13
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Nov 2 '10 at 7:46
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Aaron Meyerowitz Nov 2 '10 at 7:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ 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/jcta.1996.0104 "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.'' $\endgroup$ – Vagabond Nov 2 '10 at 9:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Vagabond Nov 2 '10 at 9:18
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See also the question mathoverflow.net/q/116382/7252 which refers to this one. $\endgroup$ – András Salamon Sep 26 '13 at 15:29

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.