The Affairs of Squares

I always want more squares. When I see one, I want another one to be its pair or to be its neighbor.
A rectangle is acceptable so long as it resides beneath a square. I find two or more rectangles too
much. I prefer four squares, each with the exact same area. If I have two squares, then two
rectangles located just below them is fine (so long as each rectangle has the exact same area, and having its

shortest side parallel with, and equal to the square’s). In fact, I would say that two or more rectangles are
acceptable, as long as their number matches that of the squares, and that they are located just below,
and equidistant from each square. Now, a square can be located just below a rectangle, as long as the
rectangle has a square just above its position. I find that this can go on forever, so long as there is a

matching column situated to the right of the first column. This is a challenging formation to achieve,
as in order to have a preceding column of squares and rectangles to the right, one would have to
place the next column to the left, leaving the original column without a matching column to the right
of itself. The area of the squares must be at least sixteen thousand meters, while the area of the

rectangles must be at least twice that of the squares. When integrating rectangles, it is not possible
to start from the bottom and work one’s way up, since columns must always begin with a square, and
rectangles may not be placed directly on top of squares. With regard to chiliagons: I do not require
any more than one, that being to circumscribe the entire affair of square and rectangle operations.