A note on reduction of tiling problems
Abstract.
We show that translational tiling problems in a quotient of can be effectively reduced or “simulated” by translational tiling problems in . In particular, for any , and the existence of an aperiodic tile in implies the existence of an aperiodic tile in . Greenfeld and Tao have recently disproved the well-known periodic tiling conjecture in for sufficiently large by constructing an aperiodic tile in for suitable .
Key words and phrases:
tranlational tilings, periodic tiling conjecture, decidability of tiling problems2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
52C23, 03B25, 03D30, 05B45, 52C221. Introduction
In this note, we consider translational tiles over finitely generated abelian groups. Any finitely generated abelian group is a quotient of for some positive integer . Briefly, we show that for any tuple of finite subsets in a quotient of , there exists an explicit tuple of finite subsets of so that tilings of by directly correspond, formally and explicitly, to tilings of by . Informally, this means that tiling problems in can effectively simulate tiling problems in .
The motivation for writing this note comes from the periodic tiling conjecture and questions about the decidability of the tiling problems. Bhattacharya [Bha20] proved that a finite subset can tile if and only if it admits a periodic tiling, resolving the case of the well-known periodic tiling conjecture. The periodic tiling conjecture seems to be currently open in and also in for general ; see [GT21, subsection ]. From our argument below, it follows that an affirmative solution of the periodic tiling conjecture in would automatically imply an affirmative resolution of the periodic tiling conjecture in for all .
The main result of [GT21] is the existence of a rank finitely generated group and two finite subsets that can tile a certain periodic subset , but such that no proof of the sentence “there is a tiling of by and ” exists in ZFC. In particular, such sets cannot tile periodically. Building on this construction, it was further shown in [GT21] that a similar statement holds when replacing by for sufficiently large . The reduction procedure described below is a slight elaboration of the construction applied by Greenfeld and Tao in [GT21]. The main new point is that the reduction procedure can be used in a general setting, independently of any properties of the given set of tiles, the number of tiles, the rank of , and the quotient group of .
Greenfeld and Tao [GT22] have recently disproved the periodic tiling conjecture in for sufficiently large by constructing an aperiodic tile in , for suitable .
We briefly describe our notational conventions that closely follow the conventions of [GT21]. We write to denote the union of pairwise disjoint sets. Given an abelian group and subsets , we write to indicate that for every there exists a unique pair and such that . For and , we denote . Given finite subsets and we use the notation
(1) |
We say that a -tuple is periodic if there exist a finite index subgroup that fixes every . Equivalently, is periodic if there exists finite sets such that for all . A -tuple of finite subsets of is aperiodic if is non-empty but does not contain a periodic -tuple. Given a subgroup we say that is a fundamental domain for if contains exactly one representative of each coset of . Equivalently, is a fundamental domain if .
Here is the statement of the main reduction result:
Theorem 1.1.
Let , a surjective group homomorphism and let be a fundamental domain for . Then there exists and finite subsets such that for every , finite subsets of with for all , we have
(2) |
Here is given by
We state some direct corollaries of Theorem 1.1. Suppose is a surjective group homomorphism.
Corollary 1.2.
If there exists an aperiodic -tuple for , then there exists an aperiodic -tuple for .
Corollary 1.3.
For every , if tiling by tiles in is algorithmically decidable, then tiling by tiles in is algorithmically decidable.
Corollary 1.4.
Let be finite subsets of and let be a theory in first-order logic in which the proof of (2) can be expressed. If the sentence is provable in , then the sentence is provable in .
Readers familiar with logic can easily convince themselves that the proof of (2) can be expressed in ZFC, for any explicit finitely generated abelian group (in the sense of [GT21]) and any explicit homomorphism .
Acknowledgment: We thank Rachel Greenfeld and Terry Tao for their encouragement and Ville Salo for helpful suggestions regarding the presentation. This research was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant no. 1058/18.
2. Proof of the reduction theorem
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on the following lemma. The case and is essentially Lemma of [GT21]), where the basic idea has been attributed to Golomb [Gol70].
Lemma 2.1 (Rigid tuple of tiles).
Let , let , and let be a fundamental domain for . Then there exists and finite sets , with and for every , such that
-
(a)
.
-
(b)
For every we have .
-
(c)
if and only if and each is -periodic.
Remark 2.2.
-
(i)
The tiles that are defined in the proof below are essentially boxes of side length , with bumps and dents, such as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, whose purpose is to enforce their positions (see Figure 1). For simplicity, the bumps and dents in the proof are of the form of “a frame” of width , i.e. the difference between two centered boxes, . We did not attempt to minimize the number .
-
(ii)
We note that as a consequence of (c), if then any permutation of is also in .
Proof.
We prove the claim only for , since the proof for the case requires slightly different considerations but is not more difficult.
Let and be given. Since is a finitely generated abelian group of rank at most , there exists and that generate as a free abelian group in the sense that . Also, let be a set of free generators for (say, the standard generators), and for , let
and
The ’s play the role of the bumps and dents in our tiles, and the properties that we need from them are that they are all bounded and that for every the set does not contain a translated copy of the set .
Choose large enough so that contains disjoint translated copies of all the boxes for (e.g. ), and let .
Choose translation vectors so that
and | ||
We first define the tile as follows:
(3) |

We refer to the missing translates of ’s in as dents, and to the disconnected translates of the ’s as bumps. We claim that . The claim is fairly evident from Figure 1. We provide some details below.
The properties of that we use, which are straightforward from (3), are the following: Firstly, is a fundamental domain for . Secondly, for every the only such that is . Thus, is the unique translate of that can cover without intersecting the corresponding bump . See Figure 1. Since is a fundamental domain for , we have . Now suppose , then for every and we also have , because each bump of must fit into a corresponding dent and vice versa. So must be a union of cosets of . But since is a fundamental domain for , it follows that must be a coset of . Since we must have .
We now define the tiles . For the tile is defined by adding additional bumps and dents to the tile . The bumps and dents are of the form , for :
(4) |

