Chapter 27

+----------------------+-----------+---------------+-----------------------+ | Number | Side of | Side of | Sides of Two | Sides of Three | | | Square. | Triangle. | Triangles. | Triangles. | +------------+---------+-----------+---------------+-----------------------+ | 36 | 6 | 8 | 6 + 5 | 5 + 5 + 3 | | 1225 | 35 | 49 | 36 + 34 | 33 + 32 + 16 | | 41616 | 204 | 288 | 204 + 203 | 192 + 192 + 95 | | 1413721 | 1189 | 1681 | 1189 + 1188 | 1121 + 1120 + 560 | | 48024900 | 6930 | 9800 | 6930 + 6929 | 6533 + 6533 + 3267 | | 1631432881 | 40391 | 57121 | 40391 + 40390 | 38081 + 38080 + 19040 | +------------+---------+-----------+---------------+-----------------------+

I should perhaps explain that the arrangements given in the last two columns are not the only ways of forming two and three triangles. There are others, but one set of figures will fully serve our purpose. We thus see that before Mrs. McAllister can claim her sixth £5 present she must save the respectable sum of £1,631,432,881.

138.--THE ARTILLERYMEN'S DILEMMA.

We were required to find the smallest number of cannon balls that we could lay on the ground to form a perfect square, and could pile into a square pyramid. I will try to make the matter clear to the merest novice.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 3 6 10 15 21 28 1 4 10 20 35 56 84 1 5 14 30 55 91 140

Here in the first row we place in regular order the natural numbers. Each number in the second row represents the sum of the numbers in the row above, from the beginning to the number just over it. Thus 1, 2, 3, 4, added together, make 10. The third row is formed in exactly the same way as the second. In the fourth row every number is formed by adding together the number just above it and the preceding number. Thus 4 and 10 make 14, 20 and 35 make 55. Now, all the numbers in the second row are triangular numbers, which means that these numbers of cannon balls may be laid out on the ground so as to form equilateral triangles. The numbers in the third row will all form our triangular pyramids, while the numbers in the fourth row will all form square pyramids.

Thus the very process of forming the above numbers shows us that every square pyramid is the sum of two triangular pyramids, one of which has the same number of balls in the side at the base, and the other one ball fewer. If we continue the above table to twenty-four places, we shall reach the number 4,900 in the fourth row. As this number is the square of 70, we can lay out the balls in a square, and can form a square pyramid with them. This manner of writing out the series until we come to a square number does not appeal to the mathematical mind, but it serves to show how the answer to the particular puzzle may be easily arrived at by anybody. As a matter of fact, I confess my failure to discover any number other than 4,900 that fulfils the conditions, nor have I found any rigid proof that this is the only answer. The problem is a difficult one, and the second answer, if it exists (which I do not believe), certainly runs into big figures.

For the benefit of more advanced mathematicians I will add that the general expression for square pyramid numbers is (2n³ + 3n² + n)/6. For this expression to be also a square number (the special case of 1 excepted) it is necessary that n = p² - 1 = 6t², where 2p² - 1 = q² (the "Pellian Equation"). In the case of our solution above, n = 24, p = 5, t = 2, q = 7.

139.--THE DUTCHMEN'S WIVES.

The money paid in every case was a square number of shillings, because they bought 1 at 1s., 2 at 2s., 3 at 3s., and so on. But every husband pays altogether 63s. more than his wife, so we have to find in how many ways 63 may be the difference between two square numbers. These are the three only possible ways: the square of 8 less the square of 1, the square of 12 less the square of 9, and the square of 32 less the square of 31. Here 1, 9, and 31 represent the number of pigs bought and the number of shillings per pig paid by each woman, and 8, 12, and 32 the same in the case of their respective husbands. From the further information given as to their purchases, we can now pair them off as follows: Cornelius and Gurtrün bought 8 and 1; Elas and Katrün bought 12 and 9; Hendrick and Anna bought 32 and 31. And these pairs represent correctly the three married couples.

The reader may here desire to know how we may determine the maximum number of ways in which a number may be expressed as the difference between two squares, and how we are to find the actual squares. Any integer except 1, 4, and twice any odd number, may be expressed as the difference of two integral squares in as many ways as it can be split up into pairs of factors, counting 1 as a factor. Suppose the number to be 5,940. The factors are 2².3³.5.11. Here the exponents are 2, 3, 1, 1. Always deduct 1 from the exponents of 2 and add 1 to all the other exponents; then we get 1, 4, 2, 2, and half the product of these four numbers will be the required number of ways in which 5,940 may be the difference of two squares--that is, 8. To find these eight squares, as it is an _even_ number, we first divide by 4 and get 1485, the eight pairs of factors of which are 1 × 1485, 3 × 495, 5 × 297, 9 × 165, 11 × 135, 15 × 99, 27 × 55, and 33 × 45. The sum and difference of any one of these pairs will give the required numbers. Thus, the square of 1,486 less the square of 1,484 is 5,940, the square of 498 less the square of 492 is the same, and so on. In the case of 63 above, the number is _odd_; so we factorize at once, 1 × 63, 3 × 21, 7 × 9. Then we find that _half_ the sum and difference will give us the numbers 32 and 31, 12 and 9, and 8 and 1, as shown in the solution to the puzzle.

