Timeline for answer to Universal dissection by Peter Taylor
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 14:03 | vote | accept | klm123 | ||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 12:11 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @klm123, cases expanded. But since I was editing anyway, I've added a simpler proof which occurred to me later. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 12:10 | history | edited | Peter Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
More detail, and alternative and simpler proof
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 12:04 | comment | added | klm123 | I think I've got it now: due to restrictions in that case you can't have more than 6 placements. Now I don't understand the last pharagraph. Could you elaborate " If it touches the top edge then the vertical position of the gap must be against the top edge, width minus one squares below it, or height minus one squares below it." please? why "must" and what are "width" and "height"? | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 11:49 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | @klm123, I don't understand the question. I explicitly said that it can lose parts, but that losing parts adds restrictions. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 7:36 | comment | added | klm123 | Sorry, I can't find it: Why the grey rectangle can't lose parts? It will still fit in a corner. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 7:21 | history | answered | Peter Taylor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |