Play with matching square shape match sticks

Logic Level 1

Is it possible to form 3 identical squares with four matchsticks of length 1 and two of length 1 2 ? \frac12?

Note : You are allowed to cross the matchsticks, but you are not allowed to break them.

Yes, it is possible No, it is not 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.

13 solutions

Andrew Hayes Staff
Apr 10, 2018

Here's a solution with 3 squares:

Now, you might be thinking, "What about the matchstick heads? Don't those make the squares not perfectly identical?" Here's a solution where the matchstick heads don't matter:

As you can see, you can even avoid the matchstick heads!

I don't think the second solution works, because there are parts that stick out (otherwise there would all sorts of solutions). And you mentioned why the first solution is flawed. Therefore, one could argue for no solutions.

Dylan Yu - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

What you could do, is break each stick in half. This way the ratios between them stay the same, but you get rid of the heads. Now the shortened matches can be arranged as in the first part of this solution. Now we have three equal squares, no heads and no parts sticking out.

Riku Häkli - 3 years, 1 month ago

It never says that you can't have parts sticking out. The only requirement is to make 3 squares.

Andrew Hayes Staff - 3 years, 1 month ago

ah geez i thought the matches are not supposed to stack up

Rufa Norvika - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I've added a note to specify that the matches can cross.

Andrew Hayes Staff - 3 years, 1 month ago

I also thought matches could not cross. That's how course's problems with matchsticks work

Andreu Sánchez - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I've added a note to specify that the matches can cross.

Andrew Hayes Staff - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Cool! Thanks :)

Andreu Sánchez - 3 years, 1 month ago

Well this is just stupid cause one "square" has no edges

Visa Kostamo - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

The goal is to make 3 squares. I included the grid so that the squares are easier to see.

Andrew Hayes Staff - 3 years, 1 month ago

Cool! I said not possible because I didn't have the sticks to try it out with. Can't believe I tricked myself into thinking I had to make four squares when trying to visualize the first solution!

Robert Bernal - 3 years, 1 month ago

But you are crossing the matchsticks. It specifically says you are not supposed to cross the matchsticks.

Shreyas NR - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

The note says that you are allowed to cross the matchsticks.

Andrew Hayes Staff - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

oh. right! My bad.

Shreyas NR - 3 years, 1 month ago

I tried doing this with matchsticks but I couldn't figure it out. I think next time I should pay a bit more attention closely to the problem. I would rate this problem a 5 because I think it was in the middle of being easy and hard.

Lucia Tiberio - 3 years, 1 month ago

I thought it had to be yes. I didn't even try to figure it out... I kind of assumed that the first solution would work, but didn't think about it.

Simon Rubin-Toles - 3 years, 1 month ago
Jeremy Galvagni
Apr 15, 2018

Little squares

Edit: ignore the colors. I should have made them all black as this method works with any six matchsticks.

Absolutely BRILLIANT, sir. You deserve a medal.

Jet Kwan - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Its incorrect.

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

Smart. Great job for thinking outside of the ‘match’ box (get it? I know it’s terrible)

Annie Li - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Its incorrect.

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I know. Stop saying that. It’s annoying

Annie Li - 3 years, 1 month ago

This is my favorite solution! "Simple is never easy" :)

Matthias Tortillas - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Its incorrect.

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

Wow! I wouldn't have thought of this!

Nick Turtle - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Its incorrect.

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

This is absolutely great!

Jose Sánchez - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

Its incorrect.

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

Why the colors? There are 4 long and 2 small. The colors point to 3 and 3.

Oliver Meyer - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I drew it really fast in Paint and didn't notice I'd switch colors at the wrong time until after I uploaded it.

Jeremy Galvagni - 3 years, 1 month ago

I don’t think its right actually. U added an extra long

Annie Li - 3 years, 1 month ago

4 long + 2 short?

Gwilym Jones - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I think there is a mistake

Annie Li - 3 years, 1 month ago

I'm new to brilliant, but isn't this wrong? He used one matchstick more than he should.

Azure Ablaze - 3 years, 1 month ago

Log in to reply

I know right?

Annie Li - 3 years, 1 month ago

This has 5 long and 2 short, its meant to be 4 long and 2 short

Hamy Le - 3 years, 1 month ago

This method, however, could not ensure the side of 'squares' are even

Tim Test - 3 years, 1 month ago

The two short matchsticks just didn't come out looking like each other in this drawing, but it is understood what the intent is.

Linda Slovik - 2 years, 7 months ago

How are these squares identical?I mean since there is a square with 3 heads on its vertices and two with 2 heads.

George Karababas - 3 years, 1 month ago

If the origin (0,0) is the top left then point both 1/2" matchsticks towards (-x,-y). Point the exterior full 1" matchsticks towards origin. The intersecting matchsticks then would be pointed -x and negative -y respectively.

With that you have symmetry in each one having and identical corner two intersecting matchsticks.

Frank Edgar - 3 years, 1 month ago

It is a poorly worded question. It didn't specify whether you needed to use all the match sticks, or whether you could have loose ends. Without those stipulations the answer is an easy yes. With those it wood take some thought, but then the word identical comes into play with the match heads.

David Cherelin - 3 years, 1 month ago
Zain Majumder
Apr 15, 2018

Here's my solution (black = length 1 and red = length 1/2):

Nice diagram, and brilliantly short solution.

Thomas Sutcliffe - 3 years, 1 month ago

This is smart!

Loki Snaptunstein - 3 years, 1 month ago
Paul Wilson
Apr 17, 2018

Some solutions are robotic...

Andrew Montanus
Apr 18, 2018

Why can't we make 4 identical squares of 0.25 x 0.25?

No, your diagram doesn't show three congruent squares being made. Adjust one of the arrows so that three congruent squares are made.

Linda Slovik - 2 years, 7 months ago
Donner Tang
Apr 22, 2018

Stack the two small matches ontop of one another like a cross, then use four long sticks for the sides. Looking vertically downward you will see four indentical squares in the middle.

Geneveve Tudence
Apr 22, 2018

Let the brown arrows be the matchsticks of length 1. Let the green arrows be the matchsticks of length 1/2.

Hannu Hoffrén
Apr 19, 2018

Ge Ha
Apr 22, 2018

if you do not care about the heads:

you can even make 4 squares:

Vli kllampa

Agustin Becker - 2 years, 11 months ago

Ethan W
Apr 18, 2018

Doesnt say you have to use all of the matchsticks. Its easy when you take away that restraint and also ends up with the correct conclusion according to the quiz.

Wrong. It does. The phrase "with four matchsticks of length 1 and two of length 1/2" means you are to use all six of them.

Linda Slovik - 2 years, 7 months ago
Dren K
Apr 17, 2018

Square, not rectangle

marieke Elzer - 3 years, 1 month ago

Oops, I answered no because I thought it was four squares not three.

alexander franklin - 3 years, 1 month ago

Ah, square indeed.

Then more like this: https://ibb.co/cEqec8

Dren K - 2 years, 11 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...