Problem:

A vertex of one square is pegged to the centre of an identical square, and the overlapping area is blue. One of the squares is then rotated about the vertex and the resulting overlap is red.

Which area is greater?

a diagram showing overlapped squares, one forming a smaller blue square and the other an irregular red quadrilateral

Let the area of each large square be exactly $1$ unit squared. Then, the area of the blue square is exactly $1/4$ units squared. The same would apply to the red area if you were to rotate the square $k\cdot 45$ degrees for a natural number $k$.

Thus, I am assuming that no area is greater, and that it is a trick question $-$ although the red area might appear to be greater than the blue area, they are still the same: $1/4$.

But how can it be proven?

I know the area of a triangle with a base $b$ and a height $h\perp b$ is $bh\div 2$. Since the area of each square is exactly $1$ unit squared, then each side would also have a length of $1$.

Therefore, the height of the red triangle area is $1/2$, and so $$\text{Red Area} = \frac{b\left(\frac 12\right)}{2} = \frac{b}{4}.$$

According to the diagram, the square has not rotated a complete $45$ degrees, so $b < 1$. It follows, then, that $$\begin{align} \text{Red Area} &< \frac 14 \\ \Leftrightarrow \text{Red Area} &< \text{Blue Area}.\end{align}$$

Assertion:

To conclude, the $\color{blue}{\text{blue}}$ area is greater than the $\color{red}{\text{red}}$ area.

Is this true? If so, is there another way of proving the assertion?


Thanks to users who commented below, I did not take account of the fact that the red area is not a triangle $-$ it does not have three sides! This now leads back to my original question on whether my hypothesis was correct.

This question is very similar to this post.


Source:

The Golden Ratio (why it is so irrational) $-$ Numberphile from $14$:$02$.

  • 24
    i think you can tile the red area 4 times to get the entire square – gt6989b May 11 at 4:25
  • 4
    Hint: the sum of the two red sides that don't touch the center is $1$. – dxiv May 11 at 4:29
  • 4
    @user477343 Glad the hint helped. You can make that into a full-fledged answer, and I'll +1 it. – dxiv May 11 at 4:31
  • 10
    Is this a problem from "Brilliant" – Manthanein May 11 at 4:32
  • 9
    Note that purely from exam technique alone, the answer is likely to be "they are the same size". Indeed, the problem has not told you by how much the rotation occurs, and why privilege a rotation of $0$ over a rotation of some greater angle? This is not a proof; but the phrasing of the question has told you what answer to look for. (This is a more general point than your "it works this way for 45 degrees": this is a demonstration that no mathematical reasoning at all is required to exam-technique that the answer is "they're the same".) – Patrick Stevens May 11 at 20:24
up vote 286 down vote accepted

some text

The four numbered areas are congruent.


[Added later] The figure below is from a suggested edit by @TomZych, and it shows the congruent parts more clearly. Given all the upvotes to the (probably tongue-in-cheek) comment “This answer also deserves the tick for artistic reasons,” I’m leaving my original “artistic” figure but also adding Tom’s improved version to my answer.

enter image description here

  • 33
    All the answers are the same and all deserve a tick. But, since you sir have the lowest reputation, I will award you the tick. Congratulations! $$(+1) \ \ \color{green}{\checkmark}$$ – user477343 May 11 at 5:32
  • 110
    This answer also deserves the tick for artistic reasons. – BenM May 11 at 6:09
  • 10
    A great example of "proof by picture" that actually works. – Bristol May 11 at 14:46
  • 2
    @AkivaWeinberger: No, the cleverly incomplete diagram reminds one that the outer reaches of the rotating shape are irrelevant, as long as the right-angled corner is large enough... – DJohnM May 11 at 21:04
  • 3
    This is not the same as the answer by Ross and Zoltan. I like this one better. Theirs was the first that came to my mind, too. – Carsten S May 11 at 23:09

I think sketching the two identical triangles marked with green below makes this rather intuitive. This could also be turned into a formal proof quite easily.