The reverse problem, to find the factors of a number when you have expressed it as the difference of two squares, is obvious. For example, the sum and difference of any pair of numbers in the last sentence will give us the factors of 63. Every prime number (except 1 and 2) may be expressed as the difference of two squares in one way, and in one way only. If a number can be expressed as the difference of two squares in more than one way, it is composite; and having so expressed it, we may at once obtain the factors, as we have seen. Fermat showed in a letter to Mersenne or Frénicle, in 1643, how we may discover whether a number may be expressed as the difference of two squares in more than one way, or proved to be a prime. But the method, when dealing with large numbers, is necessarily tedious, though in practice it may be considerably shortened. In many cases it is the shortest method known for factorizing large numbers, and I have always held the opinion that Fermat used it in performing a certain feat in factorizing that is historical and wrapped in mystery.

140.--FIND ADA'S SURNAME.

The girls' names were Ada Smith, Annie Brown, Emily Jones, Mary Robinson, and Bessie Evans.

141.--SATURDAY MARKETING.

As every person's purchase was of the value of an exact number of shillings, and as the party possessed when they started out forty shilling coins altogether, there was no necessity for any lady to have any smaller change, or any evidence that they actually had such change. This being so, the only answer possible is that the women were named respectively Anne Jones, Mary Robinson, Jane Smith, and Kate Brown. It will now be found that there would be exactly eight shillings left, which may be divided equally among the eight persons in coin without any change being required.

142.--THE SILK PATCHWORK.

Our illustration will show how to cut the stitches of the patchwork so as to get the square F entire, and four equal pieces, G, H, I, K, that will form a perfect Greek cross. The reader will know how to assemble these four pieces from Fig. 13 in the article.

143.--TWO CROSSES FROM ONE.

It will be seen that one cross is cut out entire, as A in Fig. 1, while the four pieces marked B, C, D and E form the second cross, as in Fig. 2, which will be of exactly the same size as the other. I will leave the reader the pleasant task of discovering for himself the best way of finding the direction of the cuts. Note that the Swastika again appears.

The difficult question now presents itself: How are we to cut three Greek crosses from one in the fewest possible pieces? As a matter of fact, this problem may be solved in as few as thirteen pieces; but as I know many of my readers, advanced geometricians, will be glad to have something to work on of which they are not shown the solution, I leave the mystery for the present undisclosed.

144.--THE CROSS AND THE TRIANGLE.

The line A B in the following diagram represents the side of a square having the same area as the cross. I have shown elsewhere, as stated, how to make a square and equilateral triangle of equal area. I need not go, therefore, into the preliminary question of finding the dimensions of the triangle that is to equal our cross. We will assume that we have already found this, and the question then becomes, How are we to cut up one of these into pieces that will form the other?

First draw the line A B where A and B are midway between the extremities of the two side arms. Next make the lines D C and E F equal in length to half the side of the triangle. Now from E and F describe with the same radius the intersecting arcs at G and draw F G. Finally make I K equal to H C and L B equal to A D. If we now draw I L, it should be parallel to F G, and all the six pieces are marked out. These fit together and form a perfect equilateral triangle, as shown in the second diagram. Or we might have first found the direction of the line M N in our triangle, then placed the point O over the point E in the cross and turned round the triangle over the cross until the line M N was parallel to A B. The piece 5 can then be marked off and the other pieces in succession.

I have seen many attempts at a solution involving the assumption that the height of the triangle is exactly the same as the height of the cross. This is a fallacy: the cross will always be higher than the triangle of equal area.

145.--THE FOLDED CROSS.

First fold the cross along the dotted line A B in Fig. 1. You then have it in the form shown in Fig. 2. Next fold it along the dotted line C D (where D is, of course, the centre of the cross), and you get the form shown in Fig. 3. Now take your scissors and cut from G to F, and the four pieces, all of the same size and shape, will fit together and form a square, as shown in Fig. 4.

146.--AN EASY DISSECTION PUZZLE.

The solution to this puzzle is shown in the illustration. Divide the figure up into twelve equal triangles, and it is easy to discover the directions of the cuts, as indicated by the dark lines.

147.--AN EASY SQUARE PUZZLE.

The diagram explains itself, one of the five pieces having been cut in two to form a square.

148.--THE BUN PUZZLE.

The secret of the bun puzzle lies in the fact that, with the relative dimensions of the circles as given, the three diameters will form a right-angled triangle, as shown by A, B, C. It follows that the two smaller buns are exactly equal to the large bun. Therefore, if we give David and Edgar the two halves marked D and E, they will have their fair shares--one quarter of the confectionery each. Then if we place the small bun, H, on the top of the remaining one and trace its circumference in the manner shown, Fred's piece, F, will exactly equal Harry's small bun, H, with the addition of the piece marked G--half the rim of the other. Thus each boy gets an exactly equal share, and there are only five pieces necessary.

149.--THE CHOCOLATE SQUARES.

Square A is left entire; the two pieces marked B fit together and make a second square; the two pieces C make a third square; and the four pieces marked D will form the fourth square.

150.--DISSECTING A MITRE.

The diagram on the next page shows how to cut into five pieces to form a square. The dotted lines are intended to show how to find the points C and F--the only difficulty. A B is half B D, and A E is parallel to B H. With the point of the compasses at B describe the arc H E, and A E will be the distance of C from B. Then F G equals B C less A B.

This puzzle--with the added condition that it shall be cut into four parts of the same size and shape--I have not been able to trace to an earlier date than 1835. Strictly speaking, it is, in that form, impossible of solution; but I give the answer that is always presented, and that seems to satisfy most people.

We are asked to assume that the two portions containing the same letter--AA, BB, CC, DD--are joined by "a mere hair," and are, therefore, only one piece. To the geometrician this is absurd, and the four shares are not equal in area unless they consist of two pieces each. If you make them equal in area, they will not be exactly alike in shape.

151.--THE JOINER'S PROBLEM.

Nothing could be easier than the solution of this puzzle--when you know how to do it. And yet it is apt to perplex the novice a good deal if he wants to do it in the fewest possible pieces--three. All you have to do is to find the point A, midway between B and C, and then cut from A to D and from A to E. The three pieces then form a square in the manner shown. Of course, the proportions of the original figure must be correct; thus the triangle BEF is just a quarter of the square BCDF. Draw lines from B to D and from C to F and this will be clear.

152.--ANOTHER JOINER'S PROBLEM.

THE point was to find a general rule for forming a perfect square out of another square combined with a "right-angled isosceles triangle." The triangle to which geometricians give this high-sounding name is, of course, nothing more or less than half a square that has been divided from corner to corner.

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.

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 × 1, or 16 × 1, or 25 × 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 n² times the breadth, and not more than (n+1)² 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 × 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.

As I gave full measurements of the mutilated rug, it was quite an easy matter to find the precise dimensions for the square. The two pieces cut off would, if placed together, make an oblong piece 12 × 6, giving an area of 72 (inches or yards, as we please), and as the original complete rug measured 36 × 27, it had an area of 972. If, therefore, we deduct the pieces that have been cut away, we find that our new rug will contain 972 less 72, or 900; and as 900 is the square of 30, we know that the new rug must measure 30 × 30 to be a perfect square. This is a great help towards the solution, because we may safely conclude that the two horizontal sides measuring 30 each may be left intact.

There is a very easy way of solving the puzzle in four pieces, and also a way in three pieces that can scarcely be called difficult, but the correct answer is in only two pieces.

It will be seen that if, after the cuts are made, we insert the teeth of the piece B one tooth lower down, the two portions will fit together and form a square.

155.--THE PENTAGON AND SQUARE.

A regular pentagon may be cut into as few as six pieces that will fit together without any turning over and form a square, as I shall show below. Hitherto the best answer has been in seven pieces--the solution produced some years ago by a foreign mathematician, Paul Busschop. We first form a parallelogram, and from that the square. The process will be seen in the diagram on the next page.

The pentagon is ABCDE. By the cut AC and the cut FM (F being the middle point between A and C, and M being the same distance from A as F) we get two pieces that may be placed in position at GHEA and form the parallelogram GHDC. We then find the mean proportional between the length HD and the _height_ of the parallelogram. This distance we mark off from C at K, then draw CK, and from G drop the line GL, perpendicular to KC. The rest is easy and rather obvious. It will be seen that the six pieces will form either the pentagon or the square.

I have received what purported to be a solution in five pieces, but the method was based on the rather subtle fallacy that half the diagonal plus half the side of a pentagon equals the side of a square of the same area. I say subtle, because it is an extremely close approximation that will deceive the eye, and is quite difficult to prove inexact. I am not aware that attention has before been drawn to this curious approximation.

Another correspondent made the side of his square 1¼ of the side of the pentagon. As a matter of fact, the ratio is irrational. I calculate that if the side of the pentagon is 1--inch, foot, or anything else--the side of the square of equal area is 1.3117 nearly, or say roughly 1+3/10. So we can only hope to solve the puzzle by geometrical methods.

156.--THE DISSECTED TRIANGLE.

Diagram A is our original triangle. We will say it measures 5 inches (or 5 feet) on each side. If we take off a slice at the bottom of any equilateral triangle by a cut parallel with the base, the portion that remains will always be an equilateral triangle; so we first cut off piece 1 and get a triangle 3 inches on every side. The manner of finding directions of the other cuts in A is obvious from the diagram.

Now, if we want two triangles, 1 will be one of them, and 2, 3, 4, and 5 will fit together, as in B, to form the other. If we want three equilateral triangles, 1 will be one, 4 and 5 will form the second, as in C, and 2 and 3 will form the third, as in D. In B and C the piece 5 is turned over; but there can be no objection to this, as it is not forbidden, and is in no way opposed to the nature of the puzzle.

157.--THE TABLE-TOP AND STOOLS.