Best Answer googon97, 17 March 2013 - 04:28 AM

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-) |

Guest Message by DevFuse

Started by Utkrisht123, Mar 16 2013 11:15 AM

Best Answer googon97, 17 March 2013 - 04:28 AM

Spoiler for Assuming it's not a trick question

Go to the full post
7 replies to this topic

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:15 AM

Two diagonally opposite corner squares are removed from a regular chessboard. Now is it possible to cover all 62 squares with exactly 31 rectangles ( no rectangle should overlap each other ).

If yes then how? If no then why?

Posted 16 March 2013 - 04:40 PM

Spoiler for

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:23 PM

Two diagonally opposite corner squares are removed from a regular chessboard. Now is it possible to cover all 62 squares with exactly 31 rectangles ( no rectangle should overlap each other ).

If yes then how? If no then why?

Spoiler for

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:47 PM

Spoiler for

Posted 17 March 2013 - 04:28 AM Best Answer

Spoiler for Assuming it's not a trick question

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:32 AM

Two diagonally opposite corner squares are removed from a regular chessboard. Now is it possible to cover all 62 squares with exactly 31 rectangles ( no rectangle should overlap each other ).

If yes then how? If no then why?

Spoiler for

Good point.

i didnt thought that way

But if I say that all rectangles should be completely aligned and should be of same size then what would you say.

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:01 PM

The stipulation that all 31 rectangles are “of the same size” is still a bit ambiguous. The size could be interpreted as area. If rectangles were equal that would imply they are __equal in area__ (2 squares each) __and dimensions__. However, **do we need a stipulation that rectangles must be alined on square boundaries?**

If rectangle's dimensions were specified as 1x2, then the problem would be solved by **googon97** in **post #5**.

But those rectangles could be 1/3 x 6, or 1/2 x 4. Still, it is impossible to cover up the board with 31 of those rectangles.

Furthermore,** can we prove that we could or could not cover the board with 31 equal area (2 squares each) rectangles of any dimensions?**

**Edited by Prime, 17 March 2013 - 10:05 PM.**

Past prime, actually.

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:20 AM

The stipulation that all 31 rectangles are “of the same size” is still a bit ambiguous. The size could be interpreted as area. If rectangles were equal that would imply they are

equal in area(2 squares each)and dimensions. However,do we need a stipulation that rectangles must be alined on square boundaries?If rectangle's dimensions were specified as 1x2, then the problem would be solved by

googon97inpost #5.But those rectangles could be 1/3 x 6, or 1/2 x 4. Still, it is impossible to cover up the board with 31 of those rectangles.

Furthermore,

can we prove that we could or could not cover the board with 31 equal area (2 squares each) rectangles of any dimensions?

If you want to then You are welcome to do so

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users