There are 18 white squares of side length 1 packed inside a larger square.
The shaded area is equal to 2 A A − B , where A is a prime number.
Find A + B .
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.
This is incidentally thought to be an "optimal packing" of 18 unit squares in the smallest square possible. While this pattern was found in 1979 it has not yet been proven to be optimal.
A table of all such packings up to 89 is here. The smallest unproven packing as of this writing is for 11 unit squares.
haha, that was funny!
Log in to reply
What was funny?
Log in to reply
What I mean is the hint, it is very subtle but it is very important to solve the problem
@Digvijay Singh Yup!! Exactly same!! And hey, thnx for the book!! It helped me a lot !!
You assume that AC is parallel to the edges of the smaller squares and therefore equal to 2. You have to prove it before you use it.
Log in to reply
Yeah ofc you have to prove that. I am searching for a proof for a while now. Could someone help me??
May I ask why the width of vertical gap is the same as that of horizontal gap?
Log in to reply
The problems says the outer figure is "a larger square", and it has 4 tiles placed along each side. Therefore both gaps must be of equal size.
I am pretty sure that there is no proof that AC is parraler to the edges of the smaller square with this clues that it gives...
I will agree with this if you can prove that AC and the edges of the smaller squares are parallel, until then I disagree
For those of you wondering why AC and the edges of the smaller squares are parallel, check out my attempt below John Frank's solution
Need more proofs on that AC is parallel to the edges of the smaller squares.
Look for and see Mike Jarvis' reply below for the best way to analyze this problem. Length A C is actually arbitrary ----unless we impose the condition that the area of the larger square has to be a minimum. Then A C has to be 2 . Check Peter Vanbroekhoven's work before reading Mike Jarvis' reply.
The statement of this problem needs to include this additional condition of minimum area of larger square.
How do you get from (x+1)^2 + x^2 = 2^2 to x = sqrt(7) - 1 / 2?
Log in to reply
it's a quadratic equation. Which can be simplified to 2 x 2 + 2 x − 3 = 0 .
(Edited: changed the origin)
After some analysis, I figured out that any angle θ between 0 and 0.7254440201 will do (outside these bounds, the corner points A through E in the diagram below will no longer be on the edges or same edges of the rotated squares, see my reply below). For reference the diagram given in the question with some points and angles named.
The coordinates of the different points are (given the usual axes: x to the right, y up):
A = ( x , 2 + x ) B = ( 1 , 0 ) C = ( 1 + x , 1 + x ) D = ( 0 , 1 ) E = ( 1 + x , 1 ) F = ( 0 , 1 + x )
We then rotate these points by θ counterclockwise to bring them into the coordinate system of the 4 rotated squares. For this, we use rotation matrix R = [ c o s ( θ ) s i n ( θ ) − s i n ( θ ) c o s ( θ ) ] .
A ′ = R ⋅ A = ( x ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − ( 2 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) , x ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 2 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) ) B ′ = R ⋅ B = ( c o s ( θ ) , s i n ( θ ) ) C ′ = R ⋅ C = ( ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) , ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) ) D ′ = R ⋅ D = ( − s i n ( θ ) , c o s ( θ ) ) E ′ = R ⋅ E = ( ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − s i n ( θ ) , ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + c o s ( θ ) ) F ′ = R ⋅ F = ( − ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) , ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) )
We then calculate the vertical distances between the pairs of points that bound the 4 rotated suqares:
vertical distance A ′ to D ′ = x ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 2 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − ( c o s ( θ ) ) = x ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) vertical distance C ′ to B ′ = ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − ( s i n ( θ ) ) = x ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) horizontal distance E ′ to F ′ = ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) − s i n ( θ ) − ( − ( 1 + x ) ⋅ s i n ( θ ) ) = ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) + x ⋅ s i n ( θ )
Each of these distances is actually equal, and should equal 2:
x ⋅ s i n ( θ ) + ( 1 + x ) ⋅ c o s ( θ ) = 2
Solving for x gives x = ( 2 − c o s ( θ ) ) / ( s i n ( θ ) + c o s ( θ ) ) .
For every θ between 0 and 0.7254440201, we can find a corresponding gap x . For θ = 0 , we find a x = 1 , and a blue area of 7 (this is easily verified visually). Finding the θ for which x is minimal, leads to the solution presented by other people (I haven't included this to keep the length down, but I did check). But it is clear that the question needs to specify something to fix the angle, otherwise it is ambiguous.
Actually, π / 4 is the wrong upper bound. It's some number larger than the angle in the image, but I haven't calculated it yet.
Log in to reply
The maximum for θ is where the x coordinate of A' = -1, meaning that A is on the top left corner of the rotated square. This corresponds to θ = 0.7254440201. The value of θ that corresponds to the configuration with FE parallel is 0.4240310394 and is in the range where the squares can fit.
