Abstract
If \( c>5 \) and if \(x\) is sufficiently large, then any collection of rectangles of sides of length not greater than \(1\) with total area smaller than \(\ x^2-cx^{5/6}\ \) can be packed into a square of side length \(x\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
First publications related to packing of rectangles or squares appeared over fifty years ago. In 1957 Kosiński [6] proved, among others, that any sequence of rectangles of total area \(V\) and with sides of length not greater than \(D\) can be packed into a rectangle of side lengths \( 3D\) and \(\ (V+D^2)/D\). This result was improved in [4, 7, 8]. Other problems related to this subject were outlined in the sixties of the last century by L. Moser [9]. He asked, for example, “Can every set of rectangles of total area 1 and maximal side 1 be accommodated in a square of area 2?” (the answer is positive [5]) or “What is the smallest number A such that any set of squares of total area 1 can be packed into some rectangle of area A?” (some bounds are given in [3, 10, 11]). The question of packing of equal squares into a square as small as possible was posed in [2].
Let \(I_x\) be a square of side length \(x\). We say that a collection \(\ R_1, R_2, \dots \ \) of rectangles can be packed into \(I_x\), if it is possible to apply translations and rotations to the sets \(R_i\) so that the resulting translated and rotated rectangles are contained in \(I_x\) and have mutually disjoint interiors. Denote by \(s(x)\) the greatest number such that any collection of rectangles of sides of length not greater than \(1\) with total area smaller than \(s(x)\) can be packed into \(I_x\).
Groemer [4] proved that \( s(x) \ge (x-1)^2\ \) provided \(x\ge 3\). By Remark 3 of [5] we know that \(\ s(x) \ge x^2-2x+2 \ \) for \(\ x\ge 2\). The aim of this note is to show that \(\ s(x) \ge x^2 - O \bigl ( x^{5/6} \bigr )\). It is an open question whether the exponent \(5/6\) may be lessened in the above-presented estimation.
If all rectangles are unit squares, then \(\ s_{unit}(x) \ge x^2 -O \bigl ( x^{(3+\sqrt{2} )/7} \log x \bigr ) \) (see [1]). Also in this case we do not know whether the exponent \((3+\sqrt{2} )/7\) may be lessened. On the other hand, by [12] we know that \( s_{unit}(x)\) is smaller than \(\ x^2 - 10^{-100} \sqrt{x|x- \lfloor x+1/2 \rfloor | } \ \) provided \(\ x(x-\lfloor x \rfloor ) > 1/6\).
2 Preliminaries
Let \(\mathcal R\) be a finite collection of rectangles \(\ R_1, R_2, \dots , R_z \ \) of sides of length not greater than \(1\). Denote by \(w_i\) the width and by \(h_i\) the height of \(R_i\). Furthermore, assume that \(\ w_i \le h_i\ \) for any \(\ i=1,\dots , z\ \) and that \(\ h_1\ge h_2 \ge \dots \ge h_z\).
Let \(S\) be a rectangle of width \(\ a \ge 1 \ \) and height \(\ d\ge 1\). Denote by \(p\) a vertex of \(S\). Moreover, let \(\ S_1, \dots , S_r\ \) be a collection of rectangles \(S_i\) of width \(\ v_i <a\ \) and height smaller than \(d\) such that \(\ p\in S_i\ \) and \(\ S_i \subset S\ \) for \(\ i =1,\dots , r\). Then \(\ S \setminus \bigcup _{i=1}^r S_i\ \) is called a \(\sigma -polygon\) of base \(a\), top \(\ a-\max (v_1, \dots , v_r)\ \) and height \(d\) (see Fig. 1). The rectangle \(S\) is also called a \(\sigma \)-polygon.
