65

How many $n$-dimensional unit cubes are needed to cover a cube with side lengths $1+\epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$?

For n=1, the answer is obviously two. For n=2, the drawing below shows that three unit cubes suffice, but it is impossible using only two cubes. In general, a total of $n+1$ cubes is enough, as is shown in Agol's answer, but is this the smallest number possible?


(source: folk.uio.no)

Glorfindel
  • 2,743
J.C. Ottem
  • 11,519
  • 3
    Why does it seem that n+1 is sufficient? This is not obvious to me even for n = 3. – user332 Dec 16 '10 at 18:47
  • 1
    I presume $\epsilon<\epsilon_0(n)$ where $\epsilon_0(n)$ is small and depends (in principle) on the dimension. – Rbega Dec 16 '10 at 18:47
  • 2
    Are you familiar with the paper by Alexander Soifer, "Covering a square of side n+ε with unit squares"?
    http://www.uccs.edu/~faculty/asoifer/docs/untitled.pdf
    – Joseph O'Rourke Dec 16 '10 at 19:04
  • @Rex. You are right, I guess it's not obvious. @RBega Yes, $\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small. @Joeseph: I was not aware of that paper, but I don't think it solves this problem, does it? – J.C. Ottem Dec 16 '10 at 19:16
  • @J.C. Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that it solves your problem. Just related, and maybe not as closely related as I thought: $n$ vs. 1 makes a significant difference. – Joseph O'Rourke Dec 16 '10 at 19:21
  • This is related to the Hadwiger conjecture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadwiger_conjecture_%28combinatorial_geometry%29 but it is not the same since you allow rotations. – Andrés E. Caicedo Dec 16 '10 at 19:52
  • 5
    Yes, $n+1$ is OK. With one unit cube, you can cover an $(n-1)$-dimensional face, just as shown in the figure. Then select one vertex $S$ of the larger cube. Use $n$ unit cubes to cover the $(n-1)$-faces attached to $S$. There remains to cover a compact set which contains only the opposite vertex, which can be covered with one unit cube. – Denis Serre Dec 16 '10 at 20:49
  • 9
    @Denis Serre: How do you cover one n-1-dimensional face with one cube? What is the largest square that will fit inside a cubical box?

    If you look at cross-sections of the unit n-cube that are perturbation cross-sections parallel to a face, the shape is determined by the slope, a linear function: the unit n-1-cube can be stretched by any linear function. You can't get a larger n-1 cube that way.

    For n=3, I see how to cover one of the n-1 faces except for a neighborhood of one of its edges. With 3 cubes, you can cover 2- faces attached to S, so 4 works.

    – Bill Thurston Dec 16 '10 at 21:11
  • @Bill: Could you say more about the n=3 case? I still can't seem to see how to cover the 2-faces attached to S with only 3 cubes. – user332 Dec 16 '10 at 21:44
  • 4
    For the n=3 case, see http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrinceRupertsCube.html for how to cover a (1+epsilon) square by a single cube. After three faces of the large cube adjacent to a single vertex are covered in this way, the remaining part of the large cube can be covered by a fourth unit cube, exactly as in the n=2 case. – David Eppstein Dec 17 '10 at 00:03
  • @David Eppstein: Prince Ruperts Cube is cool. @Rex: I had in mind perturbing the square cross-section by tilting it diagonally, giving a rhombus cross-section. The rhombus can be arranged to cover a slightly bigger square except for a thin triangle. Using this as a guide, arrange three unit cubes around vertex $S$ like three petals of a flower, to cover the three faces touching $S$. A fourth cube covers the rest. I wouldn't be surprised if this generalizes to higher dimensions, but haven't thought much about it. rhombus over square – Bill Thurston Dec 17 '10 at 01:59
  • 4
    For the n=3 case, I found the following picture useful : http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubeSquareInscribing.html – François Brunault Dec 17 '10 at 23:28
  • @Bill: How does this flower arrangement cover the entirety of the three faces around S? Using the fact that an n-1 cube fits in the interior of an n-cube (mentioned several times now), I see how to find the covering for any n. But it is still not clear to me why your rhombus covering approach works. Sorry to be so stubborn about this; I was trying to do something similar (assuming one can cover all of a face except a neighborhood of one edge with a cube), but no matter how I arranged the covers, some vertex point always seemed to escape. Maybe I am not visualizing it very well. – user332 Dec 19 '10 at 06:28

