83

I love origami, and it recently gave me an idea for a very hard but beautiful puzzle. I'm really curious whether anyone here can solve it.

So here's the puzzle. You are given a large perfectly square piece of paper with no marks on it. With this square, you have to make a square of exactly one-fifth the area of the original square. You are given no tools such as a ruler or scissors, and all you can do is fold the paper. How do you solve this?

ge

CJ Dennis
  • 386
  • 1
  • 10
Mitsuko
  • 2,035
  • 10
  • 24
  • 14
    I would suggest "one fifth the size" as "five times smaller" doesn't really make sense. https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/96873/76722 – nasch Aug 17 '20 at 02:48
  • 3
    @nasch For me 5 times smaller makes sense. The issue in the top answer (not the question) in the linked post is the confusion from having three items being compared ($10, $8, and the new one). For this one it is clear (also from the fact that you are sure that OP means new area equals 0.2 of the old area) since we are comparing only two objects. The convention that I often see is that when we use multiples, we simple multiply/divide by the number, when we use percentage, we do addition/subtraction. So twice larger does not mean 3x the original, but 200% larger is 3x the original. – justhalf Aug 17 '20 at 04:33
  • 2
    It's poor question because of ambiguity and deceitfulness. I guess origami, and folding smaller square isn't interesting on its own these days. – marshal craft Aug 17 '20 at 11:56
  • 2
    Still good question and two good answers with fractional sides and 1/5th area. If you get past the dumbass trickery. Some of us do enjoy origami and folding. – marshal craft Aug 17 '20 at 12:00
  • 5
    @justhalf It doesn't make sense to say "five TIMES smaller" because you need to DIVIDE by five. "Times" means multiplication, not division. If you are going to multiply by something it would be one fifth, so it's one fifth times the size, which is correct but extremely awkward at best. It can never really be "x times smaller" because there is no unit of smallness that can have a greater magnitude. It's a unit of largeness with a smaller magnitude. – nasch Aug 17 '20 at 14:03
  • 2
    @nasch five TIMES as many squared kaysers? – Misha Lavrov Aug 17 '20 at 14:42
  • 2
    @nasch : Thanks, I've just corrected the wording. – Mitsuko Aug 17 '20 at 18:50
  • 6
    @marshalcraft : I'm not a native speaker, and if my original wording was confusing or ambiguous, that wasn't my intent. The puzzle is intended to be a purely imagination puzzle, not a puzzle whose point is a tricky wording. – Mitsuko Aug 17 '20 at 18:51
  • 2
    @MishaLavrov Not sure how that is relevant since whatever a squared kayser is, you're referring to a quantity of them. Five times as many is fine. "Five times fewer squared kaysers" would be just as problematic as "five times smaller". – nasch Aug 17 '20 at 22:27
  • 1
    Hmm, I guess we have to agree to disagree, then, hehe. But thanks for the discussion and pointer to the linked article! – justhalf Aug 18 '20 at 03:02
  • @Mitsuko If it makes you feel any better, many native speakers use the same figure of speech (although I wish they wouldn't). You are in fact speaking English just the same as many who were born to it. – Wayne Conrad Aug 19 '20 at 01:17
  • 4
    @nasch you are being pedantic just for the sake of it. "fives times smaller" is neither ambiguous nor grammatically incorrect. It is clear what is meant. Moreover, if you want to get mathematical about it you are also wrong as you have defined neither the statement "five times smaller" or "five times larger". You don't need to "divide anything by five", besides division is defined as multiplication of the inverse, which could mean "smaller". It is perfectly valid to define "$a$ is $n$ times smaller than $b$ if $na=b$". –  Aug 19 '20 at 03:13
  • 2
    And "unit of largeness" makes no sense and is no better than "unit of smallness". If you want to get that pedantic, what on earth does "five times larger" mean. You cannot multiply "larger" by 5. –  Aug 19 '20 at 03:15
  • 1
    @Servaes No, I just object to it being used in nonsensical ways. I'm well aware people do use it that way. – nasch Aug 19 '20 at 15:38
  • @tomasliam You're not covering anything I didn't already say. As I said, if you want to multiply by something it would be one fifth, not five. Something cannot at the same time be one fifth times smaller and also five times smaller. And do I really need to explain what five times larger means? OK, it means in whatever unit of size you're working with (it doesn't matter - meters, square miles, long tons) you multiply the smaller one by five to get the larger one. There is no unit of size I'm aware of where you multiply by five and end up with a smaller size. – nasch Aug 19 '20 at 15:40
  • 1
    @nasch "There is no unit of size I'm aware of where you multiply by five and end up with a smaller size." Of course there isn't and why on earth would "five times smaller" imply that?! You don't have to multiply anything!! That is not what is implied. It is only comparing magnitudes. But if you really want to why can't "five times larger" mean "multiply the numerator" and "five times smaller" mean "multiply the denominator". Literally anyone would assume that $a$ is five times smaller than $b$ equates to $b$ is five times larger than $a$. –  Aug 19 '20 at 22:03
  • 1
