Leong Yee Hang Geometric Dissection

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 52

GEOMETRIC DISSECTION

LEONG YEE HANG

A project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the


requirements for the award of Bachelor of Science (Honours)
Applied Mathematics With Computing

Lee Kong Chian Faculty of Engineering and Science


Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

August 2020
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I hereby declare that this project report is based on my original work except for
citations and quotations which have been duly acknowledged. I also declare that it
has not been previously and concurrently submitted for any other degree or award at
UTAR or other institutions.

Signature :

Name : Leong Yee Hang

ID No. : 1700375

Date : 3/9/2020

ii
APPROVAL FOR SUBMISSION

I certify that this project report entitled “GEOMETRIC DISSECTION” was prepared
by LEONG YEE HANG has met the required standard for submission in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Bachelor of Science (Honours) Applied
Mathematics With Computing at Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman.

Approved by,

Signature :

Prof. Dr. Chia Gek Ling


Supervisor :

3 September 2020
Date :

iv
The copyright of this report belongs to the author under the terms of the
copyright Act 1987 as qualified by Intellectual Property Policy of University Tunku
Abdul Rahman. Due acknowledgement shall always be made of the use of any material
contained in, or derived from, this report.

© 2020, LEONG YEE HANG. All rights reserved.

vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my very great appreciation to my project supervisor,


Prof. Dr. Chia Gek Ling for his guidance throughout this project. He
has suggested this interesting project title to me and provided me with
adequate information. He has also guided me to develop the standard
mathematical writing style. His patience in reviewing my work allowed
me to present this report closer to perfection.
Special thanks to the FYP coordinator of DMAS, Dr. Liew How Hui
for providing the guidelines in conduction of a project and keeping my
progress on schedule.

LEONG YEE HANG

vii
GEOMETRIC DISSECTION

LEONG YEE HANG

ABSTRACT

At the beginning of this project, the dissection of some polygons were


studied and analysed. One of them is the solution of Haberdasher’s problem
which is a four-pieces dissection from an equilateral triangle to a square
given by Henry Dudeney. His original construction idea is applied to
construct the dissection from a square to an equilateral triangle.
After that, equidecomposability of polygons and polyhedra are discussed.
Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem states that any polygons with same area
are equidecomposable. Two proofs for this theorem are given. A stronger
result tells that equidecomposable polygons have a common hinged dissection.
Hilbert’s Third Problem asks whether two polyhedra of equal volume are
equidecomposable. Max Dehn gave an negative answer to this problem.
A recent alternative solution based on Bricard’s condition is studied.

viii
TABLE OF C ONTENTS

TITLE i

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii

ABSTRACT viii

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1
1-1 Background & History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1-2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1-4 Notation and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-4-1 Line, Ray and Line Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1-4-2 Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1-5 Project Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1-5-1 Project I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1-5-2 Project II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review 7


2-1 Dissection Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2-2 Polygon and Polyhedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2-3 Equidecomposability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2-4 Hinged Dissection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER 3 Dissection of Some Polygons 16


3-1 Combining Two Squares into One . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3-2 Rectangle to Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3-3 Equilateral Triangle to Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CHAPTER 4 Equidecomposability 24
4-1 Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4-2 Hinged Dissection between Any Polygons . . . . . . . . 30
4-3 Hilbert’s Third Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS x

CHAPTER 5 Conclusion 40
5-1 Project Review & Future Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
L IST OF F IGURES

1.1 Tangram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 T-Puzzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Stomachion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Hinged Dissection from Triangle to Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
←→
1.5 Line AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
−→
1.6 Ray AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
−→
1.7 Ray BA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.8 Line Segment AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.9 A Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Dissection from Greek Cross to Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8


2.2 Dihedral Angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 A Wobbly Hinged Dissection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Dissect Two Squares into a Larger Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16


3.2 Superimposing Tessellation of Two Squares and a Large Square . . 17
3.3 Dissection From Rectangle to Square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 Construction of Dissection from Equilateral Triangle to Square . . . 19
3.5 Dissection from Equilateral Triangle to Square . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.6 Construction of Dissection from Square to Equilateral Triangle . . . 23

4.1 B is equidecomposable to A and C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24


4.2 Superimposition Gives Common Dissection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3 Gerling’s Dissection from a Triangle to its Reflection (Ciesielska and
Ciesielski, 2018) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 Dissection from a Triangle to Rectangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.5 Halving and Stacking Rectangles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.6 Moving a Hinge (Abbott et al., 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.7 Illustrating Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.8 A Correct Assignment of Pearls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

xi
LIST OF FIGURES xii

4.9 Pearls may Coincide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36


4.10 Dihedral Angle of Regular Tetrahedron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
CHAPTER 1
I NTRODUCTION

1-1 Background & History


Dissection puzzles such as Tangram and T-puzzle were one of the childhood toys for
most people. The toy usually consists of puzzle pieces and silhouettes printed on a
booklet. The rule is simple: one needs to arrange the puzzle pieces to match the
silhouettes.

Figure 1.1: Tangram Figure 1.2: T-Puzzle

The history of dissection puzzles can be traced back to the times of Ancient Greek.
Archimedes’ Stomachion is a dissection puzzle similar to Tangram. It has 14 puzzle
pieces which can be arranged into many different shapes like the other dissection
puzzles. However, the main problem associated with Stomachion is the numbers of
different ways of arranging the pieces to form a square. This problem had already
been solved. There are 268 unique arrangements in which no two arrangements are
congruent in terms of rotation and reflection.
Compared to solving the dissection puzzles, creating such interesting dissection
puzzles is generally more challenging. This is because one needs to know how to
dissect a given shape into pieces so that it can be reassembled into another shape. A
mathematical study of this problem is called geometric dissection.
Other than puzzles, geometric dissection could be related to real-life problems.

1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2

Figure 1.3: Stomachion

Gardner (1977) showed an example: a primitive man had a piece of animal skin, but
it was not in desired shape. He had to find a way to cut it into pieces and sew the
pieces into desired shape. This may be the first dissection problem encountered by a
human. A modern version of this example would be seen when a product is designed
to be in a certain shape but the material is manufactured in some other shape. The
processing plant has to process the material in order to make the product. The problem
is to minimize the processing cost, for instance, by optimizing the number of cuts and
minimizing the waste of material.
A typical example of geometric dissection is Dudeney’s solution (1908) of the
Haberdasher’s puzzle. The puzzle demands to dissect an equilateral triangle into four
pieces such that the four pieces can form a square. The same example also illustrated
hinged dissection. Hinged dissection is a special kind of geometric dissection such that
a number of hinge points can be added to connect the pieces so that transformation into
another shape can be done by rotating the pieces around the hinges. Hinged dissection
was popularised by Dudeney; therefore, it was also known as Dudeney dissection.
An article by Abbott et al. (2012) suggested a good possible application of hinged
dissection, that is building transformable nanobots. Non-hinged dissection is not preferred
for this purpose as it might be difficult to control the transform when the parts are not
physically connected.
Other than dealing with shapes on two-dimensional plane, geometric dissection
can also be done for polyhedra in three-dimensional space. Dissection of polyhedra is
sometimes known as polyhedral dissection. The concept of hinged dissection can be
applied in polyhedral dissection. Instead of having points as hinges, hinged dissection
Chapter 1. Introduction 3

Figure 1.4: Hinged Dissection from Triangle to Square

of polyhedra uses lines as hinges.

