3

Suppose I have a rectangle and I want to fill it with hexagons without having any white space. The hexagon doesn't need to be in the regular hexagon shape so the only thing that matters is that it needs to have 6 sides. Each hexagon can have maximum one common side with another hexagon.

I have been trying to solve it and I think it is impossible but I cannot prove it:S.

Can somebody help me filling it out or proving that it is impossible?

  • If you solve this for one rectangle (say a square), then by "stretching" you will solve it for any other rectangle. – hardmath Jan 26 '14 at 14:38
  • Thank you but I cant solve it for any rectangle. That would be the question actually to solve it for a rectangle and tell me how you did that cause I have been trying for a day without any success. – DalekSupreme Jan 26 '14 at 14:43
  • 1
    My intuition is that with your single-edge meeting criterion, it is impossible for finitely-many hexagons to cover the square (or any rectangle). Perhaps I'm overinterpreting that; suppose two hexagons meet partly on an edge of one of them. Does it count? – hardmath Jan 26 '14 at 14:48
  • You could start by filling the square with congruent isosceles right triangles in the obvious way. Then maybe you can substitute the hypotenuses with some W-shaped curve? – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Jan 26 '14 at 14:52
  • @JeppeStigNielsen: that works if you drop the one-common-side criterion, but I don't see how to re-add it to the solution you get. – Ben Millwood Jan 26 '14 at 14:53
  • Some would say that a rectangle is just a degenerate hexagon with two of its internal angles equal to $\pi$. – Dan Rust Jan 26 '14 at 14:54
  • @BenMillwood Yes, I missed that criterion. Maybe it really is impossible. If we look at a solution as a kind of polyhedron (or graph), maybe there is some topological/combinatorial impossibility, like the Euler characteristic or something. – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Jan 26 '14 at 14:59
  • I have solved it for pentagons but I cant really deduce the pattern for polys which has more then 5 sides. I suppose it is because it is impossible but then is there a proof for it that it is impossible? – DalekSupreme Jan 26 '14 at 15:02
  • 1
    It seems related to the fact that every planar graph has a vertex of degree at most 5, something we can deduce from Euler's formula. – hardmath Jan 26 '14 at 15:40
  • Thank u guys. Then it seem it is impossible so I will stop thinking about it. – DalekSupreme Jan 26 '14 at 16:14
  • @DarlekSupreme: Could I get a ruling on whether the hexagons which share part of an edge must also share that entire edge? – hardmath Jan 26 '14 at 16:25

2 Answers2

3

Assume there is such a partition of the given rectangle into hexagons.

Denote by $v$ the total number of vertices and by $v_b$ the number of vertices on the boundary of the rectangle, among them the the $4$ corners of the rectangle. Let there be $e$ edges and $f$ hexagons. All in all we have a polyhedral partition of $S^2$ with the exterior of the rectangle as an extra facet.

By Euler's formula we have $$e+2=v+f+1\ .\tag{1}$$ The edges can be counted in two ways: $$2e = 6f+v_b\ ,\tag{2}$$ since every edge belongs to two hexagons or one hexagon and the extra facet, and $$2e\geq 3(v-4) +2\cdot 4=3v-4\ ,\tag{3}$$ since all vertices apart from the corners of the rectangle have degree $\geq3$.

When we multiply $(1)$ by $6$ and subtract from it $(2)$ we obtain together with with $(3)$ that $$6v-6-v_b=4e\geq 6v-8\ ,$$ or $v_b\leq2$. But the latter contradicts $v_b\geq4$.

  • Very nice. This certainly addresses the case where hexagons can only meet edge-to-edge within the rectangle. – hardmath Jan 27 '14 at 00:21
  • Ah this is much cleaner! – Dan Rust Jan 27 '14 at 00:23
  • Check my logic, but it seems the argument goes through even with a weaker assumption that hexagons meet only along a portion of one edge of each, not necessarily edge-to-edge. The change required is to (2), which becomes inequality $2e \ge 6f + v_b$, where we count vertices that may occur within a "hexagonal" edge, and correspondingly any segment between two vertices is an "edge". – hardmath Jan 27 '14 at 00:58
1

As there are a few details missing from the question about what is and is not allowed, I'll offer what I believe is a proof that such a tiling by hexagons is not allowed. First, suppose that we are tiling the unit square because it's just easier to work with.

$(1)$ Now, suppose that a tiling $T$ has to have each tile a non-degenerate hexagon and each intersection of two distinct tiles is equal to either the emptyset or a single shared edge (not a segment of an edge), or possibly either of these also union a disjoint set of vertices not belonging the that edge. A tile may not 'share an edge' with itself. That is each tile has exactly six distinct edges.

$(2)$ Next, assume that each edge of the square belongs to the edge-set of exactly one tile, and that no tile has two or more edges of the square belonging to its edge-set (this is a rather strong condition, but it's one I can't seem to find a proof without).

Consider a second copy of a square tiled by $T$ and glue this square to the original square along corresponding edges so that we now have a spherical tiling by hexagons which still meets the above conditions in $(1)$ on the tile intersections (this is why we needed the conditions on tiles at the boundary of the square). Now consider the 'dual graph' to this tiling given by marking a single vertex in each tile and drawing an edge between two vertices if the corresponding tiles intersect in an edge. This graph is embedded in a sphere and so can also be embedded in the plane. This graph also has the property that each vertxes has degree exactly equal to six because each edge of a tile is shared by exactly one other distinct tile. By the theorem linked to by hardmath in the comments, this is a contradiction as all planar graphs have at least one edge with degree less than or equal to five.

Dan Rust
  • 30,108
  • Some weakening of the assumptions about how the hexagons meet the edge of the square can probably be pushed through by considering the exterior region and reflecting the square across an edge once or more. – hardmath Jan 26 '14 at 18:50
  • @hardmath yeah I thought of that but then you end up having to consider different cases and it didn't seem worth it. Another approach would be, if there is a tile which contains more than two of the edges of the boundary square, then you can split that tile into two quadrilaterals with a new edge (I think, obscure hexagons might be a problem) and then put a tiling onto those quadrilaterals which only share a single edge between them so will satisfy the conditions in $(1)$ still. – Dan Rust Jan 26 '14 at 19:06
  • Thank u for your answer. Right now I am not really in a state to be able to understand everything. But tomorrow I promise I will read it through. – DalekSupreme Jan 26 '14 at 20:45