You baked a pie in the shape of a disc, with some cherries spread unevenly on its top. You want to give each of your two children a piece of cake such that:

  1. The pieces are congruent - have the same shape and size;
  2. Each piece has the same amount of cherries (cherries are considered divisible so each piece might contain fractions of cherries).

One way to do this is the following: hold a knife over the diameter of the pie and rotate it slowly, changing its angle from $0$ towards $\pi$. Let $l(t)$ be the number of cherries to the left of the knife at angle $t$ and $r(t)$ the number of cherries to its right. At angle $\pi$, right becomes left and left becomes right, $l(0)=r(\pi)$ and $r(0)=l(\pi)$, so if (for example) $l(0)>r(0)$, then $l(\pi)<r(\pi)$. Both functions are continuous, so by the intermediate value theorem, there must be a $T\in[0,\pi]$ in which $r(T)=l(T)$. Cutting at that angle gives two semi-discs with the same amount of cherries.

MY QUESTION IS: What happens if, instead of a straight knife, you have a fork, which leaves a small piece of cake undivided, like this? There, the green 3-part line represents the fork. It divides the brown pie to 3 parts, two of which (the larger ones) are given to your children, and the small triangular reminder is discarded.

The argument from the semi-disc case doesn't work, because it is no longer true that $r(0)=l(\pi)$. However, by playing with the GeoGebra simulation it seems to be always possible to find an angle in which $r(T)=l(T)$, so I am trying to prove this.

I thought of the following 'proof' which I am trying to complete:

Because the two pieces are symmetric, their integral is the same, i.e.:

$$\int_{t=0}^{2\pi} l(t)dt = \int_{t=0}^{2\pi} r(t)dt$$


$$\int_{t=0}^{2\pi} (l(t)-r(t))dt = 0$$

So there must be a $T\in[0,2\pi]$ in which $l(T)-r(T) = 0$.

Is this proof correct?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Now I'm hungry. $\endgroup$ – user132181 Dec 14 '14 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ I don't get what the fork is.. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 14 '14 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ @user21820 I've edited the picture, I hope it is clearer now. The fork is the green 3-part line. Each child receives one of the large pieces at the right/left of the fork. The small triangular piece at the bottom is not divided (e.g. you eat it yourself). $\endgroup$ – Erel Segal-Halevi Dec 14 '14 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand your reasoning for saying the two integrals are the same. They are reflection symmetric but not rotation symmetric. I believe your hypothesis is in fact correct but for a non-trivial reason. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 14 '14 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ Does my answer make sense? It is indeed along the lines of what you were trying but I think the justification is non-trivial.. Note that symmetry is not enough. It must cover the same 'amount' of each annulus around the centre of the pie. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 15 '14 at 6:58

True theorem if I didn't make a mistake, but I don't think there is a very simple proof even if the cherry density is Riemann integrable. Please tell me if you see any error in my solution!

Let $v(p)$ be the non-negative finite integrable cherry density at point $p$ within the circular pie $P$.

Let $r(p,x)$ be the rotation of point $p$ by angle $x$ about the centre of $P$.

Let $A(S,x) = \int_P v(p) \mathbf{1}_S(r(p,x))\ dp$ for any measurable $S \subseteq P$.

Then $(x \mapsto A(S,x))$ is continuous for any measurable $S \subseteq P$ because $|S|$ is finite and $v$ is finite.

Take any measurable $S,T \subseteq P$ such that $S,T$ are reflections about the diameter of $P$ that is at angle 0.

$\int_{[0,2\pi]} A(S,x)\ dx$

  $= \int_{[0,2\pi]} \int_P v(p) \mathbf{1}_S(r(p,x))\ dp\ dx$

  $= \int_P \int_{[0,2\pi]} v(p) \mathbf{1}_S(r(p,x))\ dx\ dp$ [because $v,\mathbf{1}_S$ are non-negative]

  $= \int_P v(p) \int_{[0,2\pi]} \mathbf{1}_S(r(p,x))\ dx\ dp$

  $= \int_P v(p) \int_{[0,2\pi]} \mathbf{1}_T(r(p,-x))\ dx\ dp$ [because S,T are reflections about angle 0]

  $= \int_P v(p) \int_{[-2\pi,0]} \mathbf{1}_T(r(p,x))\ dx\ dp$

  $= \int_P v(p) \int_{[0,2\pi]} \mathbf{1}_T(r(p,x))\ dx\ dp$ [because rotation by $2\pi$ is identity]

  $= \int_{[0,2\pi]} \int_P v(p) \mathbf{1}_T(r(p,x))\ dp\ dx$ [because $v,\mathbf{1}_T$ are non-negative]

  $= \int_{[0,2\pi]} A(T,x)\ dx$

If $A(S,x) \ne A(T,x)$ for any $x \in [0,2\pi]$:

  Assume $A(S,0) < A(T,0)$ by swapping $S,T$ if necessary.

  Then $A(S,x) < A(T,x)$ for any $x \in [0,2\pi]$. (*)

  Thus $\int_{[0,2\pi]} A(S,x)\ dx < \int_{[0,2\pi]} A(T,x)\ dx$. (**)


Therefore $A(S,x) = A(T,x)$ for some $x \in [0,2\pi]$.

(*) by intermediate value theorem on the continuous function $(x \mapsto A(S,x)-A(T,x))$.

(**) because $(x \mapsto A(S,x)),(x \mapsto A(T,x))$ are continuous.

  • $\begingroup$ By $A(S,x)$ you mean the value contained inside the shape $S$ when it is rotated in angle $x$ around the center? $\endgroup$ – Erel Segal-Halevi Dec 15 '14 at 6:59
  • $\begingroup$ @ErelSegalHalevi: Yes that is what it is intended to be. Note that the way I defined it means that it is rotated in the backward direction with respect to the direction that $r$ rotates. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 15 '14 at 7:01
  • $\begingroup$ @ErelSegalHalevi: I don't quite know what you mean. It is crucial that they are continuous and the integral is the same. I don't think periodicity has anything to do with it. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 16 '14 at 13:40
  • $\begingroup$ $A(S,x)$ and $A(T,x)$ have the same integral. So, if they are not the same function, there must be an $x_S$ such that $A(S,x_S)>A(T,x_S)$ and an $x_T$ such that $A(S,x_T)<A(T,x_T)$. By the IVT, there is an $x_1\in[x_S,x_T]$ such that $A(S,x_1)=A(T,x_1)$. This is what you proved. I add that, because of periodicity, there is also an $x_2\in[x_1,x_0+2\pi]$ such that $A(S,x_2)=A(T,x_2)$. So there are at least two different equalizing points. $\endgroup$ – Erel Segal-Halevi Dec 16 '14 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ @ErelSegalHalevi: Correct. However, I don't think it helps if you want to tackle the general problem. In fact, I think that it is possible to have equal division by just translating the 3-ray cutter, but still don't have a proof. And I also saw your other question on the 2d intermediate value theorem. Indeed I had thought that this kind of division problem was related to that kind of problem, but I can solve neither. $\endgroup$ – user21820 Dec 17 '14 at 14:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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