1-2 Problem Statement


The most common type of problems in geometric dissection is to find a way to dissect
a given shape into another shape. We want to find out what are the methods that could
be applied to find the dissection. In terms of geometry, we want to build a procedure
to construct the exact dissection from a starting polygon. For the real life purpose,
we may also be interested with the numerical values of side lengths and angles of the
dissected pieces.
Another interesting problem is to know how some important results are proved and
whether there are different ways of proving the same result.

1-3 Objectives
The first objective of this project is to obtain general understanding in geometric
dissection. A clear definition of geometric dissection for both two-dimensional and
three-dimensional space has to be understood. The definition should include conditions
and limitations for dissections and movement of the pieces.
Another objective is to study and research on significant or well-known results
and theorems in geometric dissection. This is mainly done by reading research papers,
journal articles and books. By studying the theorems and proofs, some popular methods
of solving geometric dissection problems can be discovered.
Besides, the project also includes studying of some special geometric dissections.
One of the famous dissections is the hinged dissection. These special dissections
Chapter 1. Introduction 4

usually imposed some conditions upon the regular definition of geometric dissection.
The last objective is to discover new dissections or some new findings. As a
challenge, some open problems related to geometric dissection may be studied. Solving
the problem or part of it will be attempted.

1-4 Notation and Terminology


Since this is a project mainly based on geometry, a few geometry terms and notations
will be introduced or clarified in this section.

1-4-1 Line, Ray and Line Segment


←→
A line that passes through points A and B is denoted by AB. Both ends of a line
←→ ←→
extend infinitely. AB is same as BA.

←→
Figure 1.5: Line AB

A ray starting from point A that passes through point B and extends infinitely is
−→ −→ −→
denoted by AB. Note that AB is different from BA. The point that comes first is the
starting endpoint of the ray.

−→
Figure 1.6: Ray AB

−→
Figure 1.7: Ray BA
Chapter 1. Introduction 5

A line segment AB is a straight line with endpoints A and B. AB is same as BA.


For convenience and tidiness, we would just write AB instead of AB to denote line
segment.

Figure 1.8: Line Segment AB

We cannot measure the length of a line or a ray since they extends infinitely but we
can measure the length of a line segment. For AB, we denote it length by |AB|.

1-4-2 Tetrahedron

A tetrahedron is a polyhedron bounded by 4 triangles as illustrated in Figure 1.9. If all


the 4 triangle are equivalent, we say that it is a regular tetrahedron.

Figure 1.9: A Tetrahedron

In this report, we will use the terminologies stated to prevent confusion since some
authors refer (irregular) tetrahedra as "triangular pyramids" and the regular tetrahedron
as "tetrahedron".
Chapter 1. Introduction 6

1-5 Project Planning


This project is split into two phases: Project I and Project II. Each phase would take
one semester to complete. The planning for both phases are shown below.

1-5-1 Project I
Week Plan

6 - 10 Obtain general understanding of geometric dissection.


11 - 12 Prepare interim report and presentation of the report.

1-5-2 Project II
Week Plan

1-5 Research and analyse known results and their proofs.


6 - 10 Attempt to solve problems / discover new dissection.
11 - 12 Finish final report and prepare for presentation.
CHAPTER 2
L ITERATURE R EVIEW

It has been more than a century since geometric dissection is studied extensively by
various famous mathematician. A lot of results regarding geometric dissection have
been published in books, research papers and journal articles. In this chapter, the
resources are studied and some results that have been published are mentioned.

2-1 Dissection Problems


A question like "how to dissect a hexagon to form a square" is called a dissection
problem. The solution to it is called a dissection. Several dissections published in
some books and articles are studied.
A good book to start with is Dissections: Plane and Fancy written by Frederickson
(2003). This book is excellently written such that some important concepts are introduced
and they can be easily understood by beginners in geometric dissection. The book
consists of several chapters where each chapter discusses different topics such as dissections
of regular polygons, symmetrical dissections, dissections of shapes with curve lines
and more. A few chapters near the end of the book are mainly about dissections of
polyhedra in three-dimensional space.
One of the chapters discusses how tessellation can be used to create dissection
easily. It is done first by finding ways to tessellate the given shapes into a plane
or a strip. Then, by superimposing two different tessellations in certain manner, a
dissection pattern could be found. Superimposition of two tessellations means putting
the two tessellations on top of each other so that a combined figure can be observed.
Figure 2.1 shows an example of how dissection from a Greek cross to a square using
tessellation. Tessellation is indeed an elegant way to discover dissections.
The book has also included a lot of interesting dissections discovered by other
authors as well as by himself. The author has included some histories and well-known
results regarding geometric dissection including Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem
and Hilbert’s Third Problem in some chapters. Besides, there were a number of puzzles
inserted throughout the book for readers to solve. The solutions of these puzzles are

7
Chapter 2. Literature Review 8

Figure 2.1: Dissection from Greek Cross to Square

printed in the last chapter.


Another book Mathematical Recreation authored by Kraitchik (1953) discusses
about interesting problems in various areas of mathematics. A chapter in the book
titled "Dissection of Plane Figures" is about dissections of polygons. This chapter
starts with discussion on how to construct dissection of a rectangle into three pieces
to form a square. Of course, this is impossible if the side lengths of the rectangle
differ a lot. When the ratio of length of the longer side to the length of the shorter side
increases, the number of pieces required increases. For the case of three pieces, two
constructions are provided as solution. The first construction is limited to rectangles
which have a longer side that does not exceed the double of the shorter side. Another
construction is better as it only requires the longer side of the rectangle to be not
exceeding four times of the shorter side. This construction will be discussed in details
in Section 3-2 of this report.
The other problems discussed include dissecting a square with area 3 into five
pieces to form two squares with area of 1 and 2 respectively, dissecting a square into
seven pieces to form three congruent squares, and dissecting a regular hexagon into
five pieces to form a square. The solutions and algorithms to construct the dissections
for the problems mentioned are all stated along in the chapter.
The last problem discussed in the topic is to dissect a square into a finite number
of smaller squares such that all the squares are mutually incongruent. Although this
problem is so difficult that it remained unsolved for a long period since the problem
was proposed, Brooks et al. (1940) successfully found a solution to it.
Chapter 2. Literature Review 9

2-2 Polygon and Polyhedron


In some literature, the terms polygon and polyhedron are used without stating a clear
definition. Krasilnikova (2015) says that there are a lot of different definitions of
polyhedron and some definitions are not compatible with each other. If we take a
look at some formal mathematical definitions of polygon and polyhedron, they could
involve some high-level mathematics which is difficult to understand.
Referring to the book Proofs From THE BOOK by Aigner and Ziegler (2018), we
try to informally define polygons and polyhedra in some simpler English terms. We
know that convex polygons are 2D "shapes" bounded by some straight lines. A convex
polygon can be represented by a system of linear inequalities in R2 . Similarly, convex
polyhedra are 3D "shapes" bounded by some planes and we can write systems of linear
inequalities in R3 to represent them. Convex polytope is the term for such convex
"shapes" generalised across dimensions. A convex d-polytope is a convex polytope
in d dimension and we can represent the convex d-polytope using a system of linear
inequalities in Rd . Thus, convex polygons are actually convex 2-polytopes and convex
polyhedra are convex 3-polytopes. Facets of a convex d-polytope are the convex
(d − 1)-polytopes bounding it. Facets of a polygon are edges while f aces are facets
for polyhedra. For a polyhedron, the dihedral angle of an edge is the angle between
the two faces intersecting at the edge. A general d-polytope is a union of some non-
intersecting convex d-polytopes which are attached facet-to-facet.

Figure 2.2: Dihedral Angle


Chapter 2. Literature Review 10

A simplex in d dimension is the "smallest" d-polytope in terms of the number


of facets. For example, the simplex of polygons is triangle whereas the simplex of
polyhedra is tetrahedron. Simplex are said to be the generalisation of triangle into
higher dimensions. According to Károlyi and Lovász (1991), a convex polytope can be
decomposed into a finite number of simplices. Based on this result and how polygons
and polyhedra are defined earlier, we have the following two propositions:

Proposition 1. Any polygon can be dissected into a finite number of triangles.

Proposition 2. Any polyhedron can be dissected into a finite number of tetrahedra.

These two prepositions play an important role in Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem


and Hilbert’s Third Problem which are to be discussed later.

2-3 Equidecomposability
Equidecomposability is the term used to describe the possibility of cutting a polygon
into smaller polygons which can be reassembled to form a second polygon. A mathematical
definition of equidecomposability as in Proofs From THE BOOK by Aigner and Ziegler
(2018) is as follows.

Definition 1 (Equidecomposability). Two polygons A and B are said to be equidecomposable


if A and B can be dissected into a finite number smaller polygons

A = A1 ∪ A2 ∪ · · · ∪ An

B = B1 ∪ B2 ∪ · · · ∪ Bn

and
Ai is congruent to Bi

for i = 1, 2, ..., n.

The definition also applies in the case of three-dimension by considering A, B,


Ai ’s and Bi ’s in the definition as polyhedra. Based on Propositions 1 and 2, it is always
possible to further dissect the pieces Ai ’s and Bi ’s to their simplices. This gives the
tweaked definition:
Chapter 2. Literature Review 11

Definition 2 (Equidecomposability). For d = 2 or d = 3, two d-polytopes A and B


are said to be equidecomposable if A and B can be dissected into a finite number of
simplices (triangles if d = 2 and tetrahedra if d = 3)

A = A1 ∪ A2 ∪ · · · ∪ An

B = B1 ∪ B2 ∪ · · · ∪ Bn

and
Ai is congruent to Bi

for i = 1, 2, ..., n.

The term equidecomposability are used in a number of books and papers including
’A problem of sallee on equidecomposable convex bodies’ by Gardner (1985) and
’Hilbert’s third problem (a story of threes)’ by Krasilnikova (2015). Scissors congruence
is a term which is equivalent to equidecomposability. This term is used in some papers
as well such as Welsh’s expository paper titled ’Scissors congruence’.
Speaking of equidecomposability, the two major questions concerned are:

1. Are any two given polygons of equal area are equidecomposable?

2. Are any two given polyhedra of equal volume equidecomposable?

The answer to the first question is "yes" which is given by the Wallace-Bolyai-
Gerwien Theorem. In terms of equidecomposability, the theorem states

Theorem 2-3-1 (Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem). If two polygons have the same


area, then they are equidecomposable.

Note that the converse of Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem is trivially true. Areas


of the dissected pieces always sum up to be the same, and this sum must also equal to
the area of the two polygon. In this case, area is called an invariant for equidecomposability
of polygons.
The history of this theorem can be traced back to early 19th century. According to
Frederickson (2003) and also the article by Ciesielska and Ciesielski (2018), William
Wallace presented the problem in 1807. John Lowry was the first person who gave
a proof 1814. Later, the same result was proved by Farkas Bolyai and Paul Gerwien
Chapter 2. Literature Review 12

independently in 1832 and 1833 respectively. We will further discuss Wallace-Bolyai-


Gerwien Theorem in Section 4-1
As for the second question about equidecomposability of polyhedra, it is more
generally referred to the Hilbert’s Third Problem. Integrating the information obtained
from various literature, it is found that there are quite some stories about this problem.
According to Aigner and Ziegler (2018), the story began with the letters between Carl
Friedrich Gauss and Christian Ludwig Gerling in 1844. There was already a simple
proof based on geometric dissection that shows that two triangles with same base and
same height have the same area. The idea for this proof can be seen in Lemma 4.4 in
Section 4-1 of this report. However, the fact that two tetrahedra with the same base
area and a same height must have equal volume were proved using calculus. In the
letter to Gerling, Gauss questioned if there is a dissection between two tetrahedra of
same base and same height which can be used as the proof of their equal volume.
In 1900, David Hilbert presented 23 problems which he considered important in
that century that had just begun. The third problem came to our concern. The problem
asks to specify two tetrahedra with same base area and same height which do not have
a common dissection. From how he presented the problem, we can see that Hilbert
is conjecturing that equidecomposability does not hold for some polyhedra despite
having equal volume. It turned out that Hilbert’s conjecture was true. Soon in the same
year, Max Dehn, a student of Hilbert, solved the Hilbert’s Third Problem. Other than
volume, Dehn had discovered the second invariant, which is known as Dehn invariant
now, for the equidecomposability of polyhedra. He showed that if two polyhedra are
equidecomposable, then they have the same Dehn invariants. Then, he proved that
there exists polyhedra with equal volume and different Dehn invariant. Dehn’s solution
is based on abstract algebra as the tensor product of modules are required to define
Dehn invariant. According to Welsh (2016), Sylder successfully proved that equal
volume and equal Dehn invariant are sufficient to guarantee equidecomposability of
two polyhedra in 1965.

Theorem 2-3-2 (Sydler). Two polyhedra are equildecomposable if and only if they
have equal volume and equal Dehn invariant.

Some books commented that Dehn’s proof was difficult to understand. Some
authors had contributed to rewrite Dehn’s proof. A notable simplification of the proof
Chapter 2. Literature Review 13

was given by Kagan in 1903.


Before Hilbert proposed the problem, Bricard had been working on equidecomposability
of polyhedra and he published a theorem in 1896 which is currently known as "Bricard’s
condition". This theorem can easily show that some polyhedra of equall volume are not
equidecomposable. However, the proof for Bricard’s condition provided by himself
was incorrect. Since then, Bricard’s condition remained unproven for more than a
century. In 2007, Benko published a correct proof for Bricard’s condition. He used
some arguments from Kagan’s work which Aigner and Ziegler called "pearl lemma"
and "cone lemma" to prove Bricard’s condition, which becomes a second solution of
Hilbert’s Third Problem. We will look at the proof of this solution in Section 4-3.
In a recent paper, Ciesielska and Ciesielski (2018) claimed that Hilbert’s Third
Problem had already been solved in 1883, without being known by Hilbert and Dehn.
They found that in 1882, an academy in Kraków, a city of Poland, held a mathematics
contest where one of the questions asked was exactly the same as Hilbert’s Third
Problem. A mathematics teacher named Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer submitted a
correct solution for the contest. Birkenmajer’s solution was independent from the ones
by Dehn and Bricard. Regrettably, this result was not published globally and it was in
Polish which was a language less known by the mathematics community at that time.