    As I said it is grammatically correct and clear what is meant. So from an English perspective your argument doesn't hold. And mathematically speaking you have no leg to stand on - from a maths perspective "five times smaller" is no more or less ambiguous than "five times larger". If "five times smaller" is incorrect than what does "much smaller" mean considering you are arguing that you cannot have a large amount of small. –  Aug 19 '20 at 22:03
  • 2
    @tomasliam "Times" means multiplication. It doesn't mean "either multiplication or division" as you seem to wish. It doesn't mean "multiply the denominator" because that's not what multiplication is. I don't even know what to make of your second comment. You don't seem to know what these words mean so I'm afraid I cannot help you. – nasch Aug 20 '20 at 01:21
  • @nasch what are you multiplying? You are getting literal. So how do you "multiply larger"? Which is exactly my point when I say that if you get literal and mathematical "five times larger" makes no sense. Either nothing is being multiplied, or neither make sense. –  Aug 20 '20 at 01:21
  • Nothing is being multiplied. Nothing is being divided. The operation of "becoming larger" or "becoming smaller" is applied five times. –  Aug 20 '20 at 01:24
  • If "times" means literal multiplication than you are claiming that "$a$ is five times larger than $b$" means "$a=5\times($larger than $b)$". What is that equation? –  Aug 20 '20 at 01:28
  • If I go to the super market three times I don't multiply "supermarkets" or "going to a super market" by $3$. I apply a certain operation a certain number of times. "times" $\ne$ "multiply" –  Aug 20 '20 at 01:31
  • You are claiming that "times" quite literally means "multiply" which is clearly not true, not what the OP intended, and not the way anyone would interpret the statement. –  Aug 20 '20 at 01:49
  • 1
    @tomasliam the problem is not "times"; it is "than." "Larger than" is an additive operation. Consider, for example, that if X is 10% larger than Y, then X is 1.1 times as large as Y. Similarly, "smaller than" is a subtractive operation. Multiplication should be expressed as "as large as." So 100 is 5 times as large as 20 and 4 is 1/5 as large as 20. As to "becoming larger" being applied five times, that's simply wrong, because "becoming larger" has no quantity. And if the quantity is the thing's current size, and it becomes larger 5 times, then it ends up 6 times as large as it was. – phoog Aug 21 '20 at 23:15
  • 1
    @Servaes five times larger should mean six times as large, just as 50% larger means 1.5 times as large. But since most people interpret "five times larger" to mean "five times as large," it is better to avoid saying X times larger and X times smaller altogether. – phoog Aug 21 '20 at 23:18
  • @epiliam what is the operation of "becoming larger" in a mathematical sense? How can you apply it five times? If something grows from 10 to 11, it has become larger. But how do you do it again if you don't know whether you added 1 or multiplied by 1.1? The next step could be 1.2 or it could be 1.21. If "times" in "5 times larger" refers to instances as in going to the supermarket 3 times, how does that get us from 1 to 5? Something that is 4 cm long is 1 cm smaller than or 20% smaller than something that is 5 cm long. "Bigger than" and "smaller than" are additive operations. – phoog Aug 24 '20 at 13:22
  • 1
    @nasch "one fifth times the size, which is correct but extremely awkward at best": you can instead say "one fifth of the size," "one fifth the size of X," "one fifth as large as X," or simply "one fifth as large." – phoog Aug 24 '20 at 13:26
  • 1
    @phoog Of course, and that's what I suggested. I was addressing people who were insisting on using the word "times" to describe something that is smaller than something else. – nasch Aug 24 '20 at 15:04
  • 2
    @epiliam Didn't notice your comment earlier. "Times" actually does mean multiplication. You're multiplying one size by a factor to get another size. The equation is a * 5 = b. Search the following page for the word "times" to see how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication – nasch Aug 24 '20 at 15:08
  • Times is the plural of time. I kind of agree with phoog, but you are so wrong @nasch –  Aug 24 '20 at 21:30
  • @epiliam the fact that "times" is the plural of "time" is precisely why it is used to denote multiplication. The same happens in other languages. For if you go to the supermarket three times, and you buy four apples each time, you can multiply three by four to calculate the number of apples you have bought. In other words, you add four three times. – phoog Aug 24 '20 at 21:32
  • @phoog I am aware of that. I know how multiplication works, I have almost finished my PhD in mathematics. But there is not a literal correspondence in English otherwise the sentence "go to the supermarket three times" makes no sense. –  Aug 24 '20 at 21:36
  • Multiplication is an associative and commutative binary operation on numbers that can be thought of as the repeated application of addition. It is also used in linear algebra as scalar multiplication - which is how we apply it here. However multiplication is mathematical and far more precise than "times". My point is that it is okay to reduce something a certain number of times and that if "times larger" is okay than so is "times smaller". If neither are okay, than fine by me. –  Aug 24 '20 at 21:40
  • But my original point, and the only reason I came here to pick this fight, was that the statement was neither grammatically incorrect nor ambiguous and that correcting someone with English as a second language for using it is just being a dick regardless of how it may be literally interpreted. –  Aug 24 '20 at 21:52

