(Similar to the recent 3:1 and my 3:2 rectangle question)

Tile a square completely with rectangles which have aspect ratio 1:2, integral side lengths and all different sizes. In other words selected from 1x2, 2x4, 3x6 etc. Usual tiling rules apply: No gaps, no overlaps.

  1. Find the smallest area tiling.
  2. Find the smallest area tiling with with the fewest rectangles.

The answer to (1) is not the same as the answer to (2).

Tagged as no-computers, but probably should be tagged computer-puzzle as well. Also tagged as logical-deduction.

I found these by computer, but a Google search turned up a paper that answers both parts and proves (2) minimal.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't get it. What's stopping me from applying 2 of these rectangles in the same orientation to make a square? $\endgroup$ – tuskiomi Jan 13 '18 at 17:48
  • $\begingroup$ 'The 'all different size' part plus the bit I left out, 'excluding the trivial case"... I'll add it to the question. $\endgroup$ – theonetruepath Jan 13 '18 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ Scratch that.... you only need to exclude that trivial case when tiling rectangles with these... you can't make a square that way. So just the 'all different sizes' part is the answer to your question. $\endgroup$ – theonetruepath Jan 13 '18 at 19:51

Using the program from my previous answer, I found the following solution for part 1:


Size: 34; Rectangles: 10 (again)

The best I found for part 2 is so far:


Size: 36; Rectangles: 9

  • $\begingroup$ Coulda sworn I tagged it "no-computer", maybe someone edited it, I changed it...Ah it was me. Ah well. I should tag it both. $\endgroup$ – theonetruepath Jan 13 '18 at 9:50
  • $\begingroup$ Your part 2 is minimal, too. Here's the proof, by Jepsen: ac.els-cdn.com/0012365X9400267M/… $\endgroup$ – theonetruepath Jan 13 '18 at 9:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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