach.\n\nSo the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I realize I had a similar construction earlier but with a smaller top strip. Let me re-examine.\n\nIn my earlier construction:\n- Unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{3}$ square at $[1, \\frac{4}{3}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{5}{6}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{4}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [1, \\frac{3}{2}]$.\n\nThe top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{1}{2}$.\n\nIn the new construction:\n- Unit square at $[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{2}$ square at $[1, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [0, \\frac{1}{2}]$.\n- $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ in the top strip $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$.\n\nThe top strip is $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$.\n\nThe new construction is cleaner: we have one big top strip and put all the remaining squares there using the \"rows\" approach.\n\nBoth constructions work, but the new one is simpler.\n\nOK so the final answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm, let me also verify that the new construction's top strip has enough height for the rows.\n\nTop strip: $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$. The unit square uses up the bottom part ($[0, 1] \\times [0, 1]$), but the top strip starts at $y = \\frac{1}{2}$ (above the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square's top at $y = \\frac{1}{2}$).\n\nWait, in the new construction, the top strip is $[0, \\frac{3}{2}] \\times [\\frac{1}{2}, \\frac{3}{2}]$, which is $\\frac{3}{2}$ wide and $1$ tall.\n\nThe rows in the top strip have total height $\\approx 0.45$, which is less than $1$. ✓\n\nSo the construction works, and the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nAlright, I'm confident. The final answer is $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nWait, I want to double check this. Let me reconsider the problem.\n\nProblem: Find the smallest square that can contain all squares of side $1, 1/2, 1/3, \\ldots$ with no two squares having interior points in common.\n\nSolution: The smallest square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nLower bound: The unit square and $\\frac{1}{2}$ square together require a square of side $\\geq \\frac{3}{2}$. (Reason: the unit square has side 1, and the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square, placed adjacent, requires an additional $\\frac{1}{2}$.)\n\nUpper bound (construction): We pack all squares into a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times \\frac{3}{2}$ square as follows.\n\nPlace the unit square in the bottom-left corner. Place the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square to the right of the unit square. The remaining area is the L-shape (top + right).\n\nUse the top strip of the L-shape (a $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$ rectangle) to place the remaining squares $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots$ using a \"rows\" approach.\n\nIn the \"rows\" approach, we place the squares in horizontal rows, with each row's squares side by side and the rows stacked vertically. The width of each row is bounded by $\\frac{3}{2}$, and the total height of all rows is bounded by the height of the top strip.\n\nSpecifically, the total height is $\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$, where $N_k$ is the largest $N$ such that the cumulative width $\\sum_{n=N_{k-1}+1}^{N} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$. This sum is bounded by $\\frac{1}{2}$ (or some specific value less than $1$), so the rows fit in the top strip.\n\nTherefore, the smallest containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nOK so the answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nHmm wait, let me reconsider whether the \"rows\" approach really works with the height bound.\n\nTop strip: $\\frac{3}{2} \\times 1$.\n\nRows approach:\n- Row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\frac{1}{4}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_1}$, with $N_1$ such that $\\sum_{n=3}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n- Row 2: $\\frac{1}{N_1+1}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{N_2}$, with $N_2$ such that $\\sum_{n=N_1+1}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$.\n- ...\n\nHeights: row $k$ has height $\\frac{1}{N_{k-1}+1}$.\n\n$N_0 = 2$ (we start from $\\frac{1}{3}$).\n\n$N_1$: $\\sum_{n=3}^{N_1} \\frac{1}{n} = H_{N_1} - H_2 \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_2 = 1.5$, $H_{10} \\approx 2.929$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020$. So $N_1 = 10$. Row 1 height: $\\frac{1}{3}$.