17

I hope to better understand how to prove that a given tile can indeed tile the plane. I can often visualize the tiling and draw by hand larger and larger regions that I can tile, but I'm unsure how to argue more rigorously that a given tiling actually works. This question is based off the simplest example that I'm confident can tile the plane but that I'm not sure how to prove.


The Greek cross is a simple tile made of five squares.

Greek cross made of five squares

I can draw patches of the plane using these tiles.

For example, using four of these tiles:

Patch made of four Greek crosses

Using nine of these tiles:

Patch made of nine Greek crosses


I can keep putting down Greek crosses in the spiral patterns above, and I believe that the Greek cross can tile the plane. How can I rigorously prove this?

I'm happy to view the plane as already being tiled by the faces of the square lattice, and a putative tiling as coloring such faces according to the shape of the Greek cross. I'm imagining attempting to give an explicit mapping of which face of the square lattice is part of which Greek cross, but I'm wondering if there might be a less explicit way.

Jam
  • 10,632
  • 3
  • 29
  • 45
user196574
  • 2,294
  • 3
    A parallelogram (including rectangles, squares) can easily tile the plane in an edge-to-edge manner by translation only. You can deform any side of the parallelogram and it will still tile as long as you deform the opposite edge in the same manner. Consider the square formed by four of the Greek cross's vertices, and see how the Greek cross is simply a deformation of that square that turns each side into three edges of cross. – Jaap Scherphuis Sep 11 '24 at 08:07
  • Consider crosses 8, 1, and 4 in your big example.  These form a slanted bar that could be continued indefinitely in both directions by adding further crosses (which should be easy to prove).  Then you just need to prove that this infinitely-long bar can be repeated indefinitely to tile the plane. – gidds Sep 11 '24 at 15:32
  • 1
    @JaapScherphuis Thank you, this is a very useful criterion! It's interesting that the criterion appears not to directly apply to the cross, but does apply to the "square" made of four Greek crosses (I'll call this GCS4). I agree from eyeballing that GCS4 is a deformation of a rotated square with opposite sides deformed identically. (I've been trying to draw the rotated square that is deformed to be able to confirm that opposite sides deform oppositely, and it's a little tricky, but it's clear by eye.) – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 15:58
  • 1
    @user196574 It does apply directly to a single cross. Pick one outer vertex, and the also the corresponding ones on the other arms of the cross, so you have 4 vertices equally spaced around the cross's perimeter, with three edges separating them. Those four vertices form a square with the same area as the cross. You can look at this Puzzling SE post to get some idea, though the squares shown there are not lines up with the vertices of the crosses. – Jaap Scherphuis Sep 11 '24 at 16:10
  • @JaapScherphuis Thank you! I've added a community wiki below to show how the Greek cross is a deformed square. This is a very useful criterion, and I can already see it applying to other tiles I was wondering about! – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 16:35
  • Why can't we simply invoke proof-by-induction? – smci Sep 13 '24 at 07:52
  • https://gist.githubusercontent.com/PM2Ring/28f67c4b26e172e3108ff7a44be71e3c/raw/196354450a696c8bc08f06fdd7a8b33c0c9ee795/GreekCross2.svg – PM 2Ring Sep 17 '24 at 02:57
  • This is largely a side note, but I want to comment that the more abstract statement 'if I can tile any sufficiently large portion of the plane, I can tile the whole plane' is also true but non-trivial: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/KoenigsLemma.html (more) – Steven Stadnicki Oct 16 '24 at 19:35
  • The idea is that we can build a tree of partial tilings where there's a path downward from one tiling to another if the first one is a subregion of the second; you should be able to convince yourself that each level of the tree is finite, but the entire tree is infinite, so there's an infinite path; this is a sequence of tilings where each is a subset of the previous, so the union of all of the tilings along this path is an infinite tiling. See e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/809548 – Steven Stadnicki Oct 16 '24 at 19:37

5 Answers5

23

As pointed out by Jaap Scherphuis in the comments, the Greek cross can be viewed as a deformation of the square:

Greek cross from deformed square

Note that opposite sides are deformed identically. As Jaap noted, any parallelogram that has opposite sides deformed identically can tile the plane, so the Greek cross can tile the plane.

Below I show a four-by-four patch that highlights the undeformed squares underlying the pattern.

Demonstrating a tiling for the Greek cross based on above deformation of squares

user196574
  • 2,294
12

A proof without words (adding words because of word limit):

