Skip to main content

Timeline for Klarner's theorem

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 14, 2018 at 18:03 comment added Per Alexandersson @AndreasThom: Right, each square must be covered, so one can recursively try to add a piece on the lex-smallest square. If no piece at all fit, then there is no need to continue - a human would stop there as well (I hope).
May 14, 2018 at 15:37 comment added Andreas Thom In your count you are missing (on purpose) the $6^{10}$ cases that are maximal too, but unreasonable because you leave holes in the pattern already during the process.
May 14, 2018 at 15:36 vote accept Andreas Thom
May 14, 2018 at 15:36 comment added Andreas Thom Ok, thank you. Then a reasonable trial-and-error can be done by checking $3086$ patterns. I count that as an answer to my question. If you need say $1$ minute to do one pattern by hand, then you need about $2$ days (and a good memory); so the abstract argument is worth it.
May 14, 2018 at 13:14 history edited Per Alexandersson CC BY-SA 4.0
added code
May 14, 2018 at 13:10 comment added Per Alexandersson @AndreasThom: One can of course just try all possible ways to add a piece, and then stop when it is not possible to add more. You can do a computer-program that count the number of such "dead-ends". I got it to 3086.
May 14, 2018 at 12:28 comment added Andreas Thom Thanks for your answer. I would expect it is less than $5 \cdot 10^8$. The only real flexibility arises when all tiles are parallel and you have $2$ in each column. There are six configurations of two tiles in a column, hence $6^{10}$ such patterns. This gives about $60$ million configurations and I do not think that there is more than $500$ million in total. However, all the ones I described are obviously not solving the puzzle -- so how many does one really have to check if one searches systematically?
May 12, 2018 at 14:25 history answered Per Alexandersson CC BY-SA 4.0