Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $S=\{a_i\}$ be a countable set of bounded,connected and closed subsets of $\mathbb R^n$, each of nonzero area, such that any two $a_i$ and $a_j$ may only intersect at their boundary and such that the union of all a_i cover $\mathbb R^n$ (i.e. a tiling of $\mathbb R^n$ by a countable set of tiles).

Let A be the statement that for all unions $T_k$ of any collection of $a_i$'s, there is no $a_j$ such that $a_j$'s intersection with $T_k$ is the completey boundary of $T_k$.(i.e. no tile completely enclose another set of tiles).

Is A sufficient for the existence of an ordering (a sequence) of the $a_i$'s such that each $a_i$ in S appear exactly once, and for any two consecutive $a_i$,$a_j$ in the sequence they share a part of their boundary?

Does such a sequence exist if all the tiles are equal upto rotations and translations?

share|cite|improve this question
I am not sure that this question fits [graph-theory], I'm not sure that it doesn't either too. – Asaf Karagila Jun 1 '11 at 5:52

I don't think so. If $a$ has only two neighbors, $x$ and $y$, then the ordering must contain $x,a,y$ or $y,a,x$ or start with $a$. Now it's easy to get three (or more) sets $a,b,c$ such that each has only the two neighbors $x,y$ and now no ordering can have all 5 sets.

share|cite|improve this answer
I think you need four such sets? Otherwise you'd have the ordering $axbyc$. (As you say, it's also easy to get four, by considering isolated chunks on the boundary between $x$ and $y$.) – joriki Jun 1 '11 at 6:10
@joriki, sure, you can do $axbyc$, but you haven't done all of ${\bf R}^n$ that way (the sets are all bounded), and you can't leave $c$ to go anywhere else. – Gerry Myerson Jun 1 '11 at 6:15
I see, sorry, I forgot about the condition that they cover $\mathbb R^n$. – joriki Jun 1 '11 at 6:18

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.