Tiling the plane

  • 4
    +1 Thank you for the answer. My aim in this question is about proving that the Greek cross tiles the plane; I know that they can. I can always exhibit larger and larger regions of the plane that are tiled (your image is such a region), but I feel unsure about arguing that I can tile the entire plane. – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 05:25
  • @user196574 You can figure out the coordinates of the vertices given the center of a greek cross. Note that in standard orientation, the placement of a greek cross is uniquely determined by it's center. Then just calculate how you are putting the crosses on the plane by using this picture. Finally, just note that the empty regions are greek crosses themselves. – Yuzuriha Inori Sep 11 '24 at 05:28
  • Thanks. Looking at your image, I think I might be able to argue that I can tile the entire plane by considering a $5$ by $5$ square of your image and arguing that gluing such squares together into a larger square will give a valid tiling of the resulting large square except near the boundaries of the large square. This will then allow me to cover arbitrarily large disks in the plane via valid tilings and hence tile the plane. Perhaps another way to put this is that tiling a flat torus allows me to tile the plane. I'll sleep on it and try explicit coordinates tomorrow. – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 05:38
  • 12
    This picture seems to be a demonstration of the fact that "I can […] draw by hand larger and larger regions that I can tile"; as far as "proofs without words" go, this is a very good one. With that being said, I'm not sure how this picture brings us closer to the rigorous proof that the asker is asking for. What theorems are we invoking here and what inferences are we making from them? – Sophie Swett Sep 11 '24 at 16:41
  • @SophieSwett As I mentioned above, this picture can be completely formalized, as Martin's answer in fact shows. This was more of a thrust towards a proof, which i thought can be completed formally by almost anyone. – Yuzuriha Inori Sep 12 '24 at 05:50
  • @SophieSwett - FWIW, this picture explained the solution I was developing, namely that "rows" of these crosses can be stacked and will hit every coordinate on the plane (NOT that you can make an arbitrarily large shape) – The Chaz 2.0 Sep 12 '24 at 18:16
  • This argument is also given in chapter 233 of the book "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time". – Gunnar Sveinsson Sep 14 '24 at 10:35
9

Idea for a formalization of the visual proof of Yuzuriha Inori using modular arithmetic.

The centers of white crosses will have coordinates of the form: $$(10m,10n),(10m+1,10n+3),(10m+2,10n+6),(10m+3,10n+9),(10m+4,10n+2),(10m+5,10n+5),(10m+6,10n+8),(10m+7,10n+1),(10m+8,10n+4),(10m+9,10n+7)$$ The centers of black crosses will have coordinates of the form: $$(10m+2,10n+1),(10m+3,10n+4),\dots$$ ...

Each square has a unique representation of the form $(10m+p,10n+q)$ with $p,q\in\{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9\}$.

  • 2
    +1 Thank you, I like that this uses a periodic motif to give a compact and thorough way of formalizing the locations of the crosses. – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 19:39
8

Let $L=\langle(2,-1),(1,2)\rangle\subset\mathbb{Z}^2$. We will show that $\mathbb{Z}^2/L$ identifies naturally with the Greek cross.

Given $(a,b)\in\mathbb{Z}^2$, we have $$(a,b)+b(2,-1)=(2b+a,0)$$and $b(2,-1)$ is the only multiple of $(2,-1)$ which added to $(a,b)$ lands in $\mathbb{Z} \times\{0\}$. Thus $$\mathbb{Z}^2/\langle(2,-1)\rangle\cong \mathbb{Z} \times\{0\}$$

Now $$(1,2)+2(2,-1)=(5,0)\in \mathbb{Z} \times \{0\}$$

Thus $$\mathbb{Z}^2/L=\left(\mathbb{Z}^2/\langle(2,-1)\rangle\right)/\langle(1,2)\rangle\\=\mathbb{Z} \times \{0\}/\langle(5,0)\rangle\\ =\{(-2,0),(-1,0),(0,0),(1,0),(2,0)\}\\ =\{(0,-1),(-1,0),(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)\}$$ as a set of distinct coset representatives of $\mathbb{Z}^2/L$.

In other words, if we translate the Greek cross $$\{(0,-1),(-1,0),(0,0),(1,0),(0,1)\}$$ by the elements of $L$, we get every point of $\mathbb{Z}^2$ exactly once.

tkf
  • 15,315
3

I can always exhibit larger and larger regions of the plane that are tiled [...], but I feel unsure about arguing that I can tile the entire plane.

This comment directly suggests an approach for your proof: Induction.

  1. We can trivially place a single cross on the plane.
  2. Given a tiling of part of the plane, explain exactly how to add to it to tile a larger part of the plane.
  3. Q.E.D.

Part of this will be finding the exact property of the partial tiling that's needed for step 2 to work, and showing that step 2 preserves this property. Personally, I would probably do two separate passes, first extending the pattern "to infinity" vertically (or diagonally) and then repeating the process in the other direction.

IDK if this'll be easier or harder than the coordinates approach, but I've no doubt it'll work.

  • +1 I agree that this construction should work, and I like the two-step process. I think I lean towards doing one "diagonal," and then showing that I can repeat the process on a neighboring diagonal, like "//." When I had been thinking of iteratively building, I was imagining it by proceeding in a spiral. It felt that each iteration was slightly different than the last (as the spirals grew larger and larger), which gave me pause, but by instead proceeding in just one direction at a time, it feels simpler. – user196574 Sep 11 '24 at 16:03
  • Hmm that won't give a proof that you can cover the entire plane, it only proves that you can add tiles forever. – Al.G. Sep 12 '24 at 13:36
  • If you do it wrong, that may be an issue, but I think the two step process will be fine. Key here is what we mean by "can tile the entire plane"; I'd interpret that as meaning "You can't name real coordinates that my scheme won't cover". I guess we could get picky and insist that the scheme cover all finite coordinates in finite steps, in which case fully decoupling the directions like I've described won't work (because cell 0 in column 2 gets covered in step infinity+1). – ShapeOfMatter Sep 12 '24 at 14:37