Qaanol wrote:Spoiler:

Why should this be true? You can't tile a square with disks (no disk, no matter how small, can ever cover a corner), so why should these rectangles be able to do the job?

**Moderators:** gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

- Torn Apart By Dingos
**Posts:**817**Joined:**Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:27 am UTC

Qaanol wrote:Spoiler:

Why should this be true? You can't tile a square with disks (no disk, no matter how small, can ever cover a corner), so why should these rectangles be able to do the job?

- Talith
- Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
**Posts:**848**Joined:**Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC**Location:**Manchester - UK

Let's take the rectangle 1.5*1.5. It's [imath]\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/imath]- improper. However, an infinite tiling of proper rectangles exists. First use the tile 1.5*1, then the tile 1.5*(3-2 sqrt{2}). etc... given a distance of x that we have left to cover on the horizontal edge, we can always find some m and n in the integers so that m+n sqrt{2} < x. Hence, we can find a cauchy sequence in the set of proper rectangles who's tiling tends to an improper rectangle by taking arbitrarily close appoximations of one of the edge lengths.

[Edit] I'm a little concerned that this doesn't work because we never actually cover the edge opposite the one we fully cover at the start of the tiling, we can cover an arbitrarily high fraction of the improper rectangle in terms of area, but the set {<1.5, x> |x \in [0,1.5]} can never be covered. If we work, instead, with open rectangles, we have the equally troubling problem of tiles always having a set that isn't covered at their meeting edges.[/edit]

[Edit] I'm a little concerned that this doesn't work because we never actually cover the edge opposite the one we fully cover at the start of the tiling, we can cover an arbitrarily high fraction of the improper rectangle in terms of area, but the set {<1.5, x> |x \in [0,1.5]} can never be covered. If we work, instead, with open rectangles, we have the equally troubling problem of tiles always having a set that isn't covered at their meeting edges.[/edit]

- Torn Apart By Dingos
**Posts:**817**Joined:**Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:27 am UTC

Alright, that (almost) works. I'd be interested in if an actual tiling can be made, but your construction works if we massage the definitions a little:

In my opinion, a tiling should be a partition of a set. So no overlapping of edges. Thus, we should ask if we can tile the "half-open" improper rectangle [0,1.5)*[0,1.5) with "half-open" proper rectangles (which contain their left and bottom sides, but not their top and right sides). Your construction does exactly this, with no gaps or overlapping.

In my opinion, a tiling should be a partition of a set. So no overlapping of edges. Thus, we should ask if we can tile the "half-open" improper rectangle [0,1.5)*[0,1.5) with "half-open" proper rectangles (which contain their left and bottom sides, but not their top and right sides). Your construction does exactly this, with no gaps or overlapping.

- Talith
- Proved the Goldbach Conjecture
**Posts:**848**Joined:**Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:28 am UTC**Location:**Manchester - UK

But the large rectangle that you've tiled is also semi-proper (in the the updated definition that aleph_one gave). Just to be clear, aleph_one's definition is that an m-by-n rectangle is semi-proper if either m, or n (or both) is of the form a+b*sqrt{2} where a and b are not both zero and are in the integers (ie, in [imath]\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/imath]).

Talith wrote:Let's take the rectangle 1.5*1.5. It's [imath]\mathbf{Z}[\sqrt{2}][/imath]- improper. However, an infinite tiling of proper rectangles exists. First use the tile 1.5*1, then the tile 1.5*(3-2 sqrt{2}). etc... given a distance of x that we have left to cover on the horizontal edge, we can always find some m and n in the integers so that m+n sqrt{2} < x. Hence, we can find a cauchy sequence in the set of proper rectangles who's tiling tends to an improper rectangle by taking arbitrarily close appoximations of one of the edge lengths.

[Edit] I'm a little concerned that this doesn't work because we never actually cover the edge opposite the one we fully cover at the start of the tiling, we can cover an arbitrarily high fraction of the improper rectangle in terms of area, but the set {<1.5, x> |x \in [0,1.5]} can never be covered. If we work, instead, with open rectangles, we have the equally troubling problem of tiles always having a set that isn't covered at their meeting edges.[/edit]

Start by tiling around the perimeter with, say, 1×0.5 closed rectangles. Now we have a square 0.5×0.5 hole in the center to fill. Then infinitely tile that, making sure the limit of small rectangles occurs at an edge (or corner) of the 0.5×0.5 square, meaning the original rectangles already cover the limit points.

wee free kings

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests