Timeline for 'Imperfect' squarings of a square
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17 at 15:23 | comment | added | Nandakumar R | Yes I did. No word from there | |
| Jun 16 at 22:11 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Did you try to contact Anderson? | |
| Jun 15 at 16:59 | history | edited | Nandakumar R | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 14 at 7:17 | history | edited | Nandakumar R | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 210 characters in body
|
| May 13 at 8:49 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | It looks like the proprietor of the website is Stuart Anderson; stuart.errol.anderson AT gmail.com – maybe it's worth contacting him with your questions? | |
| May 13 at 8:29 | comment | added | Nandakumar R | Yes. the rectangle was indeed 2:1 and perfectly squared. It does lead to a 'squaring of the square with one pair of duplicates' with 23 smaller squares. My difficulty was that this layout needs more squares than the optimal perfect (without duplicates) squaring of the square - the hope was that allowing a pair of duplicates would lead to a squaring of the square with less than 21 squares. Thanks. | |
| May 13 at 7:24 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | I don't understand. You wanted a perfectly squared $2:1$ rectangle. Isn't that what's in the link in my comment? Doesn't it give you a squared square with two squares identical, by the construction you describe in your comment? | |
| May 13 at 6:37 | comment | added | Nandakumar R | Thank you. but this will give us an imperfectly squared square with 23 smaller squares which needs more squares than Duijvestijn's best perfect squaring that needs only 21 squares. ideally, by allowing a pair of duplicates, one would hope to reduce the number of squares needed! or is it that by allowing that kind of imperfection, one won't gain anything? more likely, this way of imperfect squaring via first perfect squaring a rectangle is not a very good approach! | |
| May 13 at 6:00 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | Here's a squared 2:1 rectangle; squaring.net/history_theory/gfx/o22-2x1-136-272.png | |
| May 13 at 4:16 | comment | added | Nandakumar R | Thanks very much! that settles the 'auxiliary question'. The idea was if a perfectly squared rectangle of dimensions in ratio 2:1 ( 3:2) could be found, one could attach 2 (3) squares both (all) of same size to it to form a perfectly squared square with 2 (3) squares identical. looking through that very long list, i haven't been able to find any such rectangle yet. But then, this need not be the only way to attack the main question! | |
| May 13 at 0:18 | comment | added | Gerry Myerson | The fewest pieces in a squared rectangle is nine. It's given at squaring.net/sq/sr/spsr/o9/order9_spsr.html and much info can be found at other parts of the site squaring.net/sq/tws.html | |
| May 12 at 15:34 | history | edited | Nandakumar R | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 60 characters in body; edited title
|
| May 12 at 13:53 | history | asked | Nandakumar R | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
