Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-26-2005, 07:53 AM
jason_t jason_t is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Another downswing?
Posts: 2,274
Default Perfect dissections

It is well know that is possible to partition a square into smaller squares (cf. below for an example to clarify the meaning). Prove that it is not possible to partition a cube into smaller cubes. (This is a well-known and famous problem but accessible to everyone here. I hope you enjoy it.)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-26-2005, 09:01 AM
KeysrSoze KeysrSoze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Reverse implied odds of 500000 to 900
Posts: 190
Default Re: Perfect dissections

I thought it was. For example you can partition a 9x9x9 cube into 27 3x3x3 cubes. Or do the cubes have to be different sizes?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-26-2005, 09:16 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Perfect dissections

"Prove that it is not possible to partition a cube into smaller cubes."

Ummmm, you better stipulate your conditions better (i.e., must be different sizes).

Take 8 equal cubes and you have 1 big cube.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-26-2005, 11:14 AM
mslif mslif is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Understanding pde\'s
Posts: 902
Default Re: Perfect dissections

If you look at the bottom of the cubed cube; you will see a squared square. The smallest square, S, in this squared square cannot be on the boundary. Therefore, the cube with S for a face is surrounded by four larger cubes, so its opposite face abuts another squared square. We can now look at the smallest square in this squared square. It is then the face of some cube surrounded by four larger cubes, which we can look at the opposite face of, and so on: since this process can be continued indefinitely, there can be no cubed cube.

The difference between 2D and 3D is in the starred statement. The smallest line in a segmented segment can be on the boundary, but the smallest square in a squared square cannot be.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-26-2005, 04:00 PM
jason_t jason_t is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Another downswing?
Posts: 2,274
Default Re: Perfect dissections

The cubes must be of different sizes. It's pretty clear that some sort of stipulation of this sort was implied from

1. It is [well-known] that is possible to partition a square into smaller squares. I wouldn't have said well-known if it was in fact trivial.
2. The figure indicates we're looking for something special
3. The problem is trivial and false without some sort of stipulation.

Thanks for helping me clarify it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-26-2005, 04:44 PM
daryn daryn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,759
Default Re: Perfect dissections

[ QUOTE ]
"Prove that it is not possible to partition a cube into smaller cubes."

Ummmm, you better stipulate your conditions better (i.e., must be different sizes).

Take 8 equal cubes and you have 1 big cube.

[/ QUOTE ]

8, eh?

Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:00 PM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: Perfect dissections

I don't understand why it's necessary to force the shape of the cube or square to remain intact.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:41 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Perfect dissections

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Prove that it is not possible to partition a cube into smaller cubes."

Ummmm, you better stipulate your conditions better (i.e., must be different sizes).

Take 8 equal cubes and you have 1 big cube.

[/ QUOTE ]

8, eh?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can create a cube with 8 equal cubes (2x2x2). Do you not agree?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:44 PM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: Perfect dissections

that would be 4 i think
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-26-2005, 05:47 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Perfect dissections

[ QUOTE ]
that would be 4 i think

[/ QUOTE ]

2 x 2 x 2 = 4? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.