Why 26-by-26 may be forever too small
- What it is
- A paper claims that a 27-by-27 square is the smallest square tileable by integer rectangles no two of which contain one another in both dimensions.
- Who did it
- George M. Georgiou
- What it could mean
- An apparently tiny tiling puzzle can hide a hard impossibility proof. If this holds, every smaller square is ruled out—and the public search records show exactly where finite checking enters the argument.
See the check plan
Evidence & validation
From announcement to evidence
Discovery recorded. State of Proof has not yet examined this claim.
Read the original work
The smallest square tileable by pairwise incomparable integer rectangles ↗See the proposed checks
First source-lock and hash-check the ancillary release, then examination the structural reduction from the theorem to the finite candidate list. Any dual-implementation replay belongs in a separate isolated environment and must compare its output to the stated 167,538 count and exact (n,k) scope.
No proof docket yet
A docket is the public record of checks and open questions. This paper does not have one yet; the check plan above describes work still to do.
Explore existing proof dockets →
- What it claims
- The abstract claims that for every integer (nleq26) and every number of tiles (kgeq2), the (n× n) square has no tiling by pairwise incomparable integer rectangles, establishing that the known 27-by-27 example is smallest. Its finite stage is reported to search 167,538 candidates using two independently written programs.
- Why this could matter
- Why 26-by-26 may be forever too small Cut a square into integer-sided rectangles, but forbid any rectangle from being at least as wide and tall as another. A 27-by-27 example is known; this paper claims every smaller square is impossible.
- If it holds up
- Foundational: it would close a clean finite geometry puzzle and show how structural reasoning can shrink an enormous search to a checkable set of cases.
- If it does not
- A missing tile family, an incomplete reduction, or a mismatched search record would show exactly where the claimed impossibility needs repair.
- Impact horizon
- Foundational · Combinatorics · Discrete geometry · Computer-assisted proof
- Version
- submitted 2026-09-17 01:00:56 UTC
- Why we tracked it
- a fresh finite combinatorial theorem with public dual-implementation evidence artifacts. Intake does not mean the finite search, logs, checksums, or theorem correspondence have been independently replayed.
- Highest-risk dependency
- Finite enumeration supports only the candidate universe reached by the structural reductions. A successful rerun would not establish the theorem if the reduction omits a permitted rectangle family, changes incomparability conventions, or mismatches the stated quantifiers.
- Available artifacts
- arXiv lists a complete ancillary verification package with two implementations, build instructions, SHA256SUMS, C/Python source, output logs, and certificate/round-trip logs. No source, log, checksum, or program was downloaded, executed, or replayed.
- Current boundary
- Intake record only; examination not started.