\n\n$N_2$: $\\sum_{n=11}^{N_2} \\frac{1}{n} = H_{N_2} - H_{10} \\leq \\frac{3}{2}$, so $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$, $H_{49} \\approx 4.589$, $H_{40} \\approx 4.279$. Hmm, let me recompute. \n\nActually, I realize I should look up or compute these values more carefully.\n\n$H_1 = 1$\n$H_2 = 1.5$\n$H_3 \\approx 1.833$\n$H_4 \\approx 2.083$\n$H_5 \\approx 2.283$\n$H_6 \\approx 2.45$\n$H_7 \\approx 2.593$\n$H_8 \\approx 2.718$\n$H_9 \\approx 2.829$\n$H_{10} \\approx 2.929$\n$H_{11} \\approx 3.020$\n$H_{12} \\approx 3.103$\n$H_{13} \\approx 3.180$\n$H_{14} \\approx 3.251$\n$H_{15} \\approx 3.318$\n$H_{16} \\approx 3.381$\n$H_{17} \\approx 3.440$\n$H_{18} \\approx 3.495$\n$H_{19} \\approx 3.548$\n$H_{20} \\approx 3.598$\n\nOK so for $N_1$: $H_{N_1} \\leq 3$. $H_{10} \\approx 2.929 < 3$, $H_{11} \\approx 3.020 > 3$. So $N_1 = 10$. Row 1: $\\frac{1}{3}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{10}$.\n\nFor $N_2$: $H_{N_2} \\leq 2.929 + 1.5 = 4.429$. We need $H_{N_2} \\leq 4.429$.\n\n$H_{50} \\approx ?$. Using $\\ln(50) + \\gamma + \\frac{1}{2 \\cdot 50} \\approx 3.912 + 0.577 + 0.01 = 4.499$. So $H_{50} \\approx 4.499$.\n\n$H_{40} \\approx \\ln(40) + 0.577 \\approx 3.689 + 0.577 = 4.266$.\n\nSo $N_2 \\approx 50$ or so. Specifically, we want $H_{N_2} \\leq 4.429$, so $N_2 \\approx 50$.\n\nHmm, but the exact value depends on the precise harmonic numbers. Let me just take $N_2 = 50$ as an approximation.\n\nRow 2: $\\frac{1}{11}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{50}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{11}$.\n\nFor $N_3$: $H_{N_3} \\leq 4.499 + 1.5 = 5.999$. $H_{300} \\approx \\ln(300) + 0.577 \\approx 5.704 + 0.577 = 6.281$. $H_{200} \\approx 5.298 + 0.577 = 5.875$. $H_{220} \\approx 5.394 + 0.577 = 5.971$. So $N_3 \\approx 220$.\n\nRow 3: $\\frac{1}{51}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{220}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{51}$.\n\nFor $N_4$: $H_{N_4} \\leq 5.999 + 1.5 = 7.499$. $H_{1800} \\approx 7.499$. So $N_4 \\approx 1800$.\n\nRow 4: $\\frac{1}{221}, \\ldots, \\frac{1}{1800}$. Height: $\\frac{1}{221}$.\n\nTotal height: $\\frac{1}{3} + \\frac{1}{11} + \\frac{1}{51} + \\frac{1}{221} + \\ldots \\approx 0.333 + 0.091 + 0.0196 + 0.0045 + \\ldots \\approx 0.448$.\n\nThe top strip has height $1$, so we have $1 - 0.448 = 0.552$ of slack. ✓\n\nSo the rows fit in the top strip.\n\nTherefore, the construction works, and the smallest containing square has side $\\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nFinal answer: $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, I realize I should double check by computing the cumulative sum more carefully.\n\n$\\frac{1}{3} = 0.3333$\n$\\frac{1}{11} = 0.0909$\n$\\frac{1}{51} = 0.0196$\n$\\frac{1}{221} = 0.00452$\n$\\frac{1}{?} = ?$ (next row)\n\nThe next row has height $\\frac{1}{N_3+1} = \\frac{1}{221}$. And the next-next has height $\\frac{1}{N_4+1} = \\frac{1}{1801} \\approx 0.000555$.\n\nSo the total is approximately $0.333 + 0.091 + 0.0196 + 0.00452 + 0.000555 + \\ldots$\n\nThe series is dominated by the first term, and the tail is small. Let me estimate: $0.333 \\cdot (1 + 1/3.6 + 1/3.6^2 + \\ldots) = 0.333 / (1 - 1/3.6) = 0.333 \\cdot 1.385 = 0.461$. (The factor $1/3.6$ comes from $N_1 = 10$ vs $N_0 = 2$, ratio $\\approx 5$; and $N_2 = 50$ vs $N_1 = 10$, ratio $5$; and $N_3 = 220$ vs $N_2 = 50$, ratio $4.4$; and $N_4 = 1800$ vs $N_3 = 220$, ratio $\\approx 8.2$. The ratios are around $4.5$.)\n\nActually, the ratios are approximately $e^{3/2} \\approx 4.48$.\n\nSo the series is approximately $\\frac{1}{3} (1 + 1/4.48 + 1/4.48^2 + \\ldots) = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot \\frac{1}{1 - 1/4.48} = \\frac{1}{3} \\cdot 1.287 = 0.429$.\n\nSo the total height is approximately $0.429 < 1$. ✓\n\nOK so the construction works. The answer is $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.\n\nActually, looking back at this problem, I realize that this is a classic problem, and the answer is indeed $\\frac{3}{2}$. The key insight is that the unit square and the $\\frac{1}{2}$ square together determine the lower bound, and the \"rows\" approach gives a matching upper bound.\n\nFinal answer: $S = \\frac{3}{2}$.","format":"unknown","index":0}]},"native_finish_reason":"stop"}],"created":1783513198,"model":"minimax/minimax-m3-20260531","object":"chat.completion","service_tier":null,"system_fingerprint":null,"usage":{"completion_tokens":45329,"prompt_tokens":241,"total_tokens":45570,"completion_tokens_details":{"accepted_prediction_tokens":null,"audio_tokens":0,"reasoning_tokens":31118,"rejected_prediction_tokens":null,"image_tokens":0},"prompt_tokens_details":{"audio_tokens":0,"cached_tokens":114,"cache_write_tokens":0,"video_tokens":0},"cost":0.05443974,"is_byok":false,"cost_details":{"upstream_inference_cost":0.05443974,"upstream_inference_prompt_cost":0.00004494,"upstream_inference_completions_cost":0.0543948}},"provider":"Minimax"}

Encontrar el menor cuadrado en el que puedan colocarse todos...