• 0

A chessboard

Question

Posted · Report post

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?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

  • 0

Posted · Report post

NO it's impossible. Imagine the chess board pattern. The opposite corners are the same color. One rectangle can cover on tile of each color. That leaves two of the same tile that can't be covered with the last rectangle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

Pretty sure it cant be done. trying to pinpoint the problem in it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

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?

yes,because you didnt say the sides of rectagles should be aligned with the sides of the squares

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

squares are considered rectangles too ..some may be 2 x 1 , 3 x 1 , 1 x 1 or 2 x 2 ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

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?

yes,because you didnt say the sides of rectagles should be aligned with the sides of the squares

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted (edited) · Report post

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
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Posted · Report post

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?

If you want to then You are welcome to do so

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.