5 Answers5

107

The way to do this is:

- Fold the paper in half along both axes. You've now marked the midpoint of all four sides.

- Fold along the knight's-move diagonals, drawn here:

enter image description here

This creates the red square. All five colored regions have the same area, so the red square is 1/5 the size of the square you started with.

Deusovi
  • 146,248
  • 16
  • 519
  • 609
  • 2
    Kind of a visual proof. Neat! – Paul Panzer Aug 16 '20 at 18:04
  • 5
    In case anyone else is wondering, it took me a minute to figure this out. You can make those diagonal folds because you have the horizontal and vertical centerlines marked with creases. Fold between (for example) the upper right corner and the bottom center. – nasch Aug 17 '20 at 02:52
  • 5
    @nasch thank you - that's totally an optical illusion that the opposite intersections are not at the same height! – rrauenza Aug 17 '20 at 04:26
  • 4
    Proof: consider the triangle consisting of both yellow tiles + the small teal triangle. Assuming a 1x1 square, the total area is (1/2)(1/2)(1) = 1/4. The small triangles are each 1/4th the area of the larger colored triangles (since they're similar triangles with half the base); thus the large yellow triangle takes up 4/5th of that area, or (4/5)(1/4) = 1/5 total area. So all triangles together = 4/5 area, leaving 1/5 for the red square. – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Aug 17 '20 at 23:43
  • 6
    @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft The proof I had in mind was easier (for me at least): You can reassemble the two shapes of each color into a square the same size as the red. (This is a square because (1) all four angles are right angles; (2) two adjacent sides are the same, because each of the four lines touching the corners are the same by symmetry.) – Deusovi Aug 18 '20 at 01:16
  • 1
    @Deusovi I'm not clear on the reasoning of why the line from the corner of the big square to the red square is the same length as the side of the red square... What have I missed? – Chris Aug 18 '20 at 10:03
  • 3
    @Chris We can see that e.g the large teal triangle is similar, but double the size of, the small teal triangle, because we know the small triangle's base is half as long. Given that, we can see that the red square runs along exactly half of the large teal triangle's side, because it ends where the small triangle begins. – TenMinJoe Aug 18 '20 at 12:09
  • 1
    I know I shouldn't post such a comment, but I can't help typing I'm really impressed. I was sitting at a very boring meeting and tried to entertain myself by folding a small square piece of paper. I folded it along the same lines as shown in your picture, and got curious as to what is the area of the resulting square. I did calculations and derived 1/5. Curious whether such a simple number can't be obtained in a simpler way, I gave it a thought and found the visual solution. – Mitsuko Aug 19 '20 at 14:30
  • 1
    I was amazed by its beauty, and then the idea came to my mind to make an origami problem out of it, asking the other way around - i.e., asking not to calculate the area of the small square, but to find how to make a square of one-fifth the size of the original square. That way the problem is made especially hard. I didn't really expect anyone to solve it, but you and @PaulPanzer solved it within just an hour or so, with your visual proof exactly coinciding with what had inspired me. I'm really impressed :) – Mitsuko Aug 19 '20 at 14:31
44