2-4 Hinged Dissection


According to the definition by Abbott et al. (2012), hinged dissection are dissections
where every pieces are connected directly or indirectly by hinges. A hinge connects
two pieces at some vertex from each of the two pieces. For a hinged dissection, when
we try to move the pieces from the original polygon to form another polygon, if this
is impossible to done without some pieces intersecting each other, then it is called a
wobbly hinged dissection. They proved that non-wobbly hinged dissection exists for
any two polygons, which appears to be a result stronger than Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien
Theorem. A brief discussion of this result will be discussed in Section 4-2.
Akiyama and Nakamura (1998) preferred to call hinged dissection as Dudeney
dissection. In their research paper, the definition of hinged dissection is stricter than
the one defined by Abbott et al.. It requires the dissected pieces to be connected into
Chapter 2. Literature Review 14

Figure 2.3: A Wobbly Hinged Dissection

a chain, that every piece has exactly two hinges, except for two pieces located at both
ends of the chain which have only one hinge. Furthermore, for every pieces, the edges
which are part of edges of the first polygon should be at the interior of the second
polygon and vice versa. They proved that there exists hinged dissection from

• any quadrilateral to another quadrilateral,

• any quadrilateral to a parallelogram,

• any triangle to a parallelogram,

• any parallelhexagon to a trapezoid,

• any parallelhexagon to a triangle, and

• any trapezoidal pentagon to a trapezoid.

For each of the six results stated, an algorithm to construct the Dudeney dissection
was provided along with the proof. All the results obtained mainly relied on tessellation
of the first polygon. A downside of these algorithms was little or no control over the
output polygon. In some algorithms, there were some steps which a random point
needed to be chosen. This caused the output polygon to have different dimension
in terms of side lengths or angles between the edges even though the algorithm was
Chapter 2. Literature Review 15

started with the same polygon. Also, the algorithms only produce polygons with
similar diameter as the first polygon. In other words, “thin and long” polygon will
be dissected to form another “thin and long” polygon by the algorithm.
CHAPTER 3
D ISSECTION OF S OME P OLYGONS

In this section, we will show and discuss a few dissections of some common 2D shapes
such as rectangles and triangles. Some of the dissection will be analysed in details.

3-1 Combining Two Squares into One

Figure 3.1: Dissect Two Squares into a Larger Square

Square is a simple one to begin with. We will first see how to dissect two given
squares to make one larger square. This problem and solution are included in Chapter
2 of Dissections: Plane and Fancy. Let a and b be the side lengths of two squares
with a > b. The construction of this dissection is shown in Figure 3.1. Interestingly,
this dissection can be seen as proof of the Pythagoras theorem. This dissection is due
to Sir George Biddle Airy. Figure 3.2 shows how this dissection can be found using
tessellation.

16
Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 17

Figure 3.2: Superimposing Tessellation of Two Squares and a Large Square

3-2 Rectangle to Square


Now we will look into the construction which dissect a rectangle into a square provided
that the longer side of the rectangle is not exceeding four times of the shorter side.
Construction:

1. Construct a suitable rectangle ABCD as in Figure 3.3.


−−→
2. Let E be the point on CB such that |BA| = |BE|

3. Mark midpoint of EC as F .

4. Draw semicircle with centre F and diameter EC.


−→
5. Let G be the intersection point between BA and the semicircle EC.
−−→
6. Mark M 0 on DC such that |BG| = |M 0 D|.

7. Construct square JB 0 M 0 D with J on AD.

8. Let AM 0 intersects JB 0 and BC at A0 and M respectively.

Now we try to show that this construction is correct. For convenience, let |AB| =
|EB| = x and |BC| = y. Note that the square that we want to construct needs to have
equal area as the rectangle. Therefore, first few steps of the construction are actually
Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 18

Figure 3.3: Dissection From Rectangle to Square


aimed to construct a line segment with length xy in order to construct the side length
of the square.
We have
|EC| = x + y
x+y
|F G| = |F E| = |F C| =
2
x+y y−x
|F B| = −x=
2 2
By the Pythagoras theorem, we obtain
s 2  2
x+y y−x √
|BG| = − = xy
2 2

which is used in Step 6 to construct the side of the square.


Observe that triangles ADM 0 , AJA0 , M CM 0 , M BA and M 0 B 0 A0 are similar to
each other. Triangles ADM 0 and AJA0 being similar implies that

|JA0 | |DM 0 |
=
|JA| |DA|

Substituting known lengths gives



|JA0 | xy
√ =
y − xy y
Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 19

which simplifies to


|JA0 | = xy − x = |DM 0 | − |DC| = |CM 0 |

This result is sufficient to guarantee that triangle AJA0 is congruent to triangle M CM 0 .


This further implies that triangles M BA and M 0 B 0 A0 have equal area as rectangle
ABCD and square JB 0 M 0 D must have equal area. Thus, the congruence between
triangles M BA and M 0 B 0 A0 is guaranteed by their equal area and similarity. This
completes the proof for the construction.

3-3 Equilateral Triangle to Square


Next, we will investigate the Haberdasher’s puzzle which asks for a dissection of an
equilateral triangle into four pieces to form a square. This puzzle was first solved by
Dudeney (1908). He published the construction of the dissection in his book "The
Canterbury Puzzles".

Figure 3.4: Construction of Dissection from Equilateral Triangle to Square

Construction:

1. Construct an equilateral triangle ABC as in Figure 3.4.


Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 20

2. Let points D and E be the midpoints of AC and BC respectively.


−→
3. Mark F on AE such that |EF | = |EC|.

4. Mark the midpoint of AF as G.


−−→
5. Let H be the point on BC such that |GH| = |GF |.

6. Mark I on AB such that |EI| = |EH|.

7. Mark J on IB such that |IJ| = |AD|.

8. Let K and L be on EI such that DL and JK are both perpendicular to IE.

9. The dissection is done by cutting along IE, DL and JK.

This dissection is in fact a non-wobbly hinged dissection. Referring to Figure 3.5,


we can first rotate triangle IEB by 180◦ around point E. Next, rotate quadrilateral
ADLI by 180◦ around point D. Finally, the image of triangle IKJ formed by the
rotation of triangle IEB is rotated by another 180◦ around point J 0 to become I 0 M J 0 .

