I could clearly fit in 4 squares together to make a square. Or, I could fit in 6 squares into a square as well:

But this is not possible with 3 squares (or so I think!)

How does this generalize? How can we decide for which N such a covering is possible?


You can tile with 1, 4, and 6 squares already.

You cannot tile with 2, 3, or 5 squares. For 2 and 3, you can see this because no tile can cover more than one of the corners of the big square. For 5 tiles, there must be one tile in each of the corners of the big square and there must remain at least two edges with uncovered gaps which cannot be filled by a single square.

For any even number $N=2m>2$, you can tile using $2m-1$ squares of size $1\times 1$ along two sides of an $(m-1)\times(m-1)$ square. This gives solutions for $N=4, 6, 8, 10,\ldots$.

Finally, if you have a tiling with $n$ squares, you can make one with $n+3$ squares by cutting one of the tiles into 4 smaller ones. Just apply this once to the above solution and you have $N=7, 9, 11, \ldots$ solved.

Thus, there are tilings for all $N$ except 2, 3, and 5.

  • $\begingroup$ are all squares disjoint ? the OP is similar to the mondrian art puzzle. $\endgroup$ – user451844 Jul 20 '17 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @RoddyMacPhee: Yes, they do not overlap (other than the border if that's included in the squares). $\endgroup$ – Einar Rødland Jul 20 '17 at 19:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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