Problem:
Two squares from each of two opposite corners are deleted from an eight by eight checkerboard. Prove that the remaining squares cannot be covered exactly by copies of the "T-Shape" and its rotations. (A "T-Shape" consists of 4 squares).
My answer:
If we remove 2 squares from each of opposite corners we are left with 60 squares left (64-4=60): 30 white and 30 black (We'll say the checkerboard is B&W). A "T" takes up 4 sqaures so in order to completely cover the board we would need 15 "T's" (60/4=15). A "T" can consist of 3 white and 1 black (3w:1b) or 3 black and 1 white (1w:3b).
I've tried a few different arrangements and the most T's I can come up with is 14, that's with the "T" arrangements being half and half (7 1w:3b and 7 3w:1b). I am positive that this is the maximum T's we can come up with (though I haven't manually calculated EVERY POSSIBLE arrangement), but the few other scenarios I've tried keep giving me less than 14. So my proof is pretty much complete, but I want to make it "airtight". Do you guys see any opportunity for better reasoning?
Two squares from each of two opposite corners are deleted from an eight by eight checkerboard. Prove that the remaining squares cannot be covered exactly by copies of the "T-Shape" and its rotations. (A "T-Shape" consists of 4 squares).
My answer:
If we remove 2 squares from each of opposite corners we are left with 60 squares left (64-4=60): 30 white and 30 black (We'll say the checkerboard is B&W). A "T" takes up 4 sqaures so in order to completely cover the board we would need 15 "T's" (60/4=15). A "T" can consist of 3 white and 1 black (3w:1b) or 3 black and 1 white (1w:3b).
I've tried a few different arrangements and the most T's I can come up with is 14, that's with the "T" arrangements being half and half (7 1w:3b and 7 3w:1b). I am positive that this is the maximum T's we can come up with (though I haven't manually calculated EVERY POSSIBLE arrangement), but the few other scenarios I've tried keep giving me less than 14. So my proof is pretty much complete, but I want to make it "airtight". Do you guys see any opportunity for better reasoning?