Lemma 2.1
Let \(\ a\ge 1\), \(\ d\ge 1\ \) and assume that the total area of rectangles in \(\mathcal R\) is not smaller than \(\ (a+1)(d+1)\). There exist integers \(\ j_1< \dots < j_k\ \) such that the following conditions are fulfilled:
-
\( a\le b_{i} < a +1\), where \(\ b_{i} = w_{j_{i-1}} + \dots + w_{j_i-1}\ \) for \(\ i=1, \dots , k\ \) \((j_0=1)\);
-
\( d \le h_1+h_{j_1}+\dots +h_{j_{k-1}} <d+1\);
-
the rectangles \(\ R_1, \dots , R_{j_k-1}\ \) can be packed into the union \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^k L_i\ \) of rectangles \((\)with mutually disjoint interiors\()\) \(L_i\) of sides of length \(b_i\) and \(h_{j_{i-1}}\);
-
the area of the uncovered part of \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^k L_i\ \) is smaller than \(\ a+1\).
Proof
Denote by \(j_1\) the smallest integer such that \(\ w_1+w_2+\dots +w_{j_1-1} \ge a\). Moreover, denote by \(j_2\) the smallest integer satisfying \(\ w_{j_{1}}+\dots +w_{j_2-1} \ge a\ \) and so on. Let \(k\) be the smallest integer such that \(\ h_1+h_{j_1}+\dots +h_{j_{k-1}} \ge d\). Clearly, the rectangles \(\ R_1, \dots , R_{j_k-1}\ \) can be packed into the union \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^k L_i\ \) of rectangles \((\)with mutually disjoint interiors\()\) \(L_i\) of sides of length \(b_i\) and \(h_{j_{i-1}}\) (see Fig. 2). The area of the uncovered part in each \(L_i\) does not exceed \(\ b_i(h_{j_{i-1}}-h_{j_i-1} )\). Consequently, the area of the uncovered part of \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^k L_i\ \) (the waste in this packing) does not exceed
\(\square \)
By the proof of Lemma 2.1 we deduce the following two results (see Figs. 2, 3, 4).
Lemma 2.2
Let \(\ a\ge 1\), \(\ d\ge 1\ \) and let \(n\) be a positive integer. Assume that the total area of rectangles in \(\mathcal R\) is not smaller than \(\ n(a+1)(d+1)\). There is an integer \(k\) and there are \(n\) mutually disjoint \(\sigma \)-polygons \( A_i \) (for \(\ i = 1, \dots , n\)) of base \(a_i\), top \(\ a_i - \uplambda _i\ \) and height \(d_i\), where \( a \le a_i < a+1 \), \(\ d \le d_i < d+1\ \) and \(\ \sum _{i=1}^n \uplambda _i <1\) such that the following conditions are fulfilled:
-
the rectangles \(\ R_1, \dots , R_k\ \) can be packed into \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i;\)
-
the area of the uncovered part of \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i\ \) is smaller than \(a+1\).
Lemma 2.3
Let \(\ a\ge 1\). There is an integer \(m\) and there are \(m\) rectangles \(L_i\) \((\)with mutually disjoint interiors\()\) of height not greater than \(1\) and width \(b_i\), where \(\ a\le b_{i} < a +1\), such that:
-
the rectangles from \(\mathcal R\) can be packed into \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^{m} L_i\);
-
the area of the uncovered part of \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^{m} L_i\ \) is smaller than \(\ 2a+1\).
In the following lemma we will describe how to efficiently pack rectangles \(L_i\).
Lemma 2.4
Let \(B\) be a \(\sigma \)-polygon of base \(b\), top \(\ b-\uplambda \ \) and height \(h\), where \(\ h \ge b\ge 27\ \) and \(\ 0\le \uplambda <1\). Furthermore, let \( L_i\,(\hbox {for } i=1, \dots , m )\) be a rectangle of width \(b_i\) and height \(t_i\), where
and where \(\ t_i \le 1\ \) for \(\ i=1, \dots , m\). Put \(\ \mu = b_m - b \ \) and
If \(b\) is sufficiently large and if
then \(\ L_1, \dots , L_{m}\ \) can be packed into \(B\).
Proof
Assume that \(\ b\ge 27\ \) and that the sum of the areas of rectangles \(\ L_1, \dots , L_{m}\ \) is not greater than \(\ area(B) - v(b,h,\uplambda , \mu )\).
