Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I came across a puzzle where we need to determine the error in the following proof.

False Theorem. $420 > 422$

Proof. We will demonstrate this fact geometrically. We begin with a $20 \times 21$ rectangle which has area $420$. Now we cut along the diagonal and slide the upper piece parallel to the cut until it has moved exactly $2$ units leftward. This leaves a couple stray corners which are $2$ units wide and just over $2$ units high. Finally, we snip off the two corners and place them together to form an additional small rectangle. Now we have two rectangles, a large one with area just over $(20 + 2) \times 19 = 418$ and a small one with area just over $2 \times 2 = 4$. Thus, the total area of the resulting figure is a bit over $418 + 4 = 422$. By conservation of area, $420$ is equal to just a little bit more than $422$.

Can someone please explain what the error is in the above argument ?

Thank You!

share|cite|improve this question
If the numbers don't fit, the pieces probably don't fit as nicely as you think ;) – N. S. Apr 26 '12 at 19:09
The stray corners are under two inches, if my quick arts and crafts project is accurate... – The Chaz 2.0 Apr 26 '12 at 19:11
@John Have you tried cosntructing it? Which diagonal do you cut through? This is not really a proof but a vague visualization, and there is a catch in this diagonal cut. – Pedro Tamaroff Apr 26 '12 at 19:11
@John The trick is probably that the slope is $1,05$ which is very near to $1$. This probably tricks the eye when seeing the contruction. – Pedro Tamaroff Apr 26 '12 at 19:15
Even i am thinking there is an error in the statement "..which are 2 units wide and just over 2 units high". The length of the smaller rectangle would be less than 2 units is my intuition. Is that correct ? – John Apr 26 '12 at 19:17
up vote 2 down vote accepted

From your description, you’ve started with the rectangle oriented so that the $21$ unit side is vertical. You’ve slid the upper triangular half $2$ units to the left, so that it rises a little more than $2$ units, and you’ve snipped off the triangular projections at upper left and lower right. Your large rectangle loses two units of width, so its area is a bit more than $(21+2)\cdot 18=414$. The area of the small rectangle is a bit over $4$, so altogether you’ve a bit more than $418$, which is no contradiction.

In fact the small rectangle is $2\times 2.1$ units, so its area is $4.2$, and the large rectangle is $23.1\times 18$ units, so its area is $415.8$, and the total is still $420$, as it should be.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks for the reply brian.But the 21 unit side is horizontal... – John Apr 26 '12 at 19:26
@John: Then the large rectangle is $19\times\left(20+\frac{40}{21}\right)$, with area $\frac{8740}{21}$, and the small rectangle is $2\times\frac{40}{21}$, with area $\frac{80}{21}$, and again all’s well. Your description is inaccurate, however, because the extra vertical bit is less than $2$, not more than $2$. I chose the orientation that I did precisely in order to match your description. – Brian M. Scott Apr 26 '12 at 19:32
Thanks Brian :) – John Apr 26 '12 at 19:33
I was wondering why my comment earlier didn't inspire the "ahah moment"... until I looked back and saw that I forgot to say which side is less than 2 inches! – The Chaz 2.0 Apr 26 '12 at 19:43

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.