The cheaty solution at the end depends on what seems to me an unintended interpretation of the question (though, given that the same person wrote the question and the program that found the solution, maybe my idea of what’s intended is wrong). I took “tile both polygons” to mean “tile polygon 1 AND tile polygon 2″, not “tile the union of polygons 1 and 2”.
It is a solution similar to the one with the big shape which doesn’t cover anything, but the remainder is arbitrarily miniscule relative to the shape.
We called it “a trivial solution”, as I call this solution trivial, but maybe less trivial, since it actually covers all and it wasn’t explicitly forbidden, not to people, not to the computer.
Now, I told my chitin’ comp, don’t do that, each instance of the shape should cover either the triangle, either the square!
The cheaty solution at the end depends on what seems to me an unintended interpretation of the question (though, given that the same person wrote the question and the program that found the solution, maybe my idea of what’s intended is wrong). I took “tile both polygons” to mean “tile polygon 1 AND tile polygon 2″, not “tile the union of polygons 1 and 2”.
It is a solution similar to the one with the big shape which doesn’t cover anything, but the remainder is arbitrarily miniscule relative to the shape.
We called it “a trivial solution”, as I call this solution trivial, but maybe less trivial, since it actually covers all and it wasn’t explicitly forbidden, not to people, not to the computer.
Now, I told my chitin’ comp, don’t do that, each instance of the shape should cover either the triangle, either the square!
We will see.