Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Statement

A nondegenerate Euclidean triangle TT admits a tiling into a positive nonsquare number of congruent triangles if and only if its angles can be labeled (A,B,C)(A,B,C) so that at least one of the following holds:

  1. A=BA=B; this includes the equilateral triangle.
  2. C=π/2C=\pi/2 and its legs have ratio M/KM/K for positive integers M,KM,K with M2+K2M^2+K^2 not a square.
  3. (A,B,C)=(π/6,π/2,π/3)(A,B,C)=(\pi/6,\pi/2,\pi/3).
  4. C=π/3C=\pi/3 and 3tan⁡(A/2)∈Q\sqrt3\tan(A/2)\in\mathbb Q.
  5. B=2AB=2A and 3tan⁡(A/2)∈Q\sqrt3\tan(A/2)\in\mathbb Q.
  6. B=2AB=2A and sin⁡(A/2)∈Q\sin(A/2)\in\mathbb Q.
  7. C=A/2+BC=A/2+B and 2sin⁡(A/4)=M/K2\sin(A/4)=M/K for positive integers M,KM,K with 2K2−M22K^2-M^2 not a square.
  8. C=2A+B/2C=2A+B/2 and 3tan⁡(A/2)∈Q\sqrt3\tan(A/2)\in\mathbb Q.

The representation of a positive rational number as M/KM/K need not be reduced. Scaling numerator and denominator changes either quadratic expression by a rational square, so its square status is independent of the representation. A tiling covers TT by finitely many congruent closed triangles whose interiors are disjoint; a reptiling uses a tile similar to TT.

Thus the answer to Problem 633 is the complement of these eight families.

Source and scope. Beeson, Laczkovich, and Zhang, Solution of Erdős Problem 633, arXiv:2604.03609v3, Theorem 1, pp. 1–2; necessity pp. 8–9; sufficiency pp. 12–17. This is a complete rewritten proof at the source's dependency boundary. The linked pages supply every essential same-paper deduction; earlier classification, existence, and counting theorems and the four elliptic-curve group data are stated and cited as external inputs, not recursively reproved.

Necessity

Suppose an NN-tiling exists with NN nonsquare. If it is a reptiling, the external reptiling classification recorded in Theorem 11 gives family 2 or 3. If TT is isosceles, family 1 holds. We may therefore assume that TT is non-isosceles and the tiling is not a reptiling.

Theorem 11 gives one of six angle patterns, and Proposition 13 proves their precise rationality conditions. Its second, third, fourth, and sixth rows give families 4, 5, 6, and 8 directly. For the first row, C=π/3C=\pi/3 and 3tan⁡(A/4)\sqrt3\tan(A/4) is rational. The half-angle doubling identity gives

3tan⁡(A/2)=23tan⁡(A/4)1−tan⁡2(A/4)∈Q.\sqrt3\tan(A/2) =\frac{2\sqrt3\tan(A/4)}{1-\tan^2(A/4)}\in\mathbb Q.

Here A<πA<\pi, so tan⁡(A/4)<1\tan(A/4)<1 and the denominator is nonzero. Consequently this row also gives family 4.

For the fifth row, T=(2α,β,α+β)T=(2\alpha,\beta,\alpha+\beta) and 3α+2β=π3\alpha+2\beta=\pi. The external tiling equation, stated precisely in Proposition 29, supplies positive integers M,KM,K with 2sin⁡(α/2)=M/K2\sin(\alpha/2)=M/K and N=2K2−M2N=2K^2-M^2. Since A=2αA=2\alpha and NN is nonsquare, this is family 7. These cases exhaust the possibilities. The source's p. 9 cross-reference for this equation is corrected by the explicit identification on Proposition 29's page.

Sufficiency: the three elementary families

In family 1, cut along the symmetry axis to obtain two congruent triangles. In family 2, the external reptiling construction of Golomb and Snover–Waiveris–Williams, recorded with Theorem 6 in Theorem 11, gives M2+K2M^2+K^2 congruent similar tiles. The hypothesis makes this count nonsquare; Figure 6 on p. 25 illustrates the construction with counts 1313 and 7474.

Family 3 has a three-tile reptiling, as in Figure 7 on p. 25. To read that diagram explicitly, take the large right triangle with vertices P=(0,0)P=(0,0), Q=(23,0)Q=(2\sqrt3,0), and R=(3/2,3/2)R=(\sqrt3/2,3/2). Put D=(3,0)D=(\sqrt3,0) and S=(3,1)S=(\sqrt3,1) on PQPQ and RQRQ, respectively. The triangles PRSPRS, PDSPDS, and DQSDQS have side lengths 1,3,21,\sqrt3,2. They partition the large 3030–6060–9090 triangle, giving three congruent tiles. These coordinates simply specify the source's diagram.

Sufficiency: excluding commensurable-angle exceptions

For families 4–8, suppose first that all angles of TT are rational multiples of π\pi. In families 4, 5, and 8, Lemma 24 applies to A/2A/2. Since 3tan⁡(A/2)\sqrt3\tan(A/2) is rational, its possible squared tangent values are 1/31/3 and 33; the value 00 would give A=0A=0, and 11 would give 3tan⁡(A/2)=3\sqrt3\tan(A/2)=\sqrt3. Thus A=π/3A=\pi/3 or 2π/32\pi/3.

For family 6, cos⁡A=1−2sin⁡2(A/2)\cos A=1-2\sin^2(A/2) is rational. The cosine theorem stated with Lemma 24 forces A∈{π/3,π/2,2π/3}A\in\{\pi/3,\pi/2,2\pi/3\}, and rationality of sin⁡(A/2)\sin(A/2) leaves only A=π/3A=\pi/3. In family 7, applying the same argument to A/2A/2 gives A=2π/3A=2\pi/3.

In families 5 and 6, B=2AB=2A would then make C≤0C\le0. In family 7, A=2π/3A=2\pi/3 and C=A/2+BC=A/2+B force B=0B=0. In family 8, C=2A+B/2C=2A+B/2 with A≥π/3A\ge\pi/3 forces B≤0B\le0. All are impossible for a triangle. In family 4, the only nondegenerate possibility is A=B=C=π/3A=B=C=\pi/3, already covered by family 1.

Sufficiency: the incommensurable families

It remains to treat incommensurable angles. For family 4, Proposition 10 applied to TT shows that 3tan⁡(A/2)\sqrt3\tan(A/2) is rational for either non-CC angle. Label them with A<BA<B; equality would make TT equilateral. Then Proposition 26 gives a nonsquare tiling.

Family 5 is Proposition 28 and family 6 is Proposition 27. Family 7 follows from existence and the exact square criterion in Proposition 29. Family 8 is Proposition 30. These propositions use Laczkovich's existence theorems and show that every tiling with the specified tile shape has the requisite nonsquare count. This finishes both directions.

Bears on. Problem 633.