2 Answers2

20

I'll expand my comment into an answer. Following Serre's suggestion in the comments, to show that $n+1$ unit cubes cover an $n$-cube of side lengths $1+\epsilon$ for some $\epsilon > 0$, it suffices to show that one may fit a unit $n-1$-cube in the interior of a unit $n$-cube. If you can do this, then you can fit a $1+\epsilon$ $n-1$-cube in the interior of a unit $n$-cube for some $\epsilon$. As Serre suggests, you may then take a vertex of the $1+\epsilon$ $n$-cube, and cover each of the $n$ $n-1$-cube faces containing it by a unit $n$-cube. Then one may use another $n$-cube to cover the antipodal vertex and the rest of the cube, possibly for a smaller $\epsilon$. This case $n=2$ is in the picture given in the question. As Bill points out in the comments, one needs an explanation as to why an $n-1$-cube fits in the interior of the $n$-cube.

To see that a unit $n-1$-cube fits in the interior of an $n$-cube, one may proceed by induction. This is true for $n=1$. Let $I=[0,1]$. By induction, suppose we have an embedding $f: I^{n-1}\to int(I^n)$. Then we have an embedding $f\times Id: I^{n-1}\times I \to int(I^n)\times I$. This gives a map which touches the boundary of $I^{n+1}$ only along $f(I^{n-1})\times \{0,1\}$. Think of this as a map $f×e:I^{n−1}\times I\hookrightarrow f(I^{n−1})\times D^2\subset f(I^{n−1})\times I\times \mathbb{R}$ ($\mathbb{R}$ is just the normal bundle to $f(I^{n-1})\times I \subset I^n\times I = I^{n+1}$). Then rotate the interval $I$ in $D^2$ by a small angle $\theta$ to get a map $e_{\theta}:I\to D^2\subset I\times \mathbb{R}$. The endpoints no longer lie on $\{0,1\}\times \mathbb{R}$. Then the map $f \times e_{\theta}: I^{n-1}\times I \to f(I^{n-1})\times D^2$ will have image in $int(I^{n+1})$ for small enough $\theta$.

Ian Agol
  • 66,821
  • 1
    Thanks Agol, this is a nice argument! This shows that $n+1$ cubes is always enough. The question whether $n+1$ is the smallest possible number is still open. – J.C. Ottem Dec 18 '10 at 01:48
  • @Agol. It seems that the construction proposed by Denis and you implies the following : for sufficiently small $\epsilon>0$, it is possible to arrange $n$ unit hypercubes in the $(1+\epsilon)$-hypercube in such a way that the region not covered by them is arbitrarily small. Is it true? – François Brunault Dec 18 '10 at 13:09
  • 1
    @Francois: I don't think so, at least this doesn't follow from the argument. The point is that if you can cover the $n$ faces adjacent to a vertex of a $1+\epsilon$ cube with unit cubes, then they cover some $\delta$ neighborhood of those faces. So you know that there will be a $1+\epsilon-\delta$ cube left over, and by adjusting $\epsilon$, you can make sure that a unit cube can cover what is left over. – Ian Agol Dec 18 '10 at 18:52
  • @Agol : Oh, I see now, thanks... For $n=3$ at least, I got more or less convinced that 3 cubes are sufficient to cover everything but a small neighborhood of $S'$, the vertex opposite to $S$. But I wouldn't swear to it, because my 3D perception is limited... – François Brunault Dec 18 '10 at 22:18
  • Francois (forgive my limited typeset), I had a visualization difficulty too, until I cut out the rectilinear cube and saw that I just had a union of thin prisms adjacent to one vertex left to cover. It makes me wonder if I can use a "volume-greedy" cover which involves 2 rectilinear cubes and (n-2) other cubes to cover a large enough neighborhood which surrounds the uncovered ring of dimension (n-2) "edges". Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.12.18 – Gerhard Paseman Dec 18 '10 at 23:27
4

I had this very same question posted on my web page http://webhome.auburn.edu/~kuperwl/ for more than 20 years. To the best of my knowledge, the complete answer is still unknown.