Put
(see Fig. 5). Without loss of generality we can assume that \(\ \vartheta _1 \le \dots \le \vartheta _{m} \).
We pack the rectangles \(\ L_1, L_2, \dots \ \) into \(B\) as in Fig. 6. Contrary to the statement suppose that the rectangles cannot be packed. We show that this leads to a contradiction. Let \(L_{\kappa }\) be the first rectangle which cannot be packed into \(B\).
By \(\ b_{\kappa } \le b+\mu < b+1\ \) and \(\ u>b-\uplambda -1 >b-2\ \) in Fig. 6 we have
We need a more precise estimation. Since \(\ t_{\kappa } \le 1\ \) and \(\ \sin \theta \le \theta <\sqrt{7/b}\), it follows that \(\ u = b - \uplambda - t_{\kappa } \sin \theta > b - \uplambda - \sqrt{7/b}\). By \(\ b_{\kappa } \le b +\mu \ \) we obtain
It is easy to check that
for sufficiently large \(b\).
Since \(\ \sqrt{\alpha _1+\alpha _2} \le \sqrt{\alpha _1}+\sqrt{\alpha _2}\ \) for non-negative values \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\), it follows that
where
The uncovered dark shaded part on the left side of \(B\) in Fig. 7 consists of a number of triangles. The total length of the left sides of the triangles is smaller than \(h+1\). The height of each such triangle (the height parallel to the bottom of \(B\)) is not greater than \( \sin \theta \). Consequently, the uncovered dark shaded part on the left side of \(B\) in Fig. 7 is of the area
Similarly we estimate the area \(\omega _r\) of the uncovered dark shaded part on the right side of \(B\):
Since the distance between \(p\) and \(q\) is equal to \(\uplambda \) and the height of each \(L_i\) is not greater than \(1\), it follows that the non-shaded uncovered part on the right side of \(B\) in Fig. 7 is of the area
Denote by \(\omega ^+_s\) the area of a right triangle of legs of length \(b\) and \(b \tan \theta \). Moreover, denote by \(\omega _s\) the area of the light shaded uncovered part of \(B\) in Fig. 7. By \(\ \eta _1 + \eta _2 + \dots + \eta _{\kappa } = \theta \ \) (see Fig. 6) we deduce that
The uncovered non-shaded part on the top of \(B\) in Fig. 7 is of the area
Consequently, the area of the uncovered part of \(B\) does not exceed
for sufficiently large \(b\). This implies that
which is a contradiction. \(\square \)
3 Packing into a large square
In the main packing method \(I_x\) will be partitioned into a number of \(\sigma \)-polygons. Next, rectangles from \(\mathcal R\) will be packed into adequate \(\sigma \)-polygons.
Theorem 3.1
Let \(\ \epsilon >0\). Any collection of rectangles of sides of length not greater than \(1\) with total area smaller than \(\ x^2 -(5+\epsilon ) x^{5/6} \) can be packed into \(I_x\), for sufficiently large \(x\).
Proof
Assume that \(\ \epsilon > 0 \ \) and that \(\ x > (5+\epsilon )^{6/7}\). Consider a collection \(\mathcal C\) of rectangles \(P_i\) of sides of length not greater than \(1\) with total area smaller than \(\ x^2 - (5+\epsilon ) x^{5/6}\). If \(\mathcal C\) is finite, then put \(\ {\mathcal R}={\mathcal C}\ \) and denote by \(z\) the number of rectangles in \(\mathcal R\). Otherwise, we can assume that \(\ area(P_1)\ge area(P_2) \ge \dots \). There is an integer \(z\) such that \(\ \sum _{i=z}^{\infty } area(P_i) < \frac{1}{2}\). By [5] we know that rectangles \(\ R_z, R_{z+1}, \dots \ \) can be packed into \(I_1\). Let \(\mathcal R\) be a collection of rectangles \(R_i\), where \(\ R_1 = I_1\ \) and \(\ R_i = P_{i-1}\ \) for \(\ i=2, \dots , z\).
