Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 25, 2015 at 1:58 vote accept Jacky
Aug 24, 2015 at 17:56 comment added Noam D. Elkies Each of those still has two parallel sides (this follows from D+E=180), so has a Type I tiling. I don't know whether your alternative tilings with these pentagons are known. That's a "Q2" matter not addressed by the Wikipedia page, though I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people working on "Q1" have also run across your pentagons that tile the plane by translates of a 4-tile region.
Aug 24, 2015 at 10:18 comment added Jacky Sorry for the bad notations... Do you think any of the two generalizations (below) is instance of a currently discovered type of convex pentagonal tiling?
Aug 24, 2015 at 4:25 comment added Noam D. Elkies Yes, the argument you give proves that your tiling is not the same as the generic Type 4 tiling. But unless you can generalize your pentagon to one that's not already known to tile the plane in some other way, it's only a "Q2" distinction.
Aug 24, 2015 at 4:09 comment added Jacky Thanks again Noam. Do you think there's fundamental difference between the pattern I posted and type 4 on Wikipedia (that in type 4, each side of all pentagons overlaps with one side of another pentagon, while in my pattern, there are occasions when a side of a pentagon overlaps with 2 shorter sides of 2 pentagons)?
Aug 24, 2015 at 4:00 comment added Noam D. Elkies Your tiling is "4-tile" (the pentagon appears in 4 orientations). But your pentagon also has the Type-1 tiling with a "2-tile lattice" that's shared by all convex pentagons with two parallel sides. It looks like this pentagon also fits into Type 4, giving yet another 4-tiling.
Aug 24, 2015 at 3:52 comment added Jacky Thanks for the answer. May I further enquire that is it a 2-tile lattice or a 4-tile lattice? If it's an example of a 4-tile lattice, can it belongs to type 1?
Aug 24, 2015 at 3:46 history answered Noam D. Elkies CC BY-SA 3.0