7

2

Given the $n\times m$ rectangle, I want to compute the minimum number of integer-sided squares needed to tile it (possibly of different sizes). Is there an efficient way to calculate this?

flag
Euclidean algorithm gives an upper bound quickly: for m < n, something like O(n/m + log m + m/gcd(n,m)). Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.11.02 – Gerhard Paseman Nov 2 2010 at 7:46
3 
 I can give an even quicker upper bound..$mn$. I guess a $5 \times 6$ rectangle shows that the greedy/Euclidean strategy does not always give the minimum. – Aaron Meyerowitz Nov 2 2010 at 7:49
Nice example, Aaron. Perhaps a dynamic programming approach would improve upon a greedy one? At least the greedy algorithm might help tune a branch-and-bound algorithm. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.11.02 – Gerhard Paseman Nov 2 2010 at 8:14
3 
 Tiling a rectangle with the fewest squares. Kenyon, Richard J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 76 (1996), no. 2, 272–291. ams.org/leavingmsn?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/… "We show that a square-tiling of a p×q rectangle, where p and q are relatively prime integers, has at least log 2p squares. If q>p we construct a square-tiling with less than q/p+Clogp squares of integer size, for some universal constant C.'' – Vagabond Nov 2 2010 at 9:03
3 
 Also see. Rectangles as sums of squares. Walters, Mark Discrete Math. 309 (2009), no. 9, 2913–2921.ams.org/leavingmsn?url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/… Where precisely this question is discussed and is ascribed to Laczkovich (i.e., the minimum number of squares needed to tile an integer sided rectangle ( the squares are not assumed to be integer sided though)). Of course you are asking for an efficient algorithm which is a different question ... Kenyon paper does discuss some algorithm(greedy) though. – Vagabond Nov 2 2010 at 9:18

Your Answer

Get an OpenID
or

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.