We show that rectangles from \(\mathcal R\) can be packed into \(I_x\) provided \(x\) is sufficiently large. Clearly,
We can assume that the width \(w_i\) of \(R_i\) is not greater than its height \(h_i\) for \(\ i=1,\dots , z\ \) and that \(\ h_1\ge \dots \ge h_z\). Put
and
It is easy to verify that \(\ n(a+1)(d+1) < (x-1)^2.\) If \(\ \rho < n(a+1)(d+1)\), then, by [4], all rectangles from \( \mathcal R\) can be packed into \(I_x\). Otherwise, by Lemma 2.2 we deduce that there is an integer \(k_1\) and there are \(n\) mutually disjoint \(\sigma \)-polygons \( A_i\) of base \(a_i\), top \(\ a_i - \uplambda _i\ \) and height \(d_i\), where
(for \(\ i=1, \dots , n\)) and where \(\ \sum _{i=1}^n \uplambda _i <1\ \) such that \(\ R_1, \dots ,R_{k_1}\ \) can be packed into \( \ \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i\ \) and that the waste in this packing (i.e., the area of the uncovered part of \( \ \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i \)) is at most
Clearly,
We lose no generality in assuming that \(\ d_1 \ge d_2 \ge \dots \ge d_n\).
\(I_x\) will be divided into: \(n\) polygons \(A_i\) and \(n+1\) other \(\sigma \)-polygons. Then \(\ R_1, \dots , R_{k_1}\ \) will be packed into \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i.\) The remaining rectangles from \( \mathcal R\) will be first packed into larger rectangles \(L_i\) or \(L_i'\). Next, \(L_i\) and \(L_i'\) will be packed into \(\ I_x \setminus \bigcup _{i=1}^n A_i\).
We apply Lemma 2.3 for packing \(\ R_{k_1+1}, \dots , R_z\). There is an integer \(m\) and there are rectangles \(L_i\) (for \(\ i=1, \dots , m\ \)) of width \(b_i\), where
and height not greater than \(1\) such that \(\ R_{k_1+1}, \dots , R_{z} \ \) can be packed into \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^m L_i\ \) and that the waste in this packing is no more than
There is no loss of generality in assuming that \(\ b_1 \le b_2 \le \dots \le b_m.\)
We divide \(I_x\) into: \(n\) rectangles \(D_i\) (for \(\ i=1,\dots , n \)) of width \(e_i \) and height \(d_i\) and one \(\sigma \)-polygon \(B_{n+1}\) of base \(\ x-d_n\ \) and height \(x\) (as in Fig. 8). Now we will describe how to choose proper values \(\ e_1, \dots , e_n\). This action depends on the width of some rectangles \(L_i\).
Put \(\ e_1 = a_1-\uplambda _1+b_{1}\). Clearly, \(D_1\) can be divided into the \(\sigma \)-polygon \(A_1\) and a \(\sigma \)-polygon \(B_1\) of base \(b_{1}\), top \(\ b_1-\uplambda _1\ \) and height \(d_1\) (see Fig. 9). Denote by \(m_1\) the greatest integer such that
By Lemma 2.4 we know that \(\ L_1, \dots , L_{m_1} \ \) can be packed into \(B_1\), for sufficiently large \(x\). Obviously,
Consequently,
We proceed in a similar way for \(\ i=2, \dots , n-1 \). Put
for \(\ i=2, \dots , n-1\). Each \(D_i\) is divided into the \(\sigma \)-polygon \(A_i\) and a \(\sigma \)-polygon \(B_i\) of base \(b_{m_{i-1}+1}\), top \(\ b_{m_{i-1}+1}-{\uplambda }_i \ \) and height \(d_i\). Denote by \(m_i\) the greatest integer such that
By Lemma 2.4 we know that \(\ L_{m_{i-1}+1}, \dots , L_{m_i} \ \) can be packed into \(B_i\) provided \(x\) is sufficiently large. Moreover,
Clearly, if \(\ m_i=m\ \) for some integer \(i\), then all rectangles from \(\mathcal R\) were packed into \(I_x\).