Fold the paper horizontally exactly in the middle; fold each of the two $1\times\frac 1 2$ rectangles diagonally such that the two diagonals are parallel. Rotate the paper by a quarter turn and do exactly the same. The four diagonals you have just created enclose a square of area $\frac 1 5$.

We need to show that the distance between two parallel diagonals is $\frac 1 {\sqrt 5}$. This distance equals the height over the diagonal of one of the large triangles we have created. These triangles have area $\frac 1 4$ while the base length i.e. the length of a diagonal is $\frac {\sqrt 5} 2$. The statement follows immediately.

enter image description here

Paul Panzer
  • 10,341
  • 18
  • 48
  • 2
    Beat me to it as I was making the picture! +1. – Deusovi Aug 16 '20 at 17:55
  • 1
    Could you expand on the assertion in the second sentence of your second paragraph? I was able to confirm it by subtracting the legs of the smallest triangle out of the large diagonals. Is there a more direct way of showing those 2 segments are similar? – Simon Aug 17 '20 at 19:11
  • 1
    @Simon Not sure I understand your doubts. The area of the triangle is 1/4 because there are four of them tiling the full square. Taking the diagonal as the base the hight of each of these triangles must therefore be 2 x 1/4 / length of diagonal. I suspect you are overthinking it. But feel free to prove me wrong ;-) – Paul Panzer Aug 17 '20 at 19:49
  • That's not the part that seemed like a leap. Sorry if I was unclear--I was trying to avoid spoilers in the comments. It wasn't immediately clear to me why the distance between the parallel diagonals is equal to the height over the diagonal. It took me several steps of reasoning about lengths of segments of the diagonals to reach that conclusion, so I thought your answer could be improved by expanding on that assertion. Or should the similarity of those segments be obvious for a reason I'm missing? – Simon Aug 18 '20 at 19:02
  • Oh, I see the "easy" way to get there now. Considering the colored triangles in Deusovi's picture, the line intersecting each bisects the diagonal (by definition). That forms a half-scale similar triangle. Therefore the 2 segments in question are congruent. – Simon Aug 18 '20 at 21:42
  • @Simon well, actually I don't see how concepts like congruence or tracking triangles are needed here. The central square must be a square by rotational symmetry and its side is the distance between parallel diagonals because the distance is more or less by definition the length of any connecting perpendicular. Taking any of the inner large triangles its height over the diagonal is by definition perpendicular to said diagonal hence can serve as the distance between two diagonals. Am I missing something? – Paul Panzer Aug 18 '20 at 21:55
  • The "height over the diagonal ... can serve as the distance between two diagonals" part wasn't obvious to me. I see now that a 3rd parallel diagonal drawn through a corner of the original square would be equidistant from the "middle" parallel diagonal, so the segments of the line crossing the 3 parallels are clearly the same length. My main point was, that fact was unintuitive enough to merit at least a hint toward why it's true. – Simon Aug 19 '20 at 22:28
  • @Simon I've added a picture to the answer. Does it help in any way? – Paul Panzer Aug 20 '20 at 10:46
  • It does, yes. Putting the triangle in between the parallels makes it completely obvious that the height is the same as the sides of the 1/5 square. With only the triangles outside the parallels, as in Deusovi's diagram, it was not so obvious. Thanks! – Simon Aug 21 '20 at 14:27
8

here is a solution I think using it similarly we can have any desired square fraction.

imgur is slow here

(imp the long grey line is 1st grey line the relatively shorter one is 2nd grey line.)

