Many thanks for all of the nice comments about my appearance on the Frank Skinner show. You can see the show here, and find out more about the Telepath mind-reading iphone app here.
Create a square like this from eight matchsticks.
Can you use the four extra matches to divide the square into two parts, where each part has the same shape and area? And no stacking up of the matchsticks!
As ever, please feel to say if you think you have the right answer and how long it took, but please do NOT post your answer. Solution on Monday!
Advertisement
April 30, 2010 at 5:36 am |
Took about a second to solve.
April 30, 2010 at 5:37 am |
Hey, I can do it without even using all four!
April 30, 2010 at 6:19 am
So to the question “Can you use the FOUR extra matches to divide the square into two even parts of the same shape and area?” your answer is no.
April 30, 2010 at 5:39 am |
Okay, more seriously, assuming the gaps in the sample exist and aren’t required in the dividing lines, I’ve got it.
April 30, 2010 at 5:41 am |
I think I got this figured out, it only took about 3 minutes.
April 30, 2010 at 5:57 am |
Yes, that was rather trivial.
/Z
April 30, 2010 at 5:59 am |
It took a while, at least 5 minutes. Not sure if it is the answer you’ll provide Monday, but I did find a solution.
April 30, 2010 at 6:05 am |
Got it in 5 mins.
April 30, 2010 at 6:06 am |
Yes, I can… there are tons of ways (4 matches, not three, are essencial). The word “even” in the puzzle, isn’t redundant?
April 30, 2010 at 6:12 am |
Hmm. As long as the target areas don’t need to be square, the puzzle is too trivial to be meant seriously.
April 30, 2010 at 6:19 am |
This was in an old Doctor Who annual.
April 30, 2010 at 6:57 am |
I think there are a lot of solutions.
April 30, 2010 at 6:59 am |
I think there are a lot of solutions
April 30, 2010 at 7:00 am |
Simple one this week.
April 30, 2010 at 7:04 am |
I got this in a few seconds – then had to go and check it because it seemed too easy. Trust me, I don’t normally find these so simple!
April 30, 2010 at 7:10 am |
Can’t work it out! ^^ my brain must be broken this morning. Although it seems to me though the description may be misleading, but I could be wrong ><
April 30, 2010 at 7:15 am
Well at least the solution I have is a bit of a cheat, but I think it’s the one that most people would have come up with.
April 30, 2010 at 8:33 pm
wowz…..
April 30, 2010 at 7:35 am |
That took around 3 minutes.
April 30, 2010 at 7:46 am |
Yes, but being sure it’s exact could be tricky with what I have in mind. If exact isn’t vital then it’s trivial to have a soultion with infinate minor variations. – a couple of seconds
April 30, 2010 at 7:49 am |
I came up with an answer in seconds……sooo it’s got to be wrong….missing something I’m sure… even put it to paper and measured out the spaces…..still way toooo easy….gonna have to work on this cause it can’t be that simple….no way….hmmm
April 30, 2010 at 7:49 am |
“divide the square into two even parts of the same shape and area?” Since you say “into two parts” rather than “into precisely two parts”, it’s easy!
(I can do it to precisely two as well!)
April 30, 2010 at 7:54 am |
Quite easy to do. Took me less than a minute.
April 30, 2010 at 8:09 am |
Yup. Took about two seconds. But bearing in mind how BADLY I did last week, I’m now doubting myself and expecting the answer to be much more complicated. Lol. X
April 30, 2010 at 8:25 am |
It took me a few secs!
April 30, 2010 at 8:27 am |
That was pretty much immediate for me. I guess it’s either one of those things that you see or you don’t. (Assuming I’m right, of course…)
April 30, 2010 at 8:32 am |
First, I presume, although not categorically told in the quiz, it is essential to use all four spare matches. Even with this condition, there are indefinite number of ways to achieve the objective of dividing the square in two parts of equal size and shape of parts. As it does not have a unique solution, I doubt if this can qualify as a quiz.
April 30, 2010 at 8:59 am |
I got one solution pretty much straight away but then the phraseology is such that I am now doubting myself.
I was actually basing my answer on a childhood spent making origami water bombs – maybe I’ll end up a damp squib!
April 30, 2010 at 9:09 am |
if it is correct, 20 seconds
April 30, 2010 at 9:14 am |
Assuming:
1) all four matches must be used
2) they may not be broken, overlapped, placed on top of one another
3) must form a continuous line
4) be inside the initial square
5) be in some sense geometric
I got one solution pretty quickly ~1 minute (actually, a class of solutions), another more slowly, and i bet there are a lot more.
April 30, 2010 at 8:32 pm
yeppers ur rite!
April 30, 2010 at 9:20 am |
Come on Richy, you can do better!
April 30, 2010 at 9:54 am |
done in seconds! Very easy though. Do I become more accustomed to solving these puzzles the more I do?
April 30, 2010 at 10:10 am |
Immediate (~ 1 sec.). Can do it with any n >=2.
April 30, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Do you mean that you can make precisely n>=2 equally sized and shaped parts using 2n sticks? I claim that you can’t make any n>=2 with just 4 sticks…
April 30, 2010 at 10:21 am |
Yes can do it, took one second. Where is the puzzle? Is there maybe a meaning to “two even parts” I am not aware of? I took it to mean “two congruent parts”.
