Skip to main content
Puzzling

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

5
  • $\begingroup$ Nice puzzle! I was so convinced it could not be done that I thought I'd almost completed a proof of impossibility, then realized a loophole in it and saw the solution suddenly. Fortunately, the proof could be tweaked to the proof of impossibility for any fewer pieces as found in my updated answer. This was certainly a good puzzle, and the answer is very mathematically pleasing! $\endgroup$
    – Anon
    Commented Oct 14, 2021 at 4:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Anon, well done and glad you enjoyed the puzzle. Just one little thing: There is no need to make theta close to 90°. The construction works for any theta between 60° and 90° excluding the limits themselves. The best for physical stability would be something well in the middle. $\endgroup$
    – loopy walt
    Commented Oct 14, 2021 at 4:37
  • $\begingroup$ @loopywalt I agree; I just couldn't be bothered calculating the precise limits on x and y, so I said that to guarantee the pieces wouldn't overlap... I've now made the answer more exact $\endgroup$
    – Anon
    Commented Oct 14, 2021 at 4:52
  • $\begingroup$ Is it required that the two rectangles are initially touching as above and may not move during assembly? $\endgroup$
    – Magma
    Commented Oct 16, 2021 at 14:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Magma yes, that's right. Only the cut out bits may move. But if you have an interesting solution for other rules I won't mind your posting it. I just cannot guarantee that others won't downvote. $\endgroup$
    – loopy walt
    Commented Oct 16, 2021 at 22:39