Direct inspection of (4) shows that for any we have
(5) |
From (5) and it follows that whenever is a partition of into -periodic sets, we have .
Now we show that for any we have that is a partition of into -periodic sets. As soon as we show that each is -periodic, it will follow from (5) that and so , thus . So it is left to explain why each is -periodic. The argument is essentially the same as the argument showing that each is -periodic, and should be fairly clear from Figure 2. In view of (4), the additional property of the collection that is needed here is the following: For every and every , if covers without intersecting the bump of , then we must have and . See Figure 2. ∎

For convenience we state and proof the following elementary lemma:
Lemma 2.3.
Let be a surjective group homomorphism, and let .
-
(a)
If satisfy that and is -periodic then .
-
(b)
If are each -periodic and then .
Proof.
-
(a)
The equality follows directly because is a group homomorphism. We need to show that the sum is direct, namely that the representation with , is unique for every . Suppose . Since every has a unique representation with and , we conclude that
Set . By the assumption that is -periodic, it follows that . Then are two representations of the same element as a sum of an element of and an element of . It follows that and , so . This means that and . We have thus proved that the representation with , is unique for every .
-
(b)
Using induction, it is enough to prove the case . Clearly, for every function and sets in its domain, so we only need to show that under the assumptions that and that each is -periodic. Otherwise, there are and such that . This means that . But is -periodic and so , contradicting .
∎
We are now ready to prove our main result.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Given and a surjective homomorphism let , let be a fundamental domain for that contains , and let and satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 2.1 with respect to and .
Given finite sets , let be as in (2). For the first inclusion, suppose , then by definition . Applying , we obtain that
(6) |
For we define
(7) |
By the identity
and in view of (7), we see that for every we have . Thus multiplying the identity in (6) by yields .
Note that is -periodic, thus is a partition of into -periodic sets. By Lemma 2.1 it follows that
Using (7), the expression can be rearranged to
But in view of the definition of the in (2), this means that . We conclude that
To see the other inclusion, let . Then the following statements hold:
-
(1)
.
-
(2)
.
The second equation can be rewritten as follows:
This can be rearranged as:
(8) |
Thus if and only if
where
By Lemma 2.1, this happens if and only if is a partition of into -periodic sets. Since it follows that . Now because is -periodic, it follows that each is -periodic. This means that for every there exists such that
(9) |
It remains to show that . Because , it follows that . Using the property for every , and the fact that each is -periodic, we may replace every in (8) by to obtain:
Using the fact that , the left-hand side can be rearranged to obtain the following:
Recall that by Lemma 2.1 we have , thus
Plugging in (9) we conclude that . Since induces a group isomorphism between and we get . By Lemma 2.3, using the fact that is -periodic, it follows that . We have thus shown that
∎

3. Corollaries regarding periodicity, topological conjugacy, algorithmic decidability and more
Proof of Corollary 1.2.
Suppose is an aperiodic -tuple of finite sets in , then . By (2), we have that . If we assume that is not aperiodic, then by (2) there exists such that is a periodic tuple in . But this implies that is periodic. Thus, the existence of an aperiodic -tuple in implies the existence of an aperiodic -tuple in . ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.3.
Assume that for a particular a tiling by tiles in is algorithmically decidable. By definition, this means that there exists a Turing machine that takes as input a -tuple of finite subsets in and accepts the input if and only if . The Turing machine always halts in finite time. Then we can construct a Turing machine that takes as input a -tuple of finite subsets in , produces the finite subsets of described in the statement of Theorem 1.1, then runs . Clearly halts in finite time on input if and only if halts with input . The Turing machine accepts if and only if accepts , which by assumption happens if and only if . By Theorem 1.1 this happens if and only if . ∎
Proof of Corollary 1.4.
The concatenation of the proof of in with the proof of (2) in yields a proof of in . ∎
To conclude this note, we explain why Corollary 1.2 is a consequence of a stronger correspondence between translational tilings in and in , expressed in terms of topological dynamics.
A -topological dynamical system is a pair where is a compact topological space and , the group of homomorphisms from to the group of self-homeomorphisms of . We say that -topological dynamical systems and are topologically conjugate or isomorphic if there exists a homeomorphism such that for every .
The space of -tuples of finite subsets of , equipped with the product topology, is a totally disconnected compact metrizable space. Note that that wherever is a surjective group homomorphism, the group acts on by homeomorphism via , where for every , is given by
For any -tuple of finite sets the space is a closed, -invariant subset of . So is a -topological dynamical system. Let and be a -tuple of finite subsets of that satisfies (2). Let
be given by
and
Let . For each let
Then each is a closed, -invariant subset of , and . For each , the -topological dynamical system is topologically conjugate to via the map
We conclude:
Corollary 3.1.
For every -tuple of finite subsets of of there exists a -tuple of finite subsets of and such that the -topological dynamical system is topologically conjugate to the -topological dynamical system .
References
- [Bha20] S. Bhattacharya. Periodicity and decidability of tilings of . Amer. J. Math., 142(1):255–266, 2020.
- [Gol70] Solomon W. Golomb. Tiling with sets of polyominoes. J. Combinatorial Theory, 9:60–71, 1970.
- [GT21] R. Greenfeld and T. Tao. Undecidable translational tilings with only two tiles, or one nonabelian tile. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2108.07902, 2021.
- [GT22] R. Greenfeld and T. Tao. A counterexample to the periodic tiling conjecture (announcement). https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.08451, 2022.