Rectangles and Dominoes.

How many ways are there to tile a 4 × 6 4\times6 rectangle with twelve 1 × 2 1\times2 dominoes?


The answer is 281.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

3 solutions

Mark Hennings
Mar 12, 2017

Let A n A_n be the number of ways of tiling a 4 × n 4 \times n rectangle, and let B n B_n and C n C_n be the numbers of ways of tiling a 4 × n 4 \times n rectangle which has had two squares cut off at one end, as shown:

By considering the different ways in which the end of a rectangle can be tiled, we deduce that A n = A n 1 + A n 2 + 2 B n 1 + C n 1 n 3 A_n \; = \; A_{n-1} + A_{n-2} + 2B_{n-1} + C_{n-1} \hspace{2cm} n \ge 3

Similarly, we can show that B n = A n 1 + B n 1 C n = A n 1 + C n 2 n 3 B_n \; = \; A_{n-1} + B_{n-1} \hspace{1cm} C_n \; =\; A_{n-1} + C_{n-2} \hspace{2cm} n \ge 3

Since it is evident that A 1 = 1 , A 2 5 A_1=1\,,\,A_2 - 5 , B 1 = 1 , B 2 = 2 B_1 = 1\,,\, B_2 = 2 and C 1 = 1 , C 2 = 1 C_1 = 1\,,\,C_2 = 1 , computation tells us that A 6 = 281 A_6 = \boxed{281} .

Moderator note:

From the system of linear recurrences, we can construct that

A n = A n 1 + 5 A n 2 + A n 3 A n 4 . A_n = A_{n-1} + 5 A_{n-2} + A_{n-3} - A_{n-4}.

(Do you see how to do so?)

Unfortunately, the characteristic polynomial doesn't factorize nicely, so evaluating it as a recurrence still makes the most sense.

Of course, but writing everything in terms of A n A_n means that we need to know A 1 , A 2 , A 3 , A 4 A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4 to work out higher values of A n A_n , and the last two of these are not easy to determine. At least the values of A 1 , A 2 , B 1 , B 2 , C 1 , C 2 A_1,A_2,B_1,B_2,C_1,C_2 are pretty-self-evident.

Mark Hennings - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Indeed.

I was trying to work towards a closed form, but don't see how to push through it to get a form similar to Peter's as yet.

Separately, I wanted to show that we can get a "seemingly un-obvious" linear recurrence by considering the recurrence in many terms. It's not uncommon for an olympiad problem to ask to prove the linear recurrence, where it's hard to see why it would even be true. By breaking out into component pieces, we can track more accurately what happens, and then piece that back together.

Calvin Lin Staff - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

This paper gives a proof of the result of Kasteleyen and Temperley/Fisher. The number of tilings is the number of complete matchings in a bipartite graph, and this can be expressed in terms of the determinant of a particular type of adjacency matrix, whose eigenvalues are roots of unity...

Mark Hennings - 4 years, 2 months ago
Peter Macgregor
Mar 22, 2017

My solution is a bit of a cheat compared to Mark's which gets an upvote from me.

I used the amazing formula for the number of ways of tiling an m by n board with dominoes

j = 1 m 2 k = 1 n 2 ( 4 cos 2 π j m + 1 + 4 cos 2 π k n + 1 ) \prod_{j=1}^{\lceil\frac{m}{2}\rceil} \prod_{k=1}^{\lceil\frac{n}{2}\rceil} \left ( 4\cos^2 \frac{\pi j}{m + 1} + 4\cos^2 \frac{\pi k}{n + 1} \right )

I converted this to a computer program which takes the size of the board as input and gives the number of ways as output. After checking the program against easier cases, I have enough confidence in the formula to assert that the computation for a 4 by 6 board is correct.

Ways[4,6] = 281 \boxed{281}

I found the formula in this wikipedia article.

This is indeed a very powerful generalisation. I think it would be great if you can explain us how one derives this in this solution or a note sometime.

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 4 years, 2 months ago

Oh, this is a very strong formula that kills this question immediately. I agree that this is a cheat, but a nice cheat nonetheless.

I can't seem to click on the link that you referenced. I speculate that this link is dead already. Do you have a backup link for this article?

Anyway, it's certainly nice if there's a proof of this formula. Let me get back to my thinking box. (Maybe do induction on odd and even m,n separately? I'll report back if I got any news)

Pi Han Goh - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

I haven't been able to find a proof of this formula, and am not sure how to start constructing one. Any references or ideas would be welcome.

Peter Macgregor - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

May be tedious, but we can use Mark's method of extending a rectangle with a constant width, and get a recurrence relation similar to how he did as a function of said constant width. ie:

Let T ( m , n ) T(m,n) denote how many ways there are to tile an m × n m \times n rectangle with dominoes.

Generalize this for T ( 1 , n ) T(1,n) and confirm using the formula (which is very straightforward), then generalize this again for T ( 2 , n ) , T ( 3 , n ) T(2,n), T(3,n) using a recurrence relation.

Maybe then use induction to show that if your formula holds holds for T ( m , n ) T(m,n) , then it also holds for T ( m + 1 , n ) T(m+1,n) .

I think this would cover all possible cases, since we would have generalized for an arbitrary length and extension of width

Brandon Monsen - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

@Brandon Monsen I tried the induction part for a couple of hours. Not fruitful. (Or maybe I'm doing it wrongly?)

Pi Han Goh - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh I haven't actually done it myself, so I could be totally off. It was more or less just a thought, since I tend to do these counting problems for arrays/lines through induction.

Brandon Monsen - 4 years, 2 months ago

If you look at my reply to Calvin's comment on my solution, I give a link to the proof of this general result...

Mark Hennings - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

@Mark Hennings Oh!!! How did I missed that. Thanks again Mark!!

Pi Han Goh - 4 years, 2 months ago

Since this formula requires terms like cos (pi/7), it's not obvious why the answer would be a whole number.

Malcolm Rich - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

See the proof (written as the link) as shown by Mark in the other solution. It shows why the answer is always a whole number.

Pi Han Goh - 4 years, 2 months ago

Who needs a computer program when you have Desmos ;) www.desmos.com/calculator/bimxmik6w6

Gregório Epstein - 4 years, 2 months ago
Ivan Koswara
Mar 25, 2017

By using the same analysis on my very similar problem , we obtain the answer 281 . It reduces the problem to counting the number of perfect matchings on a planar graph, which can be done in polynomial time using computer.

Of course, we can compute this number without computer either, if we diligently construct a recurrence system like in Mark Hennings' solution. But mine can be generalized to arbitrary r × c r \times c (and in fact to an arbitrary planar graph, so we can tile, say, a triangular board with diamonds, etc), while Mark's can only be generalized to 4 × c 4 \times c ; a different number of rows requires recomputing the system from scratch.

If you follow the link in the comments after my solution, you can find a paper which proves the formula Peter gives, precisely by finding all complete matchings of a bipartite graph in terms of a special adjacency matrix. Your method does not, in fact, need a computer search.

Mark Hennings - 4 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

Yeah, my method uses the algorithm devised for general planar graphs. Part of the algorithm requires computing the (1,-1,0)-adjacency matrix of the graph such that each face has an odd number of edges going clockwise. In my solution linked above, I noted that this matrix can be generated easily because of the structure of this graph. The algorithm then computes the determinant of the matrix. I haven't read that paper, but I'm pretty sure the paper is about computing the general form of this matrix for grid graphs, and then computing a formula for its determinant.

Ivan Koswara - 4 years, 2 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...