Figure 3.5: Dissection from Equilateral Triangle to Square


Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 21

Since |AD| = |DC|, when we rotate quadrilateral ADLI around point D to


become DL0 I 0 C, point A would coincide with point C after the rotation. With similar
reasoning, point B will coincide with point C after rotating quadrilateral JKEB by
180◦ around point E. Furthermore, points I 0 , C, and J 0 are collinear as ∠I 0 CD =
∠DCE = ∠ECJ 0 . Also, |IJ| = |AD| = 0.5|AB| implies that |IJ| = |AI| + |JB| =
|I 0 C| + |CJ 0 | = |I 0 J 0 |. Next, L0 I 0 M , M J 0 K 0 , K 0 EL and LDL0 are all straight lines
as the respective pairs of angles at point I 0 , J 0 , E and D are supplementary. With
∠DL0 I 0 = ∠I 0 M J 0 = ∠J 0 K 0 E = ∠ELD = 90◦ , so far L0 M K 0 L has been proved to
be a rectangle. It can be shown that L0 M K 0 L is a square.
Assuming that triangle ABC has edges of length 2, we have
√ √
|AE| = 22 − 12 = 3

|AF | = 3+1
1 √ 
|GH| = |GF | = 3+1
2
1 √  1 √ 
|GE| = |GF | − |EF | = 1+ 3 −1= 3−1
2 2
By Pythagoras theorem,

u 1 + √3 2 √
v ! !2
u

q
p 3−1 1
|EI| = |EH| = |GH|2 − |GE|2 = t − = 3 = 34
2 2

The area of rectangle L0 M K 0 L is equal to the area of the triangle which is 0.5(2)( 3) =

3. Rectangle L0 M K 0 L can be proved to be a square by showing that one of its side
p√
has length of 3. In particular, this can be done by showing that |M L0 | = |EI|.
Observe that |M L0 | = |K 0 L| and

2|M L0 | = |M L0 | + |K 0 L|

= |M I 0 | + |I 0 L0 | + |K 0 E| + |EL|

= |KI| + |IL| + |KE| + |EL|

= 2|EI|

which gives |M L0 | = |EI| as wanted.


From the analysis, we can see that the most crucial and challenging part in this
1
construction is to construct a line segment of length 3 4 .
Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 22

Although we know how to construct this dissection starting from the triangle,
constructing the dissection from the other way round, which is to start with a square,
may not be simple. To find such a construction, we start by inspecting the dissection
of square L0 M K 0 L in Figure 3.5. Given such a square, the objective is to construct
the points I 0 , J 0 , E, D and C. The "cuts" that need to made are I 0 J 0 , CD and CE.
Points J 0 and D are midpoints of M K 0 and L0 L respectively. Thus, these two points
1
are relatively simple to construct. When the square has side length 3 4 , it is found that
|I 0 J 0 | = |CD| = |CE| = 1.
Now, the main challenge is to construct the a line segment of length 1 using a line
1
segment of length 3 4 from the starting square. We can apply the technique used in the
1
construction of line segment of length 3 4 from an equilateral triangle of length 2. If
1
we do the same construction on an equilateral triangle of length 3 4 instead, we could
1 1 √
obtain a line segment of length 3 4 /2 · 3 4 = 3/2 instead. We have already known
√ √
that 3 is the height of an equilateral triangle with side length 2, thus 3 is the height
of an equilateral triangle with side length 1. Using this idea, we are able to create the
construction.
Construction:

1. Construct a square ABCD.

2. Construct an equilateral triangle DEC as in Figure 3.6.

3. Let F be midpoint of EC.


−−→
4. Mark G on DF such that |F G| = |F E|.

5. Let H be the midpoint of DG.


−−→
6. Mark I on CE such that |HI| = |HG|.
−−→
7. Mark J on AD such that |DJ| = |F I|.
←→
8. Draw a line perpendicular to AJ at J and let K be the point where the line meets
DE.

9. Mark L and M as the midpoints of DC and AB respectively.

10. Mark N on AD such that |LN | = |DK|.


Chapter 3. Dissection of Some Polygons 23

Figure 3.6: Construction of Dissection from Square to Equilateral Triangle

11. Mark O on LN such that |M O| = |DK|.

12. Mark P on BC such that |OP | = |DK|. There are two such possible P , choose
the one which is nearer to B.

13. The dissection of the square is given by cutting along LN , M O and OP .

The construction steps 2 to 6 are actually the same as those in the construction from
1
equilateral triangle to square. We shall assume |CD| = 3 4 . Based of our arguments

earlier on, |DJ| = |F I| would be 3. It can be easily verified that ∠JDK = 30◦ and
∠DKJ = 60◦ . Triangle DJK is a halved equilateral triangle with DJ as height and
DK as an edge. We have successfully constructed a line segment of length 1 which is
DK. By using DK, we can easily construct the "cuts" needed to made on the square.
CHAPTER 4
E QUIDECOMPOSABILITY

This chapter starts with discussion about some properties of equidecomposition. After
that, we will look into the proofs of Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem. Finally, we
will study the solution of Hilbert’s Third Problem and its partial proof.
First, let us recall the definition of equidecomposability on page 11. Equidecomposability
is in fact an equivalence relation but this is considered trivial and thus not mentioned
in most books and articles. The reflexive and transitive properties are obviously true,
while the transitivity can be proved easily.
Suppose we have polygons A, B and C such that A is equidecomposable to B and
B is equidecomposable to C. Then, there exists two dissections of polygon B, one
gives the pieces that can be arranged to form polygon A and the other gives the pieces
can be arranged to form polygon C as illustrated in Figure 4.1. By superimposing the
two dissection figures of polygon B, that is, placing one dissection figure of polygon
B on top of another, we observe a new dissection of polygon B as in Figure 4.2. The
pieces produced from this new dissection are able to form polygons A or C when they
are arranged accordingly. Thus, polygons A and C are also equidecomposable.

Figure 4.1: B is equidecomposable to A and C

24
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 25

Figure 4.2: Superimposition Gives Common Dissection

Nevertheless, an issue that could arises from Definition 1 is that a polygon is


congruent to its reflection. In some cases, we do not want to "flip" some of the
pieces dissected from the first polygon to form the second polygon. The same problem
happens for polyhedra and it is more likely to cause some trouble if any results that
follow this definition are to be applied in engineering. This is because we cannot
simply "flip" a polyhedron in the real world to get its reflection.
Aigner and Ziegler (2018) had mentioned that restricting reflection from congruences
of the dissected pieces in Definition 2 would not cause a difference in equidecomposability
of polygons or polyhedra. This result was given by Gerling in 1844 but there is no
further information in the book. A more detailed explanation of Gerling’s result can
be found in Chapter 20 of Frederickson’s Dissections: Plane and Fancy. We have
mentioned that Gauss questioned whether two tetrehedra of same base area and same
height are equidecomposable in his letter to Gerling. As a reply, Gerling was only
able to find the dissection for a special case, which required one tetrahedron to be the
reflection of the other. He found a way to dissect a tetrahedron into 6 pairs of smaller
tetrahedral pieces such that in each pair of tetrehedra, one is the reflection of the other
piece. These pieces then can be reassembled to form the reflection of the original
tetrahedron. By Definition 2, if some tetrahedral pieces Ak and Bk are congruent
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 26

by reflection, they can be further dissected so that all pieces are congruent only by
translation and rotation.