1. what we do is get the blue lines first by folding in halves multiple time in this case we get 1/8th division.
2. Take five continuous such division from right edge.
3. fold paper to meet the top right corner of the full square and the point which is the bottom end of the 5th blue line (in the image one blue line overlaps the black which is the 4th blue line ).
4. we get the grey line by joining the "end of 5th blue line" and "one corner ". 5. no we have one triangle with sides x and (5/8)*x;
6. Do a similar operation for the second grey line of triangle(with sides x and (3/8)*x) , this time use the endpoint of the 3rd blue line.
7. fold the top edge of paper to get the x/8 length green line which intersects the first grey line and the right edge of the paper.(could be done easily)
8. the region of green line between the 2 grey line is length x/20. >! 9. fold the right edge to get the red line which passes from the point of intersection of the green line and 2nd grey line.
10. now we have this x/20 length measurement on one side which we can copy 4 times by folding the paper to get x/5 length and then make a square.

Now when we have x/5 lenght we will take x/5 length on one edge lets say right edge and 2x/5 length on top edge(thus these 2 length are perpendicular to each other)

this x/sqrt(5) can be used to create a square of area 1/5 of the larger;

imgur is still slow PS: I made a big mistake earlier and got 1/5 th length the edit now give 1/sqrt(5) length

PS: We can generalize it to get any fraction of area if the fraction can be written as sum of 2 sqaures mean here 5 = 22+11 , also if you are really really hardworking you can actually get any desired fractions , but you have to do these last steps multiple time .

Aakash Mathur
  • 401
  • 2
  • 9
  • 5
    The question asks for a square with 1/5th the area of the original square, not 1/5th the side length. By the way, there is a quicker way to get 1/5th the side length with just two folds: Fold in half side-to-side to create a crease down the middle, making two rectangles. Then fold one rectangle in half along its diagonal, and the corner point marks one fifth of the way across from the opposite side of the square. – Jaap Scherphuis Aug 17 '20 at 05:14
  • 2
    I see I have made a blunder – Aakash Mathur Aug 17 '20 at 05:33
  • 2
    I have done a edit to correct is – Aakash Mathur Aug 17 '20 at 06:01
  • 4
    although a tough process but now we can have any fraction desired , @JaapScherphuis thankyou for pointing out – Aakash Mathur Aug 17 '20 at 06:02
6

Not an answer. Here is only an animation to visualize the Deusovi nice answer. I hope you enjoy it.

enter image description here

Sigur
  • 161
  • 2
0

Extending on Deusovi's answer, you can fold a square to any fraction square of the fraction $n^2/(a^2+b^2)$, where $n <= a-b$.

To achieve $1/5$, choose $n=1$, $a=2$, $b=1$.

Split the edges in $a$ equal parts. Then fold lines "knight-moves" $(a,b)$. This will generate $(a-b)^2$ sqaures of size $1/(a^2+b^2)$. Now gather $n^2$ of these to generate the desired fraction.

XPlatformer
  • 101
  • 1
  • 1
    An interesting idea, but the generalised "Split the edges in a equal parts." step isn't trivial when you have no pre-existing marks on the paper and no other tools (unless a is a power of 2) – Steve Aug 21 '20 at 09:35
  • That's true Steve. I intentionally left that sub-problem out of my answer, to focus on the most interesting part – XPlatformer Aug 21 '20 at 10:21
  • It wasn't clear what within the "most interesting part" wasn't already adequately covered by the other answers. Perhaps worth highlighting what the new contribution you are making is? – Steve Aug 21 '20 at 13:03