1. Subscribertalzamir
    Art, not a Toil
    60.13N / 25.01E
    Joined
    19 Sep '11
    Moves
    45045
    27 Oct '11 20:25
    Not that any of us would do such a thing, but if we did, and wanted to cut it to 64 separate squares, how many cuts would it take? A single cut goes between any two rows or columns to the other end, cutting the board or part thereof in two. For example the first cut could be between the columns e and f, making two rectangles, A1-E8 and F1-H8. The second would cut one of the pieces in two, so you might end up with, say, A1-E8, F1-H6 and F7-H8. That procedure would be continued until all 64 squares are separate.
  2. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    27 Oct '11 22:111 edit
    I get the same answer for each attempt I have tried.

    Reveal Hidden Content
    63


    It makes sense, since no cut can cross another cut.
  3. Subscribertalzamir
    Art, not a Toil
    60.13N / 25.01E
    Joined
    19 Sep '11
    Moves
    45045
    27 Oct '11 22:58
    Perfect sense indeed, as each cut, regardless of whether it splits off one square or many, increases the number of pieces by one. 🙂
  4. .
    Joined
    06 Feb '10
    Moves
    6916
    28 Oct '11 06:361 edit
    And if the cuts didn't have to be straight (but still followed the edges of the squares) then the number would be considerably less.
  5. Standard memberforkedknight
    Defend the Universe
    127.0.0.1
    Joined
    18 Dec '03
    Moves
    16018
    28 Oct '11 15:01
    I don't think so.

    You can still increase the total number of pieces by only one.
  6. Subscribertalzamir
    Art, not a Toil
    60.13N / 25.01E
    Joined
    19 Sep '11
    Moves
    45045
    28 Oct '11 15:481 edit
    Agreed. If a "cut" ends when a piece of the board is falls into two pieces, n - 1 is how many it takes where n is the number of pieces. Of course, if a cut is defined differently, a whole new problem is found. If a cut is a line that follows goes between the squares, ending at an intersection from which there are no routes out.. it could be doable with as few as Reveal Hidden Content
    fourteen
    ?
  7. .
    Joined
    06 Feb '10
    Moves
    6916
    28 Oct '11 22:30
    Agreed it comes down to the definition of a cut. When I made my earlier statement I didn't define the separation of the board into 2 pieces as a complete cut - I envisaged cutting from one edge of the original board to another edge following a diagonal / stepped path but not turning back on a previous direction. Visualise cutting steps into the board starting at one corner. I also came up with 14.
  8. Joined
    26 Apr '03
    Moves
    25822
    30 Oct '11 10:42
    Interesting 14 is also the answer if the straight cuts can cross previous cuts (without rearranging)
  9. Subscribertalzamir
    Art, not a Toil
    60.13N / 25.01E
    Joined
    19 Sep '11
    Moves
    45045
    30 Oct '11 16:31
    Not a coincidence. Every intersection on the board has four lines leading into it, so no cut can end there if none starts there. That leaves 7 end points on each side of the board, 4 x 7 = 28; each cut removes 2 of them; 28 : 2 = 14.
Back to Top