[Lightly edited for copy and proper formatting of mathematics. -- Pete L. Clark]

The Background: Let $T$ be a trapezoid. Sherman Stein, using valuation theory, showed that if $T$ is dissectible into n triangles of equal area, then $\frac{n}{(r+1)}$, where $r$ is the ratio of the parallel sides, is an algebraic integer. See

Monsky and Jepsen, Constructing equidissections for certain classes of trapezoids, Discrete Mathematics, 308 23 (2008) 5672-5681.

In particular $r$ is algebraic.

If $r$ is in $\mathbb{Q}$, a diagonal of $T$ divides $T$ into two triangles of commensurable area, so $T$ has an "equidissection". Stein showed that if $r$ is a root of a degree $2$ element of $\mathbb{Q}[z]$ [i.e., the univariate polynomial ring over $\mathbb{Q}$ -- PLC] with both roots positive, then $T$ is equidissectible. Using ideas of Stein and Jepsen I showed that if $r$ is a root of a degree $3$ or $4$ element of $\mathbb{Q}[z]$ with all roots in the open right half-plane, then once more $T$ is equidissectible. (It's not clear that my proof can be adapted to degree greater than $4$). In contrast, whenever the algebraic $r$ has a conjugate over $\mathbb{Q}$ that's not in the open right half-plane, nothing is known about the equidissectibilty of $T$. Stein conjectured that when $r$ has a $\mathbb{Q}$-conjugate not in this half plane, then $T$ is not equidissectible. I ask:

The Question: Is it true that if $r$ has a $\mathbb{Q}$-conjugate not in the open right half-plane then $T$ cannot be dissected into triangles of equal area? (For no such $r$ has an equidissection of $T$ or a proof of non-equidissectibility been found).

  • Is this an open problem? If so, it should have an "open problem" tag. – Victor Protsak May 29 '10 at 4:25
  • Prof. Monsky is the founder of this subject area: see math.uga.edu/~pete/Monsky.pdf. So, yes, if he's asking the question, I think we may assume it is an open problem. – Pete L. Clark May 29 '10 at 4:52
  • What is the meaning of the z in Q[z]? It doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. – Gerry Myerson May 29 '10 at 6:55
  • @Gerry: Apparently, the fact that Q isn't defined anywhere is OK by you? :) – Victor Protsak May 29 '10 at 7:12
  • Micro-comment-question: do we need axiom of choice to be able to extend p-adic valuation on rationals to reals? – Dror Speiser May 29 '10 at 8:46

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.