That's an interesting conjecture, Allan. http://i.imgur.com/ohYcGCy.jpg gives some cases where things get weird in rectangle dissections. In these, f(k,n) - f(k,n-2k) = 0. --Ed Pegg Jr On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:11 PM, Allan Wechsler <acwacw@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm reading the data I gave with very little trouble off that triangle, so I must have been too terse or garbled something I said. I will try again.
I conjecture (and think it must be easy to prove) that, for all positive k,
f(k,n) - f(k,n-k) = 1
for all n greater than some threshold that depends on k.
This threshold itself forms a sequence g(k), and I'm wondering: what is known about g?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:09 PM, Ed Pegg Jr <ed@mathpuzzle.com> wrote:
Dear Allan,
https://oeis.org/A219158 -- doesn't resemble your data.
Values are completely known to f(380,380), with http://int-e.eu/~bf3/squares/ giving a look-up function.
--Ed Pegg Jr
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Allan Wechsler <acwacw@gmail.com> wrote:
Ed, this must be old news. The number of squares required for an n-by-x rectangle, for a fixed n, regarded as a function of x, must eventually enter a pseudo-periodic regime, in which for all x > N, f(x+n) = f(x) +
Hence, if you know f(x) up through N, you know it for all x.
For n = 1, f(x) = x.
For n = 2, f(x) = 0,2, 1,3, 2,4 ...
For n = 3, I'm pretty sure f(x) = 0,3,3, 1,4,4, 2,5,5 ...
For what values of n is f(x) completely understood?
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Ed Pegg Jr <ed@mathpuzzle.com> wrote:
I've written this up at the following link. So far the sequence of inexplicably difficult rectangle edges is 180, 323, 352.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2354003/whats- special-about-323-and-squared-rectangles
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Ed Pegg Jr <ed@mathpuzzle.com> wrote:
The minimal number of squares for rectangles up to longest side 380 is known.
http://int-e.eu/~bf3/squares/view.html#319,323 needs a minimum of 18 squares.
f(323,319)=18, f(323,293)=17, f(323,317)=16, f(323,283)=16, f(323,281)=16,
Those are all of the cases up to larger side 380 that need more than 15 squares if the aspect ratio is less than 2. For 15 squares, add the value 352 as hard.
f(323,X)=15, with X in {256, 271, 277, 307, 313} f(352,X)=15, with X in {283, 289, 293, 299, 307, 311, 317, 325, 329, 331, 333, 343, 347, 349, 351}
For rectangles needing 14 squares, more than half the values have larger side 323 or 352.
What is special about 323 (and 352) and squares?
--Ed Pegg Jr
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun