Cutting a square

Geometry Level 3

I've partitioned a unit square into 4 rectangles and each rectangle has perimeter 2, as illustrated in the diagram. I can also cut this unit square into all of the following numbers of rectangles, each with perimeter 2, except for one number.

Which one is it?

3 5 6 7 All of the above are possible None of them is possible

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

4 solutions

Oliver Clarke
Sep 10, 2017

Relevant wiki: Rectangle

First note that the square cannot be cut into 3 rectangles with a perimeter of 2. If it were possible one of the rectangles would have to contain two corners of the original square. If these corners were opposite corners of the square then this rectangle would be the whole square so these corners must be adjacent and so one of the edges of the rectangle would need to have length 1, a contradiction as this edge along with its opposite edge give a combined length of 2 and so its perimeter is strictly greater than 2.

For 5,6 and 7 rectangles we give a possible construction of such a cut.

Following the pattern above we can generalise this construction to cut out k 4 k \ge 4 rectangles from a unit square, each with perimeter 2. The outer 4 rectangles will have a size: 1 2 k 6 \frac{1}{2k - 6} by 2 k 7 2 k 6 \frac{2k - 7}{2k - 6} and for k > 4 k > 4 the inner rectangles will have a size: 1 k 3 \frac{1}{k-3} by k 4 k 3 \frac{k-4}{k-3} .

Moderator note:

To illustrate the first part of this solution:

One of the rectangles (the one marked in red on this diagram) must touch two of the corners. This indicates that two sides must measure 1, and there are still two sides to consider, so the perimeter must be larger than 2. 2 .

Another construction for the k > 3 k > 3 cases: take one cut completely through the square, and k 2 k - 2 perpendicular cuts from the same edge onto that first cut. Then, intuitively, by adjusting the position of the first cut, you can cause any total perimeter between the minimum and the maximum possible (which are easy to calculate)

Matt McNabb - 3 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

I'm not sure about this construction, can you draw it?

Note that one can prove that the edges of the initial square are formed by exactly 4 distinct rectangles.

Oliver Clarke - 3 years, 9 months ago

Another way to see that 3 rectangles is impossible: Since the area of a rectangle with a given perimeter is maximized when the rectangle is a square, it follows that if the perimeter of a rectangle is 2, its area is at most 1/4. Therefore, the sum of the areas of 3 rectangles of perimeter 2 can be no greater than 3*1/4=3/4<1.

Michael Tamarov - 2 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

I like this argument. It doesn't rely on any particular configuration of 'dividing the square into three rectangles'. My own attempt to show '3' was impossible was based on the fact that the added line(s) would have to have a total length of 1. Clearly a single line across the whole square only divides the square into two and you have no spare length of line to add anywhere else - but is there some other cunning way of dividing a square into three rectangles which doesn't involve a line going the whole way across? (Such as the solution for 5 rectangles.) I know there isn't such a configuration but I couldn't think of a way to 'prove' it elegantly. So, as I say, I like the 'maximum area' argument.

Paul Cockburn - 2 years, 9 months ago
Arjen Vreugdenhil
Sep 13, 2017

Relevant wiki: Perimeter

I will simply prove that three is impossible.

The unit square has perimeter 4 4 . Every "cut" made inside the unit square is the boundary of two smaller rectangles. If the total length of all cuts is c c , then the sum of the perimeters of the smaller rectangles is P = 4 + 2 c . \sum P = 4 + 2c. In the case of three rectangles, P = 3 × 2 = 6 \sum P = 3\times 2 = 6 . This implies c = P 4 2 = 6 4 2 = 1. c = \frac{\sum P - 4}2 = \frac{6-4}2 = 1. However, if we cut the square into three rectangles, one rectangle must have unit height; this already requires a cut of length one. We have nothing to spare for a second cut to create the third rectangle.

For completeness, you'd also need to show that the other values are achievable.

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

The problem states that "I can ... any number, except one." Given that this is true, proving that three is impossible implies that all others are.

Arjen Vreugdenhil - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Haha, true that.

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 8 months ago

True for the question, but not for the answers, which include "none of the above (numbers of cuts) is possible".

Eric Lebigot - 3 years, 7 months ago
Junyi Liu
Sep 11, 2017

cut this square into 2 rectangles will let the sum of perimeter becomes 6, so 3 rectangles with a perimeter 2 is impossible

no they are not possible we are talking of perimeter not area

Subhan Akhtar - 3 years, 9 months ago

Sorry, I am not sure of your argument. Why is it not possible?

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 8 months ago
Saksham Jain
Sep 13, 2017

ITs Impossible that a square can be cut to 3 rectangles

Your statement is too strong. You need to include requirement about perimeter.

Richard Desper - 3 years, 8 months ago

um, cut it three times lengthwise, you have 3 rectangles....

Michael Wagener - 3 years, 8 months ago

You are missing the words"of equal perimeter" and that is an ANSWER, not a SOLUTION.

Poh Seng Tan - 2 years, 11 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...