Can You Help Me Fit These Squares Into a Rectangle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GuMdRop
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A 7th-grade algebra student seeks immediate help fitting square tiles of various sizes into a rectangle, with a deadline approaching. The tiles measure 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 feet, and the task requires providing coordinates for their placement without cutting or overlapping. Suggestions include starting with the largest square and using scaled paper squares for visualization. Additionally, advice is given to focus on the unit square and its adjacent squares to build the arrangement. The problem is solvable in a short time with the right approach.
GuMdRop
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I Need Help Immediatly!

This is due tomorrow and i CANT figure it out! I am a 7th grade algebra student and once again THIS IS DUE TOMORROW!

Here is the problem:
Suppose you have one square tile of each of these lengths: 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 feet. How can you fit them together into a rectangle? (With no cutting or overlapping of course.) To answer, gitve the coordinates of the lower left corner of each square, starting with the square at (0,0).

I need as much help as i can get so PLEASE help! thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HINT: Start with the largest square and work your way down! There are limited possibilities for each one.

SUGGESTION: Cut some scaled sized square out of paper and jump in!
 
I just did this problem using PC paint and a bunch of perfect squares. I'm not sure what it has to do with algebra though. :smile:

Anyhow, my advice is to start by figuring out where the unit square would have to go, then work up from there. (Hint: The unit square is going to have to be associated with some other squares that are only 1 unit different from each other). So take the unit square and just the squares that are 1 unit different from each other and figure out how they have to go. Then everything gets built up from there fairly easy. (hint 2: You won't get a rectangle until you're all finished - and its almost square!)

That's what I did and it all just fell right into place. I'm not sure how many ways it can be done, but it only took me about 5 minutes to do it the way I did it.
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top