April 30, 2010 at 10:43 am |
I actually found few answers in 5 minutes about.
Nice test
April 30, 2010 at 11:50 am |
Instantly. This hardly amounts to a puzzle.
April 30, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
There’s plainly an infinite number of solutions to this problem.
Not you most challenging Richard…
April 30, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Yeah, but they all are variations on the same idea.
April 30, 2010 at 12:33 pm |
Maybe 10 seconds… Richard must have wanted to take it easy on this one
April 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm |
I think the puzzle is unsufficiently precisely written– nothing says I can’t overlap the matchsticks, which immediately presents at least one obvious (and presumably wrong) solution.
April 30, 2010 at 12:56 pm |
Easy. took me 1 second or so, I saw it instantly.
And there are even more answers when i look a bit longer..
April 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm |
The description on the front is a little vague and I didn’t quite understand it. The wording here on the comments page is better. You should move it up front.
April 30, 2010 at 1:33 pm |
I think I have this one nailed, not that it’s RW’s most difficult. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some magisterial placement of those matchsticks that blows my simple division away.
April 30, 2010 at 2:07 pm |
Pretty easy – I’d assume that if you retained at least one axis of symmetry with the placement of the matches, the same shape and area conditions would automatically be met…
April 30, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
Couple of minutes
April 30, 2010 at 3:18 pm |
Found it (I think), in approximatively 10secs… Actually I took more time to actually place the matches than to find the solution, so I hope I got it right
April 30, 2010 at 3:36 pm |
Got the answer in about 5 seconds, but not sure of it. Guess have to wait till monday.
April 30, 2010 at 4:59 pm |
Actually, the Friday puzzles are red herrings, designed so that Dr. Wiseman can study human behavior, in particular the inflated egos and narcissism of certain respondents. Here’s mine:
“This is so trivial. Why did I even bother with it? I did it while suspended by my big toes over a vat of acid, with a crowd of people hurling stones at me, and a grunge band blasting music at me, while on fire and giving a lecture on the merits and drawbacks of the Drake Equation.
Oh yeah, and I raised fifty-thousand dollars for cancer research before I finished the puzzle.”
May 1, 2010 at 12:18 am
Haha Agreed. It took me a second to read the puzzle, and another microsecond to solve
Oh, and I also made dinner for the family, and baked chocolate chip cookies for dessert.
April 30, 2010 at 5:02 pm |
I do really enjoy the Friday Puzzles, actually. I share them with my wife and kids and they love them too. It’s fun to see how we all process the information and reach solutions (or sometimes don’t reach solutions). And this is one of the kinder, gentler puzzles, especially after last week’s puzzle. That was a bit tougher for our family.
April 30, 2010 at 5:18 pm |
I immediately saw a few specific ways to do it and a hell of a lot of possibilities for producing practically unbounded solutions.
April 30, 2010 at 5:29 pm |
Dfntly
April 30, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
I did it I did it I did it! From now on I will be know as THUD THE MIGHTY!
April 30, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
Um… this is WAY too easy. Come on, my 4 year old nephew could figure this one out. Of course, if my answer is wrong I’m going to feel like such a butt.
April 30, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
This is so easy that I’m not sure I have the correct answer.
April 30, 2010 at 6:33 pm |
I think I have it but it was too easy. It must be a trap or my english isn’t good enough to understand what i had to do…
April 30, 2010 at 7:03 pm |
Took me about… 30 seconds
All I had to do was think outside the box on this one.
April 30, 2010 at 8:30 pm |
got it as soon as i read it
April 30, 2010 at 10:15 pm |
Yep, I agree with those who say there are infinite solutions. I saw a “cheating” solution immediately, and then what I take to be the correct solution a few seconds later.
April 30, 2010 at 10:25 pm |
A couple of seconds
May 1, 2010 at 12:10 am |
[...] It’s the Friday Puzzle! Create a square like this from eight matchsticks. [...]
May 1, 2010 at 12:13 am |
About a second, or maybe less.
May 1, 2010 at 3:28 am |
I have *an* answer, although I don’t know if it’s *the* answer. I actually suspect there may be quite a few ways to do this. My way came to me instantly, as a first instinct. Just have to see if I’m alone with this one on Monday!
May 1, 2010 at 5:50 am |
Took maybe half a minute to come up with one solution. After seeing the comments here, now that I think about it, there are indeed infinite solutions.
May 1, 2010 at 6:06 am |
found two solutions in about 30 seconds, i found one that is a smarta** answer and the other one that is the answer he’s probably looking for
May 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm |
Nope … didn’t get it. Guess I’ll have to wait until Monday to get the solution :’(
May 1, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
Got it within seconds.
I’m pretty fast with visualizing concrete things.
Abstract problems are another story. I’m way below average at solving them.
May 2, 2010 at 5:04 pm |
Took me a long time. Have some sort of solution but don’t really think It is right. Seems like a kludge. Still have few more hours to think about it.
May 14, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
It took a few minutes
one question:
Can u have a gap in the square?
I’m probably wrong since I’m twelve but heck I’ll try.