MHB Big Square composed of Small Squares ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Albert1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Square Squares
Click For Summary
It is proven that a square cannot be composed of five smaller squares as described. The analysis shows that the dimensions of the inner square lead to a contradiction, resulting in it having zero area. The equations derived indicate that the outer squares must be congruent, thus reducing the configuration to four equal squares. This demonstrates that the proposed arrangement is impossible. The discussion concludes with an acknowledgment of the proof's validity.
Albert1
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
0

Attachments

  • big square.JPG
    big square.JPG
    13.8 KB · Views: 95
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hello, Albert!

Prove that it is impossible for a square to be composed
of five smaller square as shown.
Code:
         a       b
      *-----*---------*
      |     |         |
    a |     |         | b
      |     |   Q     |
      |    P*---*-----*
      |     |   |     |
      *-----*---*R    |
      |     S   |     |
      |         |     | c
    d |         |     |
      |         |     |
      |         |     |
      *---------*-----*
           d       c
The four outer squares have sides $a,b,c,d$ as shown.

The inner square is $PQRS$.We find that: .$\begin{Bmatrix}PQ \:=\:b-c \\ SR \:=\:d-a \end{Bmatrix} \quad \begin{Bmatrix}QR \:=\:c-d \\ PS \:=\:a-b \end{Bmatrix}$Since $PQ = SR\!:\:b-c \:=\:d-a \quad\Rightarrow\quad a+b-c-d \:=\:0\;\;[1]$

Since $PS =QR\!:\:a-b \:=\:c-d \quad\Rightarrow\quad a-b-c+d \:=\:0\;\;[2]$Add [1] and [2]: .$2a-2c\:=\:0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad a \:=\:c$

Subtract [1] and [2]: .$2b-2d \:=\:0 \quad\Rightarrow\quad b \:=\:d$Hence, the large square is divided into four congruent squares.

The inner square has zero area.
 
soroban said:
The inner square has zero area.
Still a square! (Tongueout)
 
soroban said:
Hence, the large square is divided into four congruent squares.
The inner square has zero area. (Tongueout)
soroban :well done !
 
Thread 'Erroneously  finding discrepancy in transpose rule'
Obviously, there is something elementary I am missing here. To form the transpose of a matrix, one exchanges rows and columns, so the transpose of a scalar, considered as (or isomorphic to) a one-entry matrix, should stay the same, including if the scalar is a complex number. On the other hand, in the isomorphism between the complex plane and the real plane, a complex number a+bi corresponds to a matrix in the real plane; taking the transpose we get which then corresponds to a-bi...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K