Figure 4.3: Gerling’s Dissection from a Triangle to its Reflection (Ciesielska and
Ciesielski, 2018)

The idea of Gerling’s result can be brought into the second dimension. A triangle
can be dissected into 3 pairs of triangular pieces which can be reassembled to form the
reflection of the first triangle as illustrated in Figure 4.3. Such dissection can be easily
constructed by drawing lines where each line passes the incenter and one vertex and of
the triangle. The incenter of a triangle is the center of inscribed circle of the triangle.
The incenter can be constructed as the point where the three angle bisectors of three
vertices of the triangle intersect.

4-1 Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem


Theorem 2-3-1 (Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem). If two polygons have the same
area, then they are equidecomposable.

Since equidecomposability is an equivalence relation, each of the following statements


is equivalent to Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem.

1. A polygon is equidecomposable to a square.

2. A polygon with area a is equidecomposable to a 1 × a rectangle.


Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 27

With either statement, we can say that any two polygons of equal area are both
equidecomposable to a third polygon, thus the first two polygons are also equidecomposable.
We shall start by proving the first statement with the aid of the following two lemmas.

Lemma 4-1-1. Every triangle is equidecomposable to a rectangle.

Proof. Consider a triangle ABC with AB as its longest edge. The dissection of the
triangle to rectangle can be constructed as follows:

1. Construct a line segment that passes through C and perpendicularly intersects


AB at D.

2. Construct a perpendicular bisector of segment CD. Let the line intersects CD


at E, CA at F and CB at G.

3. The pieces ABGF , F EC and EGC can be arranged into a rectangle as shown
in Figure 4.4

Figure 4.4: Dissection from a Triangle to Rectangle


Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 28

Lemma 4-1-2. Every rectangle is equidecomposable to a square.

Proof. Consider a non-square rectangle with length l and height h. Without loss of
generality, assume that l is greater than h.
In Section 3-2, we had shown a way to dissect a rectangle to form a square provided
that l 6 4h.
For the case of l > 4h, we show that the rectangle is equidecomposable with a
l0 × h0 rectangle with l0 6 4h0 . We can cut the original rectangle into two rectangles
with length l/2 and height h. These two pieces can be stacked to form a new rectangle
with length l/2 and width 2h. This process can be performed repeatedly to reduce the
length and increase the height of the rectangle as illustrated in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Halving and Stacking Rectangles

Let lk denote the length and hk denote the width of the rectangle obtained after k
rounds of the process. It is easy to see that
 k
1
lk = l
2

and
hk = 2k h

and also  
lk 1 l
= k
hk 4 h
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 29

We claim that hn < ln 6 4hn when n = dlog4 (l/h)e − 1.


  
l
n = log4 −1
h

implies      
l l 4l
log4 6 n + 1 < log4 + 1 = log4
h h h
which further implies
l 4l
6 4n+1 <
h h
As such, we have  
n+1 h
164 <4
l
Taking the reciprocal  
1 1 l
< n+1 61
4 4 h
we have  
1 l
1< n 64
4 h
implying that
ln
1< 64
hn
and we have
hn < ln 6 4hn

Now the rectangle with length l0 = ln and height h0 = hn satisfies what we want.

Theorem 4-1-3. A polygon is equidecomposable to a square of the same area.

Proof. First, dissect the polygon into triangles. By Lemma 4-1-1 the triangles can be
dissected to form rectangles. Next, each small rectangle is dissected to form a square
by Lemma 4-1-2. By using the method mentioned in Section 3-1, we can repeatedly
combine two squares into a larger square until we are left with a single square which
has the same area as the original polygon.

That is the first complete proof for the Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem. The
second proof follow the similar arguments as in the paper titled ’Scissors congruence’
by Welsh (2016). The steps are the same as previous proof until the original polygon
is dissected which can form some small rectangles. In the next step, Welsh tried to
prove a lemma stating that any two rectangles of the same area are equidecomposable
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 30

but there was an incorrect statement in his proof. This mistake was found to be caused
by a wrong construction step of the dissection that comes before that statement. The
construction of the 3-pieces dissection is actually very similar to the dissection from a
rectangle to a square shown in Section 3-2. In fact, we can use this result to prove the
lemma easily.

Lemma 4-1-4. Any two rectangles of the same area are equidecomposable.

Proof. By Lemma 4-1-2, both the rectangles are equidecomposable to a same square
which shares the same area as the two rectangles. Therefore, they are equidecomposable.

These results are enough to write the second proof.

Theorem 4-1-5. A polygon with area a is equidecomposable to a 1 × a rectangle.

Proof. The polygon can be first dissected into triangles and the triangles are further
dissected to form rectangles by Lemma 4-1-1. Next, by Lemma 4-1-4, each of the
rectangle can be dissected to form a rectangle with height 1. Then, all these rectangles
can be stacked to form a long rectangle with height 1 and base equal to sum of the
bases of the rectangular pieces, which obviously has to be numerically equal to a.

This concludes the second proof of Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem. However,


the construction of the dissection along the proofs usually creates a lot of pieces. It is
generally a difficult problem to find a minimal dissection for any two given polygons
into a minimum number of pieces.
Based on the nature of the proofs, we obtain the following result.

Theorem 4-1-6. For a finite set of polygons which all have the same area, there exists
a dissection which the pieces can be arranged to reassemble any polygon from the set.

Some literature refers this stronger result as the Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem.

4-2 Hinged Dissection between Any Polygons


Compared to proving Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem, finding out whether any two
polygons have a hinged dissection is a more difficult task. This is because the existence
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 31

of hinged dissection does not have a trivial transitive property like equidecomposability.
Even so, (Abbott et al., 2012) had managed to prove the result:

Theorem 4-2-1. For a finite set of polygons which all have the same area, there exists
a hinged dissection in which the pieces connected by hinges can be moved without any
intersection between themselves to reassemble any polygon from the set.

Here we only include the proof outline with brief explanation. The constructive
proof extends from the result in previous section, which is Theorem 4-1-6. The first
step is to add some hinges to the pieces which are from the dissection in Theorem
4-1-6. After adding those hinges, it is not necessary that the pieces with hinges can
reassemble every polygon in the set.
The next step is the most crucial part of the proof. In brief, it is proven that by
further dissecting the current pieces into even smaller pieces which are still connected
by hinges, an original hinge can "change" its position. This idea is illustrated in Figure
4.6.

Figure 4.6: Moving a Hinge (Abbott et al., 2012)


Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 32

The method allows the hinges to be "moved" freely and thus a wobbly hinged
dissection that applies for all polygons in the set can be found. To obtain a non-wobbly
hinged dissection, those pieces where intersection occur are further dissected so that
they do not "block the way".
We can observe from Figure 4.6 that there could be a lot of tiny pieces generated.
If the construction is to be built in real world, it could be a challenge for engineers.