Identical triangles

  • 1
    This method is similar to @RossMillikan 's answer above, but not quite the same :) I have to wait $9$ hours before I can upvote as I have reached my daily limit... but when I can, $$(+1)$$ – user477343 May 11 at 15:00
  • 2
    It's not only similar, now that I read that solution, it's actually the exact same idea. Unfortunatly that answer didn't contain any images and I just looked at the images before posting my own answer. :) – Zoltan May 11 at 15:05
  • 1
    Well congratulations on your first answer on the MSE! Yours is still a good answer :)) – user477343 May 11 at 15:08
  • 6
    This is the clearest image to understand. +1 – qwr May 12 at 20:36
  • @qwr Indeed! If only I could grab this answer and drag it below the accepted answer. That way, nobody would have to scroll all the way down to see this. It is my own answer that should probably be at the very bottom :) – user477343 May 13 at 1:52

enter image description here

Note that for equal angles $\angle A'OB' = \angle AOB = 90^\circ$, when we subtract a common part $\angle A'OB$ from both sides, we have $\angle AOA' = \angle BOB'$, so the red and cyan triangles are congruent: $\triangle AOA' \sim \triangle BOB'$.

That implies their areas are equal, and when we add a common part $\triangle A'OB$ we get area of the $AOB$ triangle equal to the area of the $A'OB'B$ quadrilateral. Finally, the area of the two squares' common part is constant, independent on the square's rotation angle.

  • 2
    Shouldn't be $\angle AOA' = \angle BOB'$? – Pedro May 13 at 3:59
  • @Petro Right, thank you. – CiaPan May 13 at 7:10
  • 1
    Do you mean to say that $\Delta AOA' \color{red}{\cong} \Delta BOB'$? – user477343 May 14 at 3:08
  • 2
    This is the way I saw it – MichaelChirico May 15 at 2:59

The two areas are equal. On the diagram with the red area draw the vertical and horizontal lines that define the blue area. The red area has a triangular region added to the left of the blue area and a triangular region above and to the right removed from the blue area. Those two triangles are congruent.

  • 1
    I see what you mean. There was no need to describe the result when drawing the vertical and horizontal lines that define the blue area on the diagram of the red area $-$ it was clear as day that they would be equal after looking at the newly formed triangles! I like your method of showing they were equal :) $$(+1)$$ – user477343 May 11 at 5:29

By pinning a square's vertex to the center of the other, you guarantee a 90 degree slice outwards. This means we could tile 4 slices perfectly. A square has rotational symmetry of n=4. Since the rotation number is an integer multiple of the slice number, the area is invariant of rotation. You can apply this generally as well. A 120 degree slice of an equilateral triangle will be invariant. A 60 degree slice of a uniform hexagon will too. 120 degrees will work for the hexagon as well since that's 3 slices on a rotation number of 6.

  • 4
    FWIW I like this answer the best. It is a simple, brief proof that uses clear logic instead of math. – Bohemian May 12 at 14:28
  • 5
    @Bohemian, the reasoning is of course maths. – Carsten S May 12 at 23:24
  • 3
    @carsten but it’s basic geometry, without any calculations, arithmetic or formulae, such that someone without any mathematical know-how could follow. It’s only barely maths (and I’m not in the mood to play semantics) – Bohemian May 13 at 8:37
  • 3
    @Bohemian: Whatever mood you are in, this is very much a mathematical answer. Looking for ideas like this will help you find solutions when manipulating formulæ gets you stuck. – PJTraill May 13 at 21:39
  • 5
    @Bohemian, I may be a bit touchy on this subject, I hope I did not come across as rude. It is just that a recognize a misconception of what is mathematical in this, even though you may not hold it. It reminds me of beginners asking questions on how they can make their perfectly fine argument "more mathematical", by which they mean that they feel that they should use formulas. – Carsten S May 14 at 15:37

Let $f(\alpha)$ be the length of the segment from the center of the square to the outside of the square on the line at an angle of $\alpha$ degrees from the horizontal line pointing right.

Suppose that the first side of the square (in counterclockwise order) makes an angle of $\alpha$, then area you want is $\int\limits_{\alpha}^{\alpha+\frac{\pi}{2}} \frac{f(x)^2}{2} dx$ and since $f$ is periodic with period $\frac{\pi}{2}$ this is independent of $\alpha$.

