At a workshop it was suggested that it likely remains an open problem whether or not there is a 3- or 2 -piece dissection of a square to an equilateral triangle. Can anyone confirm that this is unresolved?

Four-piece dissections are known, the most famous being Henry Dudeney's century-old gem:

                [Maple animation from this link.]

  • 13
    $\begingroup$ 2 is not possible because the side length of the triangle is more than the diagonal of the square. $\endgroup$ – Ken Fan Nov 5 '11 at 2:18
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I just want to tell that applet to "hold still, dammit"! $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 5 '11 at 13:07
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Todd: Added a stable image (in a different orientation). $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Nov 5 '11 at 13:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wow, ask and ye shall receive! Thank you, Joseph! $\endgroup$ – Todd Trimble Nov 5 '11 at 14:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ A 3-piece dissection of the equilateral triangle would have to create 4 right angles to serve as corners of the square, and there are just a few ways this can be done. At first glance, none of them recombine as a square (though you can get a rectangle). It should be pretty easy to run through the options and rule them all out. $\endgroup$ – Anton Lukyanenko Nov 6 '11 at 18:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.