4-3 Hilbert’s Third Problem


Answering the Hilbert’s Third Problem, there exists polyhedra of equal volume which
are not equidecomposable. An approach to prove this answer is to use Bricard’s
condition which was correctly proven by Benko. This proof requires the "pearl lemma"
and "cone lemma". The following proofs are reproduced following the arguments in
Proofs from THE BOOK by (Aigner and Ziegler, 2018).
Before that, we need to understand the concept of segment (not to confuse with
line segment which is defined earlier). The concept is easier to be explained in 2D
dissection. A dissection of polygon produces some polygonal pieces. When the pieces
are assembled to form the polygon, every piece has some edges lying at the interior
of the polygon and touching other pieces. Some of these edges are observed to be
subdivided into smaller part by vertices of other pieces. These subdivided part are
called segments. If an edge is not subdivided, then whole edge is considered as a
single segment.

Figure 4.7: Illustrating Segments


Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 33

We use the dissection in Figure 4.7 to clearly illustrate the concept of segments.
Edge HJ of piece Y consists of two segments as the edge is subdivided by vertices of
other pieces. Meanwhile, edge GH of piece X has the full edge as a single segment.
The same concept can be extended to dissection of polyhedra. The edges of the
polyhedral pieces can be subdivided into segments by vertices or edges of other pieces.

Lemma 4-3-1 (Pearl Lemma). Let P and Q be two polygons or two polyhedra which
are equidecomposable. They are dissected into pieces; P = P1 ∪ ... ∪ Pk , Q =
Q1 ∪ ... ∪ Qk with Pi congruent to Qi . It is possible to put a positive real number
of pearls on the segments such that for each pair of congruent pieces Pi and Qi , the
number of pearls on their corresponding edges are the same.

Figure 4.8 shows a correct assignment of pearls for that dissection but in this lemma
it is not necessary for the number of pearls assigned to be integers.

Figure 4.8: A Correct Assignment of Pearls

Proof. Suppose e is an edge of an arbitrary piece Pi and e0 is the corresponding edge


of Qi . If e is subdivided into segments sk and e0 is subdivided into segments s0l , we can
write the linear equation
X X
xk − yl = 0
k:sk ⊆e l:s0l ⊆e0
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 34

where xk and yl are the numbers of pearls assigned to the segment sk and s0l respectively.
If we write the linear equation for all edges of every pieces, we have a system of linear
equation
Ax = 0, x>0

where A is an integer matrix with entries 1, −1 or 0 and 0 is the zero vector. Obviously,
a possible solution is the length of each segments and this completes the proof for pearl
lemma.

Lemma 4-3-2 (Cone Lemma). Let A be an integer matrix such that Ax = 0 has a
positive real solution. Then it must has a positive integer solution.

Proof. If the system has a positive real solution, then by multiplying the solution with
a suitable scalar, we can obtain a real solution of at least 1. Therefore, the system

Ax = 0, x>1

where 1 is the vector with all 1’s has a real solution. If we can show that this system has
a rational solution, then we can multiply the solution with the common denominator to
obtain an integer solution which is wanted. Note that we can write the system

Ax = 0, x>1

as
Ax > 0, −Ax > 0, x>1

which is the same as  


A
  x > 0, x>1
−A
 
A
The matrix   is nothing but a integer matrix just like A. We have reduced the
−A
problem to proving that
Ax > 0, x>1

has a rational solution. We shall prove a more general result, that is,

Ax > b, x>1
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 35

where b is an integer vector, has a rational solution. Suppose A is a m × n matrix. We


prove by induction on n. When n = 1, A becomes a vector and x becomes a scalar.
All the inequalities in the system can be written in the form
bi
x>
ai
where ai and bi are integers. We choose x to be its smallest possible value which
must be a rational number. This is guaranteed by existence of a real solution and the
right-hand side of every inequalities being rational.
For n > 1, we write
 
A = A0 an

where A0 is the m × (n − 1) matrix which is the first n − 1 columns of A and an is the


nth column of A. Also, write  
0
x
x= 
xn
where x0 is the vector extracted from the first n − 1 entries of x and xn be the last entry
of x. The system
Ax > b, x>1

can now be written as


 
0
 x

A0 an   > b, x0 > 1, xn > 1
xn
which is equivalent to

A0 x0 > b, x0 > 1, an xn > b, xn > 1

We can see that there are two independent linear system. By inductive hypotheses,
the first subsystem has a rational solution and in the second subsystem, the smallest
possible xn is chosen similar to what was argued in the base case of n = 1. This
completes the proof.
In fact, the rational solution we obtain in this way is lexicographically smallest in
the solution space. Lexicographical ordering orders the vector based on the first entries
in the vectors. If there is a tie, then those tied vectors are ordered based on their second
entries and so on. This ordering is also called the dictionary ordering since the ordering
of words in a dictionary is similar.
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 36

Theorem 4-3-3 (Bricard’s condition). Let P and Q be equidecomposable polyhedra.


Suppose P has m edges with dihedral angles α1 , ..., αm and Q has n edges with
dihedral angles β1 , ..., βn . There exists positive integers ai , bj and an integer c such
that
a1 α1 + · · · + am αm = b1 β1 + · · · + bn βn + cπ

Proof. According to the pearl lemma and the cone lemma, we know that it is possible
to assign a positive integer of pearls at the segments of the dissected pieces for both
P and Q such that the corresponding edge for each pair of congruent pieces have the
same number of pearls.
Consider a polyhedral piece P1 dissected from P , every pearl on P1 lies on one of
the edge of P1 . We take the sum of dihedral angle of each pearl and write the sum as
S1 . Suppose P is dissected into k pieces, them we can apply the calculation for the
remaining pieces to obtain S2 , S3 , ..., Sk and let S = S1 + S2 + · · · + Sk .

Figure 4.9: Pearls may Coincide

When the pieces are put together to reassemble P , some pearls from different
pieces may coincide if they share the same segment in P . This concept is illustrated in
Figure 4.9 in 2D. For polyhedra, this situation happens when the pearl lies on a face of
P or at the interior of P . The pearl of the formal case contributes exactly π to S while
a pearl of the latter case contributes exactly 2π to S. The remaining pearls that are not
covered by these two cases must be lying on one of the m edges. Therefore, we can
write
S = a1 α1 + · · · + am αm + cp π

where a1 ,...,am are positive integers (there is at least one pearl on each edge) and cp is a
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 37

non-negative integer. Since the pieces can also reassemble Q, similar reasoning gives

S = b1 β1 + · · · + bn βn + cq π

where b1 ,...,bn are positive integers and cp is a non-negative integer. We finally arrive
at the Bricard’s condition

a1 α1 + · · · + am αm = b1 β1 + · · · + bn βn + cπ

by taking c = cq − cp .

