The precise relative proportions of the square and triangle are of no
consequence whatever. It is only necessary to cut the wood or material
into five pieces.
Suppose our original square to be ACLF in the above diagram and our
triangle to be the shaded portion CED. Now, we first find half the
length of the long side of the triangle (CD) and measure off this length
at AB. Then we place the triangle in its present position against the
square and make two cuts--one from B to F, and the other from B to E.
Strange as it may seem, that is all that is necessary! If we now remove
the pieces G, H, and M to their new places, as shown in the diagram, we
get the perfect square BEKF.
Take any two square pieces of paper, of different sizes but perfect
squares, and cut the smaller one in half from corner to corner. Now
proceed in the manner shown, and you will find that the two pieces may
be combined to form a larger square by making these two simple cuts, and
that no piece will be required to be turned over.
The remark that the triangle might be "a little larger or a good deal
smaller in proportion" was intended to bar cases where area of triangle
is greater than area of square. In such cases six pieces are necessary,
and if triangle and square are of equal area there is an obvious
solution in three pieces, by simply cutting the square in half
diagonally.
153.--A CUTTING-OUT PUZZLE.
[Illustration]
The illustration shows how to cut the four pieces and form with them a
square. First find the side of the square (the mean proportional between
the length and height of the rectangle), and the method is obvious. If
our strip is exactly in the proportions 9 x 1, or 16 x 1, or 25 x 1, we
can clearly cut it in 3, 4, or 5 rectangular pieces respectively to form
a square. Excluding these special cases, the general law is that for a
strip in length more than n squared times the breadth, and not more than (n+1) squared
times the breadth, it may be cut in n+2 pieces to form a square, and
there will be n-1 rectangular pieces like piece 4 in the diagram. Thus,
for example, with a strip 24 x 1, the length is more than 16 and less
than 25 times the breadth. Therefore it can be done in 6 pieces (n here
being 4), 3 of which will be rectangular. In the case where n equals 1,
the rectangle disappears and we get a solution in three pieces. Within
these limits, of course, the sides need not be rational: the solution is
purely geometrical.
154.--MRS. HOBSON'S HEARTHRUG.
[Illustration]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account