The easiest way to do the minimization is to realize that the smallest FE can be is 2, since it has to cross 2 unit squares. So if it's not going perpendicular to DA, then it will be longer than 2. So FE = 2 and triangle FDE is the (x, 1+x, 2) right triangle.
Log in to reply
You are right, but see how deceiving the diagram is. I should have taken the effort to draw it at another angle. You probably meant to say "perpendicular to the left side of the rotated squares".
You see, FE is always perpendicular to DA. They are both the hypotenuse of a (x, 1+x, 2) right triangle. And because of that, the vertical distance between FE will always equal the horizontal distance between DA. Which explains intuitively the result I got above that all distances A'D', C'B' and E'F' are the same.
Log in to reply
You probably meant to say "perpendicular to the left side of the rotated squares".
Yes. That is what I had meant to say. Of course it is always perpendicular to DA. But it has its minimum when it is also perpendicular to sides of the inner unit squares. Sorry for the error.
FE is always going to be perpendicular to both DA and CB, which can be checked by extending some lines the sides of the blue areas. But you've hit on the key and correct point---first we can see that for any arbitrary angle the inner squares are set, all 6 corners of the outer squares can be made to touch the edges of the inner squares. Then for minimum area of the large square, FE has to be 2. This is the simplest way of analyzing this problem, which leads to the solution as already given.
why is the first coordinate of A -(1-x)/2 and not 0?
Log in to reply
Because of where I put the origin. It is halfway between A and B, and as A is to the left of B (unless x = 1), A must be to the left of the origin.
In retrospect, I should have put the origin in the bottom left corner or so as that would get rid of all the divisions by 2, but initially I tried a different approach for which the current position of the origin was handier and I never changed it. Changing the origin doesn't make a difference.
I'll see if I can redo the calculation with a different origin. That should make things easier to understand. Thanks.
Thanks for demonstrating an important fact: Length A C is arbitrary , unless we impose the condition that the area of the larger square is the minimum.
Log in to reply
Do you mean length AD? Length AC is sqrt(2).
Log in to reply
Use Digvijay Singh's diagram to see where A C goes. It's the length of 2 unit squares. Yes, in Peter Vanbroekhaven's diagram, it's A D .
This problem, was very poorly drawn. Although the problem, if one did not look at the figure, might have been interesting, with the figure it was misleading, and appeared impossible. The trouble with it was that the width of the open areas appears different. Only when one looks at the solution, does it appear that they are supposed to be identical.... So, I think it would help, if some of these problems from people who have repeated errors should be checked for accuracy. Sorry, but the figure was, to me, misleading. I should be grateful to hear what Brilliant's reaction is to this problem which was more of problem than it was uplifting.
Log in to reply
Because the large square is a square, the gaps touching all four sides have to be identical. Then to see how the arrangement of the boxes touching each other, first cut off the right most column of squares from the large square. Then you'll see a resulting rectangle arrangement of squares that is pefectly symmetrical. The problem with this problem is that for an unique answer, it requires the condition that the area of the large square be minimum.
Peter, isnt the angle fixed by the problem specifying that CB is the lenght of 2? It appears to me that you have assumed the red line is giving the side of the two stacked squares (which we already know is 1+1 ) rather than the distance between C and B. Is there any reason we can't look at the original figure and take CB as 2 as a given? Is there something I'm missing?
Log in to reply
The question was edited in response to my analysis. The length of CB was not given initially.
I had same thinking that the length 2 in the drawing was referring to the stacked squares and not the distance between the non-rotating corners. Thus, there was an infinite amount of solutions with area between 5.26 and 7.
I don't know if my way has any value because it is based on a very wild guess:
I approximated the blue area. I counted it was approximately 7. Then I guessed that B was the area of the 4 squares in the middle: B = 4.
So I had this equation:
2 A ( 2 3 ) − B = 7
When I solve for A : A = 7 . 8 . Thus, the closest prime number is 7 and thus the answer is 7 + 4 = 1 1
Look for and see Mike Jarvis' reply to Peter Vanbroekhoven's solution for the best way to analyze this problem. Length A C is actually arbitrary ----unless we impose the condition that the area of the larger square has to be a minimum. Then A C has to be 2 . Check Peter Vanbroekhoven's work to see why A C is arbitrary.
The statement of this problem needs to include this additional condition of minimum area of larger square.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Let the width of the gap be x , as shown.
Then Δ A B C , is a right angled triangle, with A B = x + 1 , B C = x and C A = 2
Applying Pythagoras theorem, ( x + 1 ) 2 + x 2 = 2 2
⟹ x = 2 7 − 1
Side length of the larger square = 4 + x = 2 7 + 7
Shaded area = Area of the bigger square − Total area of the smaller squares
= ( 2 7 + 7 ) 2 − 1 8
= 2 7 7 − 4