With Bricard’s condition, now we are able prove that some polyhedra of equal
volume are not equidecomposable. Here we show an example using a square and a
regular tetrahedron. Even if we know that equal volume are necessary for equidecomposability,
we do not really need to care about volume since Bricard’s condition only takes the
dihedral angles into account.
Bricard’s condition tells us that if a square and a regular tetrahedron are equidecomposable,
then
π 
12a = 6b(β) + cπ
2
where β is the dihedral angle that is the same for all edges of a regular tetrahedron, a, b
are positive integers and c is a non-negative integer. Observe that left-hand side is a
rational multiple of π. We are done if we can prove that β is not a rational multiple of
π.
We need to find the value of β. Referring to Figure 4.10, let ABCD be a tetrahedron.
E is the center of triangle ABC and ED is to plane ABC. Observe that

|AE| = |BE| = 2|EF |

which implies
|DF | = |AF | = 3|EF |

Therefore,
|EF | 1
cos(β) = =
|DF | 3
which gives  
−1 1
β = cos
3
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 38

Figure 4.10: Dihedral Angle of Regular Tetrahedron

Aigner and Ziegler (2018) has proved in another chapter that for all odd integers n
more than or equal to 3,  
1 1
cos−1 √
π n
is irrational. This result can give what we want by using n = 9. We use the argument
from the proof to show that  
1 1
cos−1
π 3
is irrational.
We claim that
Nk
cos(kβ) =
3k
where Ak is an integer not divisible by 9 for all non-negative integer k. We prove this
claim by induction. For k = 0 and k = 1, we can easily obtain N0 = N1 = 1. For
k > 2, using the identity
   
A+B A−B
cos(A) + cos(B) = 2cos cos
2 2

with A = (k + 1)β and B = (k − 1)β, we have

cos[(k + 1)β] = 2cos(kβ)cos(β) − cos[(k − 1)β]


Nk 1 Nk−1
=2· · − k−1
3k 3 3
2Nk − 9Ak−1
=
3k+1
Chapter 4. Equidecomposability 39

We obtain Nk+1 = 2Nk − 9Nk−1 which is also not divisible by 9 since Ak is not
divisible by 9. The claim is proved.
Assume that
a
β= π
b
for some positive integers a, b. Then

bβ = aπ

gives
cos(bβ) = cos(aπ) = ±1

which can be written as


Nb
= ±1
3b
or
Nb = ±3b

for some integer Nb not divisible by 9. This forces b = 1 which implies

±3
cos(β) = = ±1
3

This is a contradiction. Thus β is not a rational multiple of π. This completes the proof
that a square and a tetrahedron are not equidecomposable.
CHAPTER 5
C ONCLUSION

The study of geometric dissection starts from investigating how to dissect a polygon
into pieces to other polygons through geometry. In this project, the dissections between
some commonly seen polygons are studied and analysed in details. Some dissections
are trivial. Some examples are the dissection of two squares into one large square
and from a triangle to a rectangle. Meanwhile, some dissection are relatively harder
to discover. The Haberdasher’s problem which asks for a dissection of a equilateral
triangle that form a square is an example.
Hinged dissection or Dudeney dissection is a special kind of dissection which has
an additional requirement. In this dissection, all the pieces are connected by some
hinges and the movement of the pieces are restricted to rotation around the hinges.
If some pieces intersect during the transformation of the pieces from one polygon to
another polygon, this dissection is called a wobbly hinged dissection.
If it is possible to dissect a polygon into finite polygonal pieces and use the pieces to
reassemble another polygon, then these two polygons are said to be equidecomposable
or scissors congruent. This definition applies for polyhedra analogously.
Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem states an important result that any two polygons
are equidecomposable if and only if the two polygons have the same area. In other
words, area is the only invariant for dissection of polygons and having equal area is
sufficient and necessary to guarantee equidecomposable of polygons. The constructive
proof of this theorem provided a way to dissect a polygon to reassemble another given
polygon. However, the dissection produces a lot more pieces than required in most
of the cases. In general, finding the minimal dissection between two given polygons
remains as a difficult problem. A recent paper proved a stronger result that hinged
dissection is possible between polygons of equal area. The proof of this finding extends
from the Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem.
The generalisation of Wallace-Bolyai-Gerwien Theorem into third dimension, which
would state that equidecomposability of two polyhedra is decided by volume only, is
false. This is generally referred as Hilbert’s Third Problem. Dehn is considered the first

40
Chapter 5. Conclusion 41

person who solved this problem. He proved that there exists a second invariant called
the Dehn invariant for dissection of polyhedra. Sylder later proved that equal volume
and equal Dehn invariant are sufficient to guarantee equidecomposability between two
polygons. An alternative solution of Hilbert’s Third Problem is based on the Bricard’s
condition. Different from Dehn’s solution which is based on abstract algebra, the
solution by Bricard’s condition requires only elementary mathematics.

5-1 Project Review & Future Study


Geometric dissection is a large branch of mathematics and a lot of mathematicians
had been contributing and lots of findings were published. Due to time constrains, I
am not able to study everything within these months when this project was conducted.
Anyway, the objectives of this project such as understanding geometric dissection of
polygons and polyhedra, and studying important results from literature are achieved.
It is also fun to see and learn the interaction between different fields of mathematics
such as geometry and algebra.
Some future study which can be done includes studying the Dehn’s proof which is
regarded as the classical solution of Hilbert’s Third Problem. In this project, the main
focus is dissection of polygons and polyhedra only. The dissection of shapes with
curves such as circles and sphere are not studied and this topic could be researched.
Another interesting yet difficult topic is dissection in the fourth and higher dimension.
It will probably be challenging to define equidecomposability in higher dimension or to
find out whether the number of invariants for polytope dissection are growing linearly
or exponentially in the higher dimensions.
R EFERENCES

Abbott, T. G., Abel, Z., Charlton, D., Demaine, E. D., Demaine, M. L. and Kominers,
S. D., 2012. ‘Hinged dissections exist’, Discrete Comput. Geom. 47(1), 150–186.

Aigner, M. and Ziegler, G. M., 2018. Proofs from THE BOOK, Springer.

Akiyama, J. and Nakamura, G., 1998. Dudeney dissection of polygons, in ‘Japanese


Conference on Discrete and Computational Geometry’, Springer, pp. 14–29.

Brooks, R. L., Smith, C. A., Stone, A. H. and Tutte, W. T., 1940. ‘The dissection of
rectangles into squares’, Duke Math. J. 7(1), 312–340.

Ciesielska, D. and Ciesielski, K., 2018. ‘Equidecomposability of polyhedra: a


solution of hilbert’s third problem in kraków before icm 1900’, The Mathematical
Intelligencer 40(2).

Dudeney, H. E., 1908. The Canterbury Puzzles (and Other Curious Problems).

Frederickson, G. N., 2003. Dissections: Plane and Fancy, Cambridge University Press.

Gardner, M., 1977. Geometric dissections, in ‘Further Mathematical Diversions’, new


edn, Pelican Books, chapter four, pp. 43–51.

Gardner, R. J., 1985. ‘A problem of sallee on equidecomposable convex bodies’, Proc.


Amer. Math. Soc. 94(2), 329–332.

Károlyi, G. and Lovász, L., 1991. ‘Decomposition of convex polytopes into simplices’,
preprint 6.

Kraitchik, M., 1953. Dissection of plane figures, in ‘Mathematical Recreations’,


second revised edn, Dover Publications Inc., chapter 8, pp. 193–198.

Krasilnikova, L. A., 2015. ‘Hilbert’s third problem (a story of threes)’.

Welsh, M. C., 2016. ‘Scissors congruence’. paper presented to The University of


Chicago Mathematics REU.

42

You might also like