Denote by \(m_n\) the greatest integer such that
By Lemma 2.4 we know that \(\ L_{m_{n-1}+1}, \dots , L_{m_n} \ \) can be packed into \(B_{n+1}\). Moreover,
Finally, put
The rectangle \(D_n\) is divided into the \(\sigma \)-polygon \(A_n\) and a \(\sigma \)-polygon \(B'_n\) of height \(d_n\) and base
\((m_0 = 0)\). Since
and
it follows that
Denote by \(R_{k_2}\) the last rectangle packed in \(L_{m_{n}}\). The rectangles \(\ R_1, \dots , R_{k_1} \) were packed into \(\ A_1 \cup \dots \cup A_n\). The rectangles \(\ R_{k_1+1}, \dots , R_{k_2}\ \) were packed into \(\ B_1 \cup \dots \cup B_{n-1} \cup B_{n+1}\). The remaining rectangles \(\ R_{{k_2}+1}, \dots ,\) \( R_z\ \) will be packed into \(B_n'\). Unfortunately, it is possible that \(\ L_{m_n+1}, \dots , L_m\ \) are too large to apply Lemma 2.4 and therefore we need to repack \(\ R_{{k_2}+1}, \dots , R_z\ \) into other larger rectangles. We apply Lemma 2.3. There is an integer \(l\) and there are rectangles \(L'_i\) (for \(\ i=1, \dots , l\ \)) of width \(b'_i\), where
and height not greater than \(1\) such that \(\ R_{k_2+1}, \dots , R_{z} \ \) can be packed into \(\ \bigcup _{i=1}^l L'_i\ \) and that the waste in this packing is no more than
It remains to check that
for sufficiently large \(x\) (then, by Lemma 2.4, \(\ L'_1, \dots , L'_l\ \) and, consequently, the rectangles \(\ R_{k_2+1}, \dots , R_{z} \ \) can be packed into \(B_n'\)).
Put \(\ \mu _1 = b_{m_1+1}-b_1 \ \) and \(\ \mu _i = b_{m_i+1}-b_{m_{i-1}+1}\ \) for \(\ i=2, \dots , n-1\). Obviously, \(\ \sum _{i=1}^{n-1} \mu _i <1\). By
and
we have
Consequently,
To prove the inequality \((*)\) we show that
It is easy to check that
and
for sufficiently large \(x\). This implies that
The arithmetic mean of a list of non-negative real numbers is smaller than or equal to the quadratic mean of the same list. Therefore
for non-negative numbers \(\ \alpha _1, \dots , \alpha _{n-1}\). Since \(\ \sum _{i=1}^{n-1} ({\uplambda }_{i}+\mu _i) < 2\), it follows that
Hence
Consequently,
for sufficiently large \(x\). \(\square \)
References
F. Chung, R.L. Graham, Packing equal squares into a large square. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 116, 1167–1175 (2009)
P. Erdös, R.L. Graham, On packing squares with equal squares. J. Comb. Theory 19, 119–123 (1975)
S. Hougardy, On packing squares into a rectangle. Comput. Geom. 44(8), 456–463 (2011)
H. Groemer, Covering and packing properties of bounded sequences of convex sets. Mathematika 29, 18–31 (1982)
J. Januszewski, Packing rectangles into the unit square. Geom. Dedicata 81, 13–18 (2001)
A. Kosiński, A proof of an Auerbach-Banach-Mazur-Ulam theorem on convex bodies. Colloq. Math. 4, 216–218 (1957)
A. Meir, L. Moser, On packing of squares and cubes. J. Comb. Theory 5, 126–134 (1968)
J.W. Moon, L. Moser, Some packing and covering theorems. Colloq. Math. 17(1), 103–110 (1967)
L. Moser, Poorly formulated unsolved problems of combinatorial geometry, mimeographed, (1966)
P. Novotny, A note on a packing of squares. Stud. Univ. Transp. Commun. Žilina Math.-Phys. Ser 10, 35–39 (1995)
P. Novotny, On packing of squares into a rectangle. Arch. Math. (Brno) 32(2), 75–83 (1996)
K.F. Roth, R.C. Vaughan, Inefficiency in packing squares with unit squares. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 24, 170–186 (1978)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.