Amusements in Mathematics by Henry Ernest Dudeney (best free ebook reader for pc .txt) 📕

140.—FIND ADA'S SURNAME.

This puzzle closely resembles the last one, my remarks on the solution of which the reader may like to apply in another case. It was recently submitted to a Sydney evening newspaper that indulges in "intellect sharpeners," but was rejected with the remark that it is childish and that they only published problems capable of solution! Five ladies, accompanied by their daughters, bought cloth at the same shop. Each of the ten paid as many farthings per foot as she bought feet, and each mother spent 8s. 5¼d. more than her daughter. Mrs. Robinson spent 6s. more than Mrs. Evans, who spent about a quarter as much as Mrs. Jones. Mrs. Smith spent most of all. Mrs. Brown bought 21 yards more than Bessie—one of the girls. Annie bought 16 yards more than Mary and spent £3, 0s. 8d. more than Emily. The Christian name of the other girl was Ada. Now, what was her surname?

141.—SATURDAY MARKETING.

Here is an amusing little case of marketing which, although it deals with a good many items of money, leads up to a question of a totally different character. Four married couples went into their village on a recent Saturday night to do a little marketing. They had to be very economical, for among them they only possessed forty shilling coins. The fact is, Ann spent 1s., Mary spent 2s., Jane spent 3s., and Kate spent 4s. The men were rather more extravagant than their wives, for Ned Smith spent as much as his wife, Tom Brown twice as much as his wife, Bill Jones three times as much as his wife, and Jack Robinson four times as much as his wife. On the way home somebody suggested that they should divide what coin they had left equally among them. This was done, and the puzzling question is simply this: What was the surname of each woman? Can you pair off the four couples?

"God geometrizes continually."
PLATO.

"There is no study," said Augustus de Morgan, "which presents so simple a beginning as that of geometry; there is none in which difficulties grow more rapidly as we proceed." This will be found when the reader comes to consider the following puzzles, though they are not arranged in strict order of difficulty. And the fact that they have interested and given pleasure to man for untold ages is no doubt due in some measure to the appeal they make to the eye as well as to the brain. Sometimes an algebraical formula or theorem seems to give pleasure to the mathematician's eye, but it is probably only an intellectual pleasure. But there can be no doubt that in the case of certain geometrical problems, notably dissection or superposition puzzles, the æsthetic faculty in man contributes to the delight. For example, there are probably few readers who will examine the various cuttings of the Greek cross in the following pages without being in some degree stirred by a sense of beauty. Law and order in Nature are always pleasing to contemplate, but when they come under the very eye they seem to make a specially strong appeal. Even the person with no geometrical knowledge whatever is induced after the inspection of such things to exclaim, "How very pretty!" In fact, I have known more than one person led on to a study of geometry by the fascination of cutting-out puzzles. I have, therefore, thought it well to keep these dissection puzzles distinct from the geometrical problems on more general lines.

"Take him and cut him out in little stars."
Romeo and Juliet, iii. 2.

Puzzles have infinite variety, but perhaps there is no class more ancient than dissection, cutting-out, or superposition puzzles. They were certainly known to the Chinese several thousand years before the Christian era. And they are just as fascinating to-day as they can have been at any period of their history. It is supposed by those who have investigated the matter that the ancient Chinese philosophers used these puzzles as a sort of kindergarten method of imparting the principles of geometry. Whether this was so or not, it is certain that all good dissection puzzles (for the nursery type of jig-saw puzzle, which merely consists in cutting up a picture into pieces to be put together again, is not worthy of serious consideration) are really based on geometrical laws. This statement need not, however, frighten off the novice, for it means little more than this, that geometry will give us the "reason why," if we are interested in knowing it, though the solutions may often be discovered by any intelligent person after the exercise of patience, ingenuity, and common sagacity.

If we want to cut one plane figure into parts that by readjustment will form another figure, the first thing is to find a way of doing it at all, and then to discover how to do it in the fewest possible pieces. Often a dissection problem is quite easy apart from this limitation of pieces. At the time of the publication in the Weekly Dispatch, in 1902, of a method of cutting an equilateral triangle into four parts that will form a square (see No. 26, "Canterbury Puzzles"), no geometrician would have had any difficulty in doing what is required in five pieces: the whole point of the discovery lay in performing the little feat in four pieces only.

Mere approximations in the case of these problems are valueless; the solution must be geometrically exact, or it is not a solution at all. Fallacies are cropping up now and again, and I shall have occasion to refer to one or two of these. They are interesting merely as fallacies. But I want to say something on two little points that are always arising in cutting-out puzzles—the questions of "hanging by a thread" and "turning over." These points can best be illustrated by a puzzle that is frequently to be found in the old books, but invariably with a false solution. The puzzle is to cut the figure shown in Fig. 1 into three pieces that will fit together and form a half-square triangle. The answer that is invariably given is that shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Now, it is claimed that the four pieces marked C are really only one piece, because they may be so cut that they are left "hanging together by a mere thread." But no serious puzzle lover will ever admit this. If the cut is made so as to leave the four pieces joined in one, then it cannot result in a perfectly exact solution. If, on the other hand, the solution is to be exact, then there will be four pieces—or six pieces in all. It is, therefore, not a solution in three pieces.