  • 2
    This is much too advanced for my skill level. $$(+1)$$ – user477343 May 11 at 4:35
  • 6
    in hindsight the other approach is better, but looking at it from the calculus point of view probably wont hurt :) – Jorge Fernández May 11 at 4:36
  • I am a high school student who is familiar with integrals and radians... but the statement, "$f$ is periodic," I don't know what that means. Is it ok if you could explain to me? Other than that, your answer is great! Thanks :) – user477343 May 11 at 4:38
  • 2
    @AHB yeah I do. In my opinion, it is an act of kindness, especially when one has at least $-3$ downvotes or lower. However, I let the user know what I believe is (or might be) wrong with their question as if I did put a downvote. Also, I think there are some badges earnt when using all the upvotes in one day or something like that, idk for sure. I have only ever downvoted $1$ post, only to earn a badge of my first donwvote. – user477343 May 12 at 10:03
  • 2
    @user477343 Yup, two actually, both bronze, 'Suffrage: 30 votes in a day', 'Vox Populi: all 40'. – Artemis Fowl May 19 at 13:19

$\hspace{5cm}$enter image description here

$$b^2+b^2=(a-c)^2+c^2 \Rightarrow \frac{b^2}{2}=\frac{(a-c)^2+c^2}{4}\\ S=\frac{b^2}{2}+\frac{(a-c)c}{2}=\frac{(a-c)^2+c^2+2(a-c)c}{4}=\frac{a^2}{4}.$$

  • The number of ways one can work this out is amazing!! Also, your answer is pure math(s)! However, I have to wait $1$ hour before I can upvote as I have reached my daily voting limit. $$(+1)$$ – user477343 May 16 at 22:47
  • 2
    Could you elaborate on how you can assert that the 2 bs are actually equal to each other? – Frank Shmrank May 19 at 14:52
  • @FrankShmrank, such problems help intuitive thinking and imagination. If the lower square turns clockwise, its top two sides will turn to the same angle with respect to their original positions and the sides $b$-$b$ will increase equally. – farruhota May 19 at 16:21
  • @FrankShmrank I had the same problem, and then I deleted my comment and put up a new one (namely, my current one above) because I found out that by looking at the accepted answer, if the four triangles are congruent, then the two $b$s are equal to each other :) – user477343 May 20 at 8:03

Solution:

Although the red area is not a triangle, the sum of its sides that do not touch the centre is equal to $1$. This can only mean that no matter how many degrees the square is rotated, no area will be greater; the red area will always be equal to the blue area, i.e. $$\frac 14$$

Credit to @dxiv who pointed this out as a hint in a comment!

  • 2
    This is similar to Captain Morgan’s answer,but I find it less clearly expressed than that. – PJTraill May 13 at 21:42
  • 1
    @PJTraill Yes, you are correct $-$ Captain Morgan has a much better answer :) – user477343 May 13 at 21:49

enter image description here

If we use $\overline{FB}$ for the base of $\triangle FEB$, then its altitude is $\frac 12s$. If we use $\overline{BG}$ for the length of the base of $\triangle BEG$, then its altitude is $\frac 12s$.

So the area of $\square FBGE$ is $\frac 12(\frac 12s)(s-x) + \frac 12(\frac 12s)(x) = \frac 14s^2$. Which is one-fourth of the area of the square.

The advantage of this method is that it allows you to break the square into $n$ pieces of equal area quite easily.

  • Thank you for letting me know. The diagram was very clear, and this method is very much applicable to the problem. $$(+1)$$ (in at least $19$ hours $-$ I have reached my daily voting limit). Also, how did you construct the picture? – user477343 May 16 at 4:03
  • 3
    I used GeoGebra. – steven gregory May 16 at 4:48
  • Thank you, again, for telling me :) – user477343 May 16 at 6:55
  • 2
    This is by far the best answer as it doesn't assert anything that isn't given. All the other answers assert things that aren't necessarily known. It's sad that the chosen answer was chosen because that user had the lowest rep. – Frank Shmrank May 19 at 14:55
  • @FrankShmrank all the answers are great, imho. – user477343 May 20 at 8:02

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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