The reader will here appreciate the truth of my remark to the effect
that it is easier to find the directions of the cuts when transforming a
cross to a square than when converting a square into a cross. Thus, in
Figs. 6, 8, and 10 the directions of the cuts are more obvious than in
Fig. 14, where we had first to divide the sides of the square into six
equal parts, and in Fig. 18, where we divide them into three equal
parts. Then, supposing you were required to cut two equal Greek crosses,
each into two pieces, to form a square, a glance at Figs. 19 and 20 will
show how absurdly more easy this is than the reverse puzzle of cutting
the square to make two crosses.
Referring to my remarks on "fallacies," I will now give a little example
of these "solutions" that are not solutions. Some years ago a young
correspondent sent me what he evidently thought was a brilliant new
discovery--the transforming of a square into a Greek cross in four
pieces by cuts all parallel to the sides of the square. I give his
attempt in Figs. 21 and 22, where it will be seen that the four pieces
do not form a symmetrical Greek cross, because the four arms are not
really squares but oblongs. To make it a true Greek cross we should
require the additions that I have indicated with dotted lines. Of course
his solution produces a cross, but it is not the symmetrical Greek
variety required by the conditions of the puzzle. My young friend
thought his attempt was "near enough" to be correct; but if he bought a
penny apple with a sixpence he probably would not have thought it "near
enough" if he had been given only fourpence change. As the reader
advances he will realize the importance of this question of exactitude.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.]
[Illustration: FIG. 22.]
In these cutting-out puzzles it is necessary not only to get the
directions of the cutting lines as correct as possible, but to remember
that these lines have no width. If after cutting up one of the crosses
in a manner indicated in these articles you find that the pieces do not
exactly fit to form a square, you may be certain that the fault is
entirely your own. Either your cross was not exactly drawn, or your cuts
were not made quite in the right directions, or (if you used wood and a
fret-saw) your saw was not sufficiently fine. If you cut out the puzzles
in paper with scissors, or in cardboard with a penknife, no material is
lost; but with a saw, however fine, there is a certain loss. In the case
of most puzzles this slight loss is not sufficient to be appreciable,
if the puzzle is cut out on a large scale, but there have been
instances where I have found it desirable to draw and cut out each part
separately--not from one diagram--in order to produce a perfect result.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.]